Academic Handbook for Instructors

 

1. Course Syllabus: Content and Design

A course syllabus contains information specifically required by University or Faculty policy, as well as information to help shape students’ expectations.

The contents of a course syllabus can be thought of as a “contract” with students, establishing course requirements while also highlighting useful course-related information.

The Course Information System (CIS) is the University’s institutional system for supporting the administration of courses for instructors and academic units. The CIS Syllabus Builder module provides a sequence of steps that can be completed to create a syllabus from scratch and includes things like a list of syllabus policies and statements to choose from. The result is a draft that can be exported and further customized as needed. However, even if you choose not to use these tools, at a minimum you should complete the Marking Scheme step and upload your own syllabus file (in the last step). This allows your unit’s undergraduate administrators to review the marking scheme and key deadlines, provide you with feedback on the syllabus if requested, and support student inquiries.

Required Information

Instructors are required to include the following details on their syllabi according to Faculty and/or University policy. Generally, anything that contributes to or affects a student’s mark (e.g., marking schemes, late penalties for assignments, etc.) must appear on a course syllabus.

1.1 Course Contact Information and Office Hours

Instructors are strongly encouraged to include their university email address on their syllabus so that students may contact them. Use of unofficial communication channels (e.g., social media) is not recommended. Instructors must also include their office hours.

Contact information should be accompanied by communication expectations, including:

• acceptable modes of communication
• timelines for responses
• times when an instructor is unavailable.

1.2 Marking Scheme

Instructors must include their marking scheme on their syllabus. This scheme should explicitly list:

• methods of evaluation (assignments, tests, examinations, presentations, or other)
• the relative weight of each item in the final course grade
• the due date/timing of each item
• the late penalty policy (if an instructor intends to accept and apply penalties for late submissions)

Instructors should clearly state if the course will have a final exam in the final exam period.

If an instructor needs to change the methods of evaluation or their relative weight after they have been made known by the last date to enrol in the course, they must follow the rules set out in the section Changing the Course Marking Scheme. To maintain a level of flexibility and responsiveness in the detail of assignments, instructors should consider providing thorough assignment descriptions to students over the course of the term, rather than providing full details in the syllabus.

1.3 Plagiarism Detection Tool (If Applicable)

Instructors who intend to use the University’s plagiarism detection tool for receiving written assignments must include the following text in their syllabi:

“Normally, students will be required to submit their course essays to the University’s plagiarism detection tool for a review of textual similarity and detection of possible plagiarism. In doing so, students will allow their essays to be included as source documents in the tool’s reference database, where they will be used solely for the purpose of detecting plagiarism. The terms that apply to the University’s use of this tool are described on the Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation website.”

Instructors must also inform their students that use of the tool is voluntary and provide alternate means of submitting assignments should their students not wish to use the tool.

For more on the institutional plagiarism detection tool, see the section Plagiarism Detection Tool.

1.4 Late Penalty Policy (If Applicable)

If an instructor intends to accept and/or apply penalties to late assignments, then the rules must be specified in the course syllabus. For example, the instructor should outline:

• whether they require prior notification of impending lateness
• the penalty that will be applied per unit of time
• maximum possible penalty
• ultimate deadline when work will no longer be accepted
• documentation required, if relevant, while following institutional policies so as to respect student privacy

Depending on the assignment, late penalties normally range from 2% to 10% per day. Instructors may wish to explore alternative late penalty mechanisms (e.g., grace periods, or lateness forgiveness “tokens”).

1.5 Recording of Online Course Meetings (If Applicable)

Before a course begins, students must be informed if any synchronous online course elements will be recorded or live streamed that will include their participation, whether as audio, video, or text (e.g., in a chat window). Instructors are strongly encouraged to use one of the following statements prepared by the University’s FIPP Office (Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy), either one of which can be used to notify students of the intention to record online course meetings:

Example 1: Notice of Video Recording and Sharing (Download and Re-Use Prohibited)

This course, including your participation, will be recorded on video and will be available to students in the course for viewing remotely and after each session.

Course videos and materials belong to your instructor, the University, and/or other sources depending on the specific facts of each situation and are protected by copyright. Do not download, copy, or share any course or student materials or videos without the explicit permission of the instructor.

For questions about recording and use of videos in which you appear please contact your instructor.

Example 2: Notice of Video Recording and Sharing (Download Permissible; Re-Use Prohibited)

This course, including your participation, will be recorded on video and will be available to students in the course for viewing remotely and after each session.

Course videos and materials belong to your instructor, the University, and/or other source depending on the specific facts of each situation and are protected by copyright. In this course, you are permitted to download session videos and materials for your own academic use, but you should not copy, share, or use them for any other purpose without the explicit permission of the instructor.

For questions about recording and use of videos in which you appear please contact your instructor.

1.6 Other Important Information

Listed below are guidelines and sections that instructors may find useful to add to their syllabi. The Faculty recommends their inclusion; however, the specific content of the syllabus (beyond what is required) is left to each instructor’s academic judgment and discretion.

Calendar Course Information

Instructors should include timetable information for their course on the syllabus, including:

• the full course code and course name
• instructor name(s)
• meeting times and locations (building and room)

Quercus Information

If using a Quercus course page, instructors should include a link to it on the syllabus. Consider outlining what students will find on the page, and how they are expected to interact with it. The A&S Teaching and Learning site contains detailed information on setting up Quercus pages for a course, as well as contact information if you would like to request help with Quercus.

Course Objectives

As a best practice, it is recommended that instructors state the “learning outcomes” for the course on the syllabus. Learning outcomes should be student-oriented, focusing on knowledge, skills, and experience, while emphasizing the integration and application of knowledge.

The A&S Teaching & Learning site has useful information on writing learning outcomes at the course level and what they should address, such as:

• What knowledge, concepts, and methodologies will the student understand?
• How will students organize, analyze, and apply knowledge?
• How will students respond to situations, problems, and scenarios?
• How will students express their organization, analysis, and application of knowledge?
• What actions or practices will students need to achieve and perform?

Ideally, learning outcomes should frame how a particular course fits into a program of study or curriculum.

Tutorial/Lab Objectives

It is recommended that instructors specify the pedagogical purpose of tutorials/labs within a course. Instructors should consider describing:

• the overall goals of tutorial/lab activities
• expectations about student attendance, preparation, participation, etc.
• the intended role of the TA

Relevant Dates

Consider including any Arts & Science academic dates and deadlines which conflict with or impinge on the course in the syllabus. For example, if Thanksgiving Monday falls on the day there is a class scheduled, instructors should notify students if they will be using the Make-Up Day at the end of term.

The A&S Make-Up Day is an extra teaching day in lieu of classes missed for holidays that fall on the same day of the week that your class is normally scheduled. Please keep in mind that Make-Up Days are only meant to be used for classes that were not held because of a holiday (e.g., a class normally held on Friday that could not take place because of the Good Friday holiday). They are not meant to be used as a general “catch-up day” for missed classes due to other reasons such as instructor illness or a “snow day.” The make-up class should be held during the same time as your regular class since students may have other make-up classes (possibly with tests) on that day. Make-Up Days are specified in the Faculty’s academic dates and deadlines. If you intend to make use of a Make-Up Day, be sure to include this in your syllabus, so that students know well in advance that they are expected to attend class on that day.

Academic Integrity Details

Instructors are strongly advised to include Academic Integrity information in their syllabi, especially regarding plagiarism and inappropriate collaboration (see section 8 below, and as outlined in the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters).

Accommodations

Instructors should include this text in the syllabus:

"If you have a consideration that may require accommodations, please contact Accessibility Services: https://www.studentlife.utoronto.ca/as, 416-978-8060 or accessibility.services@utoronto.ca"

For further information, please refer to the section Student Support, Accessibility, and Accommodations.

Artificial Intelligence

Consider adding a section to your syllabus that outlines your course policies on generative AI (e.g., where its use is prohibited, allowed, or required) and also adding a supplemental statement to assessments that further clarifies if students are allowed to use an AI tool and in what capacity. The Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation (CTSI) has a web page on Teaching with Generative AI at U of T that includes links to guides, workshops, and other resources. A list of frequently asked questions as well as sample syllabus statements are available from the Office of the Vice-Provost, Innovations in Undergraduate Education on the page: Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Classroom: FAQs. The Arts & Science Teaching & Learning website includes a web page on Generative Artificial Intelligence Policies and Resources that has sample syllabus and assessment statements.

Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion

To encourage a welcoming and inclusive environment, instructors should ensure that expectations of respectful discourse are clearly articulated in the syllabus and shared verbally at the outset of the course. Sample syllabus text is available from the Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation (CTSI) website and is included below:

“The University of Toronto is committed to equity, human rights and respect for diversity. All members of the learning environment in this course should strive to create an atmosphere of mutual respect where all members of our community can express themselves, engage with each other, and respect one another’s differences. U of T does not condone discrimination or harassment against any persons or communities.”

Back to table of contents

 

2. Course Administration

2.1 Enrolment in a Course

Enrolment in Arts & Science courses is a registrarial matter, processed via ROSI/ACORN, and not generally within the control of instructors. Eligibility, checking of prerequisites, required permissions, etc. are handled electronically by staff in academic units. Students are not enrolled in a course unless they are enrolled on ROSI/ACORN.

Instructors are encouraged to direct students to check their enrolment status in ACORN and direct inquiries to the Undergraduate Administrator, or to their College Registrar.

After the enrolment deadline, late enrolment in courses may be granted on a case-by-case basis at the department/instructor’s discretion through the Undergraduate Administrator.

Please note:

• Class lists on Quercus are updated at a fixed time each day. They are not linked to ROSI/ACORN in real-time.
• That being the case, there may be a delay of 24-48 hours for students to appear in, or be removed from, Quercus.
• Adding students to the Quercus class list does not enrol them in the course or guarantee enrolment. Students must enrol through ROSI/ACORN.

Students Enrolled with Credit/No Credit Status

Students may select up to 2.0 credits to be assessed on a Credit/No Credit (CR/NCR) basis. Courses with a final status of CR will count as degree credits but will have no effect on the student’s GPA. They will count towards Distribution/Breadth Requirements and degree credits. However, they cannot be used to satisfy program requirements nor the 12.0 different credits requirement between programs for a degree.

2.2 Prerequisite/Corequisite/Exclusion Waivers

Pre- and Corequisites

Departments have differing practices regarding enforcing pre- or corequisites. Instructors can make a recommendation to their Undergraduate Administrator about an individual student, but waivers should ultimately be left to the department.

Should a student have an outstanding deferred exam in a prerequisite course, instructors should refer them to the Undergraduate Administrator.

Exclusions

In general, one course is an “exclusion” for another if the two overlap in content such that the second would be “repeated work,” and hence the excluded course is ineligible for degree credit.

Erroneous information provided to a student on this issue could result in their being denied degree credit for a completed course (even well after completion).

Instructors should refer students to their Undergraduate Administrator.

2.3 Late Enrolment

Students may enrol in a course after the start of the term either by enrolling themselves directly, or by being enrolled off a waitlist by an Undergraduate Administrator. There may be a 48-hour delay from the date of enrolment into a course before students gain access to Quercus.

If tutorials in a course start before the last day to enrol in courses for the term, or if there are quizzes/assignments due before this date, instructors may want to consider including a note in their syllabus for affected students.

Students who enrol late are expected to make up any missed assignments and should not expect extensions on upcoming work.

The course unit’s Undergraduate Administrator can confirm the date and time a student enrols into a course on ROSI/ACORN. The last date to enrol is approximately two weeks after the start of classes. There is a web page that lists academic dates and deadlines on the Arts & Science website.

In rare cases, students may be enrolled after the last day to enrol in courses for a term — this is done on a case-by-case basis at the unit’s discretion. Instructors may be asked by their unit’s Associate Chair, Undergraduate (or equivalent) to comment on a late enrolment request.

2.4 Dropping Courses

Students may cancel their enrolment in a course “without academic penalty” in a number of ways, depending on the timing. This is normal practice in the Faculty and should cause no specific concern.

• Cancel: Students may cancel a course on ACORN and have it disappear from their academic history by the “Drop Date,” a deadline that is roughly three-quarters of the way through the course. The drop dates for each term are listed on the A&S website.
• LWD (Late Withdrawal Without Academic Penalty): The Faculty’s late withdrawal policy allows students to LWD up to 3.0 credits in their degree, provided they do so by the last day of classes in the term. Students who have late withdrawn from a course should no longer appear on the Quercus class list, although this change can take up to 48 hours. Late Withdrawal enables students to remedy situations, particularly in their early years at university, where personal or other circumstances mean they are irretrievably behind in a course. If an allegation of academic misconduct is under investigation, a student is not eligible for LWD, and if the student has already changed a course to LWD, they will be reinstated.
• WDR (Petitioned Withdrawal Without Academic Penalty): After the LWD deadline, or after the Drop Date if they have used up their 3.0 LWDs, students must petition to have a course dropped from their record. If they have legitimate reasons and the petition is granted, a WDR will appear on their record. Instructors may be consulted about a student’s term work as the Faculty responds to the petition and should ensure marks records are clear and up to date so the information will be easily available to their Undergraduate Administrator.

If students have questions or are undecided about whether they should drop a course, instructors can advise them about their situation specific to that course. However, a student’s College Registrar’s office should be their primary resource for academic planning and progress advice, especially if their circumstances affect more than just one course. The Colleges’ advising teams are best suited to provide students with holistic advice, taking their entire situation into account.

2.5 Repeating Courses

In general, A&S prohibits students from repeating courses in which they have already achieved a passing mark. Exceptions to this rule are outlined in the Calendar. Instructors should direct students to speak with their College Registrar if they have questions about repeating courses.

2.6 Auditing Courses

The University and the Faculty have delegated rules and restrictions about auditing courses to the academic units. Some departments have strict policies about this; others leave it to the instructor’s discretion. If a student asks to audit, that is, sit through the course without enrolling for credit and a final mark, an instructor should not agree to this before confirming their department’s policy. Some units forbid it entirely; others charge a fee if the student wants some documentation of a completed audit.

Students auditing courses may:

• attend lectures and class meetings
• take part in discussions
• receive written confirmation of attendance

Auditors may not:

• receive evaluations of participation
• be allowed to submit assessments or write exams (unless granted special express permission by the instructor)

Expectations for/Limits on Auditing

In general, instructors who have agreed to allow an auditor should clearly establish the expectations and limits that apply to them. For example, are auditors:

• permitted to sit in and listen only?
• allowed or expected to participate in discussion?
• allowed to submit assignments and write tests that will be marked?

Back to table of contents

 

3. Course/Classroom Procedures

3.1 Attendance & Participation Policies

Arts & Science does not have a general policy about student attendance in classes; this is left to the discretion of individual instructors and units.

Instructors may include a requirement for their own courses that assesses student contributions through attendance and participation. If used, such course requirements should include:

• Reliable recording of attendance and student contributions at each class. Instructors should carefully consider how this translates into an online or hybrid course.
• Awareness that the primary means to administer such a requirement is by designating class contributions as a portion of the course mark.
• Procedures to handle exceptions, such as for illness (e.g., if a student is unable to participate in a class or in an online discussion board, providing an alternative such as submitting a brief commentary or report, with an extended deadline).
• Procedures for accommodations (e.g., disability, religious) that affect attendance or class contributions.

Types of participatory contributions may include:

• asking thoughtful questions in class
• engaging in meaningful class discussions
• interactive in-class or online activities
• taking active roles in group work and/or breakout rooms, etc.

3.2 Digital Device Policy & Lecture Capture Policy

Use of Electronic Devices Policy

Instructors may set guidelines for the use of devices in class at their discretion, bearing in mind that students commonly use electronic devices to access and manage course materials as well as their own notes, etc. It is advisable to incorporate student feedback (e.g., on what peer behaviours are most distracting, and what limits may be appropriate) when devising a device policy.

Additionally, keep in mind that some students use laptops as an accessibility support, or act as volunteer notetakers for students with accessibility needs.

Taping/Recording/Photographing of Lectures

The University considers an instructor’s lectures and course material to be the instructor’s intellectual property and covered by the Canadian Copyright Act.

Digital materials provided by the instructor in the normal course of teaching and learning are similarly protected by copyright and may not be shared without the explicit permission of the instructor.

Instructors should state the University policy on recording course material at the beginning of the course, and reiterate it as needed to individual students should concerns arise. If an instructor finds copyrighted material on a website, they should notify the site administrator of the copyright violation and request that the material be removed immediately.

3.3 Educational Technologies & Digital Learning Materials

Educational Technologies

Educational technologies can be powerful teaching tools when used in a pedagogically appropriate way. The links above provide instructors with resources on digitally enhanced teaching for in-person, hybrid, and online courses and offer a wide range of tools for active learning, student communication, course administration, assessment, and classroom response.

Digital Learning Materials

The use of digital learning materials and related ancillary fees at the University of Toronto is governed by the Provostial Guidelines on the Use of Digital Learning Materials. These guidelines provide rules and restrictions related to requiring students to purchase digital learning tools. Important conditions include that, if the total cost of the digital learning resources by which assessments are derived exceeds $65 per half-credit, an alternative method of assessment must be offered as an option and that, wherever possible, students must be made aware of the use of digital learning materials for assessment upon registration for a course. If the cost to students for such materials exceeds $65 per half-credit, then the alternative methods of assessment must be set out in the first week of class through the syllabus, Quercus, or other communication tools used in the course. Please refer to the Provostial Guidelines page for complete information and requirements.

In addition to fulfilling these conditions, instructors should consider alternatives to commercial digital resources that may be available through the University of Toronto Libraries, including open-source online resources, or resources acquired through institutional purchasing agreements. Librarians can also assist with building online reading lists through the Course Readings and Reserves Support.

If an instructor plans to use social media, third-party, and/or cloud-based technologies that are not supported by the University, students must be given the choice to “opt out” and cannot be compelled to create accounts on non-university systems or services. For more information, please see the web page Tools Beyond Quercus (CTSI).

3.4 Working with Teaching Assistants

Teaching assistants (TAs) teach tutorials, conduct labs, grade assignments and other assessments, and/or invigilate tests and exams. At the University of Toronto, TAs belong to the CUPE 3902, Unit 1 bargaining unit and their work is governed by a collective agreement.

Instructors are responsible for discussing duties and allocation of time with their TA(s) at the beginning of term. Instructors must complete the Description of Duties and Allocation of Hours (DDAH) form reflecting this information and should ask their Associate Chair, Undergraduate (or equivalent) for unit-specific procedures for completing the DDAH. TAs must receive adequate training that, at a minimum, meets the mandatory training in the collective agreement. Instructors should speak with their units about any mandatory or optional training for TAs assigned to their course.

The Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation provides resources on working with teaching assistants. The Teaching Assistants’ Training Program (TATP) offers pedagogical training and professional development sessions for TAs that can be used, with permission from the department and course instructor, to fulfil the mandatory job training requirements.

3.5 Course Evaluations

The University of Toronto requires that all courses, both undergraduate and graduate, receive evaluations by students. A&S courses use the University of Toronto’s centralized course evaluation framework and online delivery system.

In addition to the University-wide and A&S divisional questions, some academic units include up to three additional questions. Instructors may choose to include up to three more questions chosen from a central question bank. Instructors will receive an email from the institution’s Course Evaluation Team prompting them to select these instructor-specific questions.

The University of Toronto Provostial Guidelines on the Student Evaluation of Teaching in Courses states that, “in order to protect the integrity of the responses, it is a responsibility for all parties involved to ensure that neither penalties nor incentives are used. This includes, but is not limited to, grades, food, money, gift cards, prizes, and changes in course structure/assessments.”

To promote higher response rates, instructors can provide time in class for students to complete their course evaluations (preferably not at the end of class; instructors are not required to leave the room) and talk to their students about why course evaluations are important and how they use the results to modify their courses for future iterations. If the course is taught asynchronously online, instructors might consider making a short video to explain the importance of course evaluations.

Currently, course evaluation information and data are shared with divisions, academic administrators, instructors, and students through email and Quercus. Student comments and responses to instructor-selected questions are only shared with the instructor.

3.6 Dealing with Difficult Situations

Instructors may occasionally encounter students with disabilities who may have symptoms that can impact the learning environment.

Certain kinds of behaviour may be addressed in a private conversation outside of class. Instructors should frame the conversation as concern for the learning experience of other students, as the student in question may not realize how their behaviour is perceived by their peers.

However, if the behaviour is exceedingly disruptive, instructors may adjourn the class and consult with their Associate Chair, Undergraduate (or equivalent) or the Office of the Faculty Registrar. Instructors should contact the Associate Director, Faculty Development & Support, in the Office of the Dean, if they have concerns about the student’s well-being. In addition, instructors can share information from U of T Telus Health Student Support website with their students.

Disruptive Behaviour During Class

The University has resources and policies to support instructors in handling disruptive student behaviour.

They should also contact the Associate Director, Faculty Development & Support and notify their Associate Chair, Undergraduate (or equivalent) as soon as possible.

Disruptive Behaviour Outside the Classroom

If the behaviour occurs outside the classroom setting, instructors should alert their Associate Chair, Undergraduate (or equivalent) to it, and should not meet the student without another person present for greater safety and as a witness to the interaction, or at all. The Student Crisis Response team or Campus Safety will intervene as necessary to assist instructors and protect the learning environment in their course.

Back to table of contents

 

4. Assignments, Assessment, and Term Work

Term work includes any form of assessment used in a course except for the final exam. Other than the specific rules arising from Faculty or University policies, term work is an academic matter under the instructor’s purview. Instructors have wide flexibility in the way they manage term work, as opposed to final exams which are administered by the Faculty and governed by Faculty-level rules.

4.1 Marking Scheme

Instructors must provide their course marking scheme to their department (or equivalent unit or program) through the Course Information System (CIS) Syllabus Builder module (even if they do not use other aspects of the Syllabus Builder) and submit it to the Undergraduate Administrator in their unit at the start of their course.

Instructors must include their marking scheme on their syllabus. This scheme should explicitly list:

• methods of evaluation (assignments, tests, examinations, presentations, or other)
• the relative weight of each item in the final course grade
• the due date/timing of each item
• the late penalty policy (if instructor intends to accept and apply penalties for late submissions)

Instructors should clearly state if the course will have a final exam in the Final Exam Period.

If an instructor needs to change the methods of evaluation or their relative weight after they have been made known by the last date to enrol in the course, they must follow the rules set out in the section below Changing the Course Marking Scheme. To maintain a level of flexibility and responsiveness in the detail of assignments, instructors should consider providing thorough assignment descriptions to students over the course of the term, rather than providing full details in the syllabus.

4.2 Changing the Course Marking Scheme

The institutional Grading Practices Policy (Part B, 1.3) states that, after the methods of evaluation (e.g., essays, tests, class participation, seminar presentations, or examinations) and their relative weights have been made known to the class, the instructor may not change them without the consent of a simple majority of students (more than 50%) attending the class, provided the vote is announced no later than in the previous class. For online asynchronous courses, a vote may be held online (e.g., through a Quercus survey) over a reasonable period (e.g., 3 or more days) after ensuring that advance notice has been given, and a simple majority of students who voted is needed as evidence of consent. Any changes must be reported to the academic unit sponsoring the course. The only exception to this is in the case of the declaration of a disruption.

4.3 Tutorials

A number of practices can help make tutorials more effective.

4.4 Assignment Modes & Weight

Independent study or project courses are included under this rule: Some piece of work other than the main project must be marked and returned before the last date for students to drop the course. To maintain a level of flexibility and responsiveness in the detail of assignments, instructors should consider providing thorough assignment descriptions to students over the course of the term, rather than providing full details in the syllabus.

4.5 Assignment Due Dates and Return Deadlines

Timing of Assignment Due Dates

A clear separation of term work from exam preparation allows students to best manage their time and their work. Instructors are permitted to grant informal extensions into the Final Exam Period, but initial or published deadlines should be set within the term.

Term work deadlines on weekends and/or at midnight can create challenges for students, given other demands on their time such as work and family obligations. If instructors decide such a deadline is necessary, they should give students sufficient lead time. Setting deadlines during regular University business hours can help promote work-life balance for instructors, teaching assistants, and students.

Deadlines for Returning Marked Assignments

The Grading Practices Policy (Part B, 1.5.1) states that instructors must return at least one piece of marked term work worth at least 10% of the final grade before the last date to drop the course.

As an example of how to interpret the above deadlines, if the last day to drop a regular half-course is a Friday, then at least 10% of the total course mark must be returned by the end of day Tuesday of the same week. This allows students two full days (Wednesday and Thursday) to access registrarial and advising support, although this is meant to be a minimum and additional time would be helpful. Weekends and statutory holidays are not business days, even if the course has class activities on those days or the course has online components, but weekdays during Reading Week are considered normal business days.

The above deadlines are strict requirements with no exceptions. It is advisable that instructors plan ahead in order for marking to be completed in time.

Instructors must notify their Associate Chair, Undergraduate (or equivalent) immediately if, due to extraordinary circumstances, they are unable to meet these deadlines. In such cases, the students would normally be allowed to drop the course after their marked work has been returned, even if it is beyond the deadline. However, instructors are not obliged to meet this deadline where a student has been granted an extension or opportunity to write a make-up test.

Assignment Submission Policy

Instructors should describe their expectations regarding student submission of assignments in their course syllabus (e.g., digitally through Quercus or university email, in person, or in a lockbox at the departmental or unit office).

For submission of paper versions of assignments, many units have a protocol for students to submit assignments securely.

Word Count Limits

If an assignment, such as a term paper, has a word count limit, the consequences of exceeding the specified limit should be clearly stated in the assignment instructions. For example, “text beyond the word count limit will not be assessed.” Penalties for exceeding the limit (e.g., 5% per 100 words) are not recommended, as some students may interpret this as meaning that they are allowed to exceed the limit if they are willing to incur a penalty while others may not, which could create inequities in assessment.

4.6 Assignments and Term Tests During Reading Week

Reading Week provides students with the opportunity to catch up on their work, study, and take time to rejuvenate. As such, setting assignment deadlines during Reading Week is not recommended. However, if it is necessary to set an assignment deadline during Reading Week, assignment details and deadlines must be given to students at least two weeks prior to the start of Reading Week. This is in the best interest of providing students with sufficient planning time for this assignment in relation to Reading Week itself.

Exemptions to this restriction on class activities include:

• specialized course modules such as an International Course Module (ICM),
• some experiential learning opportunities, and
• field courses or research opportunities, including those that run for the duration of Reading Week

4.7 Missed Term Work

Academic Consideration for Legitimate Absences

It is helpful for instructors to have clear guidelines on excusable absences and any relevant documentation required of students in accordance with University policy and to communicate that clearly in the syllabus. Your policy should be applied consistently and fairly, but this does not mean you are not able to make exceptions in individual cases for legitimately exceptional circumstances.

It is the Faculty’s policy that students who miss classes, for legitimate reasons or otherwise, are responsible for making up the missed material and should not expect an instructor or TA to re-teach them the material.

Timelines

A student who misses term work (e.g., a test, lab, assignment deadline, etc.) should come forward to the appropriate person in the course as soon as possible, and no later than one week after returning to class. Normally this means within one week of the test, lab, assignment deadline, or other term work. However, the student’s reason for absence may extend beyond one week, and so the student is expected to come forward as soon as possible. If they are able to, the student should notify the instructor by email if the absence is extended in this way.

If the student does not come forward within one week, the instructor or the academic unit may consider a student request to extend the deadline or reweight other assessments but is under no obligation to do so. However, there may be exceptions to this in the case of accessibility or religious accommodations, or other documented reason (e.g., extended illness).

Documentation

During the term, students who are absent from their studies and unable to complete course work should follow the missed term work policy outlined in the course syllabus. This policy will normally outline what a student should do if they miss a deadline, term test, or class activity such as a lab.

Instructor may indicate that documentation is required to support a student’s request for academic consideration (e.g., extension, make-up test, reweighting). The following are recognized forms of documentation:

• Absence Declaration via ACORN
• U of T Verification of Illness or Injury Form (VOI)
• College Registrar's letter
• Letter of Academic Accommodation from Accessibility Services

Any one of the above forms of recognized documentation should be considered sufficient on its own when requesting academic consideration. When provided, instructors should not ask for additional documentation or details beyond what is already in these documents. The following documentation should not be requested or accepted by instructors:

• Detailed medical information beyond the Verification of Illness or Injury Form (VOI)
• Letters from friends, parents, or other family members

Students may only use the Absence Declaration once per academic term (e.g., the Fall term) for a maximum period of 7 consecutive calendar days. See A&S Student Absences for additional information on eligibility. The once-per-term limit is set by the ACORN Absence Declaration Tool. Once a declaration is submitted, students will be restricted from using the tool to declare any further absences in that term.

Instructors will receive an email from easi@utoronto.ca that includes a copy of the Absence Declaration as a PDF file. This email serves as verification of student use of the Absence Declaration including student information and the absence declaration date range. As such, instructors do not need to ask students for a separate copy of the student’s Absence Declaration.

It is important to let students know in your syllabus what email address to use for your course. The Absence Declaration verification email will be sent to that address. If a student enters an incorrect email address and the instructor does not receive a verification email, unit undergraduate administrators can provide separate confirmation.

Students have been instructed to connect separately with their instructor(s) when they have used the Absence Declaration so they can arrange for academic consideration specific to the missed academic obligation (e.g., deadline, term test, lab). This follows practice used for other documented absences (e.g., using a Verification of Illness (VOI) form or College Registrar Letter). Instructors may want to remind students of this important follow-up step in their syllabus.

Undergraduate students from Engineering use an Absence Declaration system specific to their Faculty. Instructors may receive emails from engineering.portal@utoronto.ca to verify that a student has declared their absence via the Engineering Student Portal. The email will indicate dates absent and should be accepted as documentation equivalent to the Absence Declaration in ACORN. Engineering students will also be informed that it is their responsibility to connect with their instructor (or course coordinator) to arrange for academic consideration separate from the Absence Declaration submission.

If a student has already submitted an Absence Declaration for the term and is going to miss a deadline, test or other course work (due to illness, emergency or bereavement), they are still able to submit any of the recognized forms of documentation (see list above) when seeking academic consideration.

According to University policy, the ACORN Absence Declaration Tool is intended to be used in the following circumstances:

• A health condition or injury (e.g., illness, serious physical harm, mental health issue, scheduled surgery)
• A personal or family emergency (e.g., unanticipated and unavoidable familial incident beyond the student’s control)
• Bereavement (e.g., the death a student’s immediate family member or close friend)

Example Syllabus Language for Absence Due to Illness:

If you become ill and it affects your ability to do your academic work, consult me right away. Normally, I will ask you for documentation in support of your specific medical circumstances. This documentation can be an Absence Declaration (via ACORN) or the University's Verification of Student Illness or Injury (VOI) form. The VOI indicates the impact and severity of the illness, while protecting your privacy about the details of the nature of the illness. If you cannot submit a VOI due to limits on terms of use, you can submit a different form (like a letter from a doctor), as long as it is an original document, and it contains the same information as the VOI (including dates, academic impact, practitioner's signature, phone and registration number). For more information on the VOI, please see https://www.registrar.utoronto.ca/policies-and-guidelines/verification-of-illness-or-injury/. For information on Absence Declaration Tool for A&S students, please see https://www.artsci.utoronto.ca/absence. If you get a concussion, break your hand, or suffer some other acute injury, you should register with Accessibility Services as soon as possible.

For extended absences and for absences due to non-medical reasons, students may be in contact with their College Registrar’s office. The colleges can help students decide if they want to request an extension or seek other forms of academic consideration. College Registrar offices may email instructors directly to provide a College Registrar's letter of support and connect students with other helpful resources on campus.

If students suspect or know that they have a disability that is affecting their studies, they are encouraged to review supports available for A&S students through Accessibility Services. A disability can be physical, sensory, a learning disability, mental health disorder or short-term disabilities like injuries. If a student is not sure whether they have a disability, they can confidentially contact Accessibility Services with questions.

If students observe religious Holy Days that might conflict with academic activities (e.g., a class or test), they should visit U of T’s religious accommodations policy for more information.

4.8 Extensions and Late Term Work

Late Penalties

Instructors are not obliged to accept late work except where a student has a documented, legitimate reason for late submission (e.g., illness, accessibility accommodations). In such cases, an instructor may decide that reweighting of other assessments is more appropriate. If the work is accepted late, a late penalty is not appropriate for the period covered by documentation. For students without documentation, many instructors are willing to accept late work if a penalty is applied to the mark, but in order to do so, an instructor must publish their late penalty policy in the syllabus so students can guide themselves accordingly.

A clear extension/late penalty policy appropriate to the course, communicated to students on the syllabus and consistently applied, is a best practice. You are allowed wide latitude in how you handle this, subject only to the usual academic appeal standard of “equitable and reasonable.” It is helpful to connect these to your pedagogical objectives in the explanations you provide at the beginning of the course, particularly where there is an absolute deadline beyond which work will not be accepted, even with a penalty.

Exceptions can be made to course policy on extensions and penalties, for example for lateness beyond a student’s control. A student encountering trouble completing assignments may benefit from some advising from a College Registrar or from the Centre for Learning Strategy Support. Feel free to make a referral if the student appears not to be handling their course work and deadlines well.

Extensions for Term Work After Classes End

Instructors have available to them an “informal extension period” they may use to grant individual students extensions beyond the last day of classes. You should normally limit such informal extensions to a date that allows you to still mark the work and submit your final course marks on time. In extraordinary circumstances, you may grant an additional informal extension up to five (5) business days after the end of the Final Exam Period. (When a term ends in December, the five-day count begins starting the first day the University re-opens in January, not when classes begin.) Extensions beyond this date must be requested by a formal petition.

When you are submitting all your other course marks in cases where you have granted an informal extension beyond that point but before the last day to accept term work without petition, you should submit the student’s course mark with a 0% mark factored in for the missing piece. When you have later graded the work, you submit an amended mark reflecting the marked assignment using the Amended Marks function of the e-Marks system. Consult your Undergraduate Administrator about this procedure if necessary.

Note that instructors are under no obligation to grant such informal extensions. They are simply authorized to do so if they think an informal extension is warranted.

Extensions for Term Work After “Informal Extension Period”

If a student requires an extension beyond the five (5) business days after the end of the Final Exam Period, they MUST submit a formal petition through their College Registrar. Instructors do not have the authority to grant extensions beyond this deadline but may make a recommendation to their Associate Chair, Undergraduate (or equivalent) about the petition. Keep in mind that there may be dimensions to a student’s circumstances that are not known to an instructor, but which may come out in a petition or appeal. If a formal extension is granted after you have denied an informal one, it may be helpful to keep in mind that those deciding the request or appeal may have received more or different information from the student than information you have been provided.

4.9 Plagiarism Detection Tool

The University holds a licence for a diagnostic tool that notes commonalities in phrasing between a student’s essay and other sources, which instructors may choose to use. It does not necessarily identify plagiarism and should be used in conjunction with the instructor’s own judgment.

4.10 Group Work & Peer Assessment

Group Work

Instructors should explicitly state the extent to which students can discuss and help one another on group projects or assignments. Clearly defined expectations about teamwork and the limits of collaboration are especially important to avoid issues in group work as well as when assessing outcomes.

General recommended practices include incorporating a mechanism for students to make an instructor aware of each group member’s contribution, which can then be factored into an individual student mark for the assignment. This may encourage students to make equal or similar contributions to the assignment and can help instructors in assigning marks that reflect each student’s effort.

Peer Assessment

Instructors may have students engage in “peer feedback” in their courses for formative purposes or to help develop skills in providing constructive feedback. However, students may not assign grades to other students’ work.

Two steps should be taken to distinguish peer feedback clearly from peer marking:

• It should be clearly titled “feedback,” and
• it should take the form of non-mark feedback from the student (e.g., written comments) that will provide information to the student and possibly to the instructor.

4.11 Ethics Review for Student Projects

This policy includes assignments where other students, even in the same course, are the human participants.

Instructors will need to complete an Undergraduate Review Course Template Form and submit it to the appropriate Delegated Ethics Review Committee (DERC). Many academic units have their own such committee to expedite this process. Instructors should ask their Associate Chair, Undergraduate (or equivalent) for further details.

4.12 Returning Work

University policy states that “students should have access to commentary on assessed term work and the opportunity to discuss the assessment with the instructor” (Grading Practices Policy, Section 1.6).

Instructors should also consider when they plan to release marks, keeping in mind that doing so on evenings and weekends gives students little opportunity to seek out supports.

Instructors should note:

• Assignments are the property of the students and must be returned to them in an appropriately secure manner. However, materials produced by the instructor and provided to students to complete an assignment remain the intellectual property of the instructor.
• Under no circumstances should instructors leave term work outside an office or at the front of the classroom to be picked up by students, as this violates privacy considerations.
• Privacy considerations also dictate that instructors and TAs should not indicate the student’s grade on the cover sheet of the assignment, instead placing it inside where it is not visible to others.
• Instructors should advise students to retain all returned assignments until the course is complete and they are satisfied the final course mark has been calculated correctly.
• Unclaimed assignments should be retained for one year following the completion of the current academic session, after which time they should be destroyed (e.g., shredded).

4.13 Requests to Re-Mark Term Work

Matters concerning term work (e.g., requests to re-mark assignments or tests) normally fall within the authority of the instructor and are typically handled through an “academic appeal,” as opposed to matters that deal with A&S rules and regulations (e.g., final exams, extensions beyond the last day of the course, and late withdrawals), which are handled through a “petition.”

Academic appeals related to term work marks are not a subject for petitions, and instructors should establish standard internal re-marking procedures and set expectations for their students to prevent frivolous or blanket requests. If the issue cannot be resolved at the instructor level, it may be escalated through the “academic appeal” process described below.

Instructor Level

• A student who believes an individual item of work has been incorrectly or unfairly marked may ask the person who marked it for a re-evaluation. If a TA originally marked the work, the re-marking request should first go to the TA. Any appeal of that re-marking should then go to the course instructor.
• Such a request entails a re-marking of the work. Hence, if a re-marking is granted, the student must accept the resulting mark as the new mark, whether it goes up or down or remains the same. Continuing with the re-mark or the appeal means the student accepts this condition.
• Students should make such requests as soon as reasonably possible after receiving the work back, but no later than 2 weeks after it was returned.
• Instructors and TAs should ensure all communication with the student is in writing (e.g., follow-up email) and retain a copy for future reference.

Academic Unit Level

• If an instructor refuses to re-mark a piece of work, or if the student is not satisfied with the re-marking that has been granted, they may appeal to the Associate Chair, Undergraduate (or equivalent) of the course’s sponsoring unit or program.
• An appeal of a mark beyond the instructor may only be made for an item worth at least 20% of the course mark.
• Such appeals must be made in writing as soon as possible after the student receives the final response from the instructor, but no later than 2 weeks after receiving the response, explaining why the student believes the mark was inappropriate and summarizing all previous communications of the matter.
• Again, the student must accept that the mark resulting from the appeal may be higher or lower or the same as the original mark.
• In the appeal, the student must submit an explanation of the perceived problem, along with the original test answer sheet or the original copy of the essay and the assigned topic.
• If the Associate Chair, Undergraduate (or equivalent) believes a re-marking is justified, they will then select an independent reader who will be given a clean, anonymous copy of the work. The reader will not be made aware of the originally assigned mark and will determine a mark for the work taking into account the context of the course for which it was submitted.
• If this new recommended mark differs substantially from the original mark, the Associate Chair, Undergraduate (or equivalent) shall determine a new mark, taking both marks into account.

Decanal Level

• The final level of appeal is to the Office of the Dean. Appeals must already have been considered at the two previous levels, with the decision reviewed by the head of the academic unit, before they will be considered by the Dean’s Office.
• Appeals must be submitted in writing, and include all previous correspondence, as soon as possible after the student receives the final response from the academic unit, but no later than 2 weeks after.
• Appeals to the Dean’s Office about the marking of term work will be reviewed to ensure that appropriate procedures have been followed in earlier appeals, that the student has been treated fairly, and that the standards applied have been consistent with those applied to other students doing the assignment. The Dean’s Office cannot assess the academic merit of the work in question.
• Any mark resulting from such an appeal will become the new mark, whether it is higher or lower or the same as the previous one.

Back to table of contents

 

5. Term Tests

The Faculty has specific rules governing how term tests may be scheduled and administered in courses. This section will cover those rules, as well as information on make-up tests, invigilation, etc.

5.1 Term Test Scheduling and Weights

To the extent possible, instructors should hold term tests during normally-scheduled class hours to prevent conflicts with students’ other obligations and other colleagues’ courses.

• Term tests may not be scheduled during the Study Period that occurs after the end of classes and that precedes the beginning of the Final Exam Period.
• Term tests (i.e., an element of the term mark and administered by the instructor or TAs) may not be scheduled in the Final Exam Period. Examinations during the Final Exam Period must be administered by A&S according to the rules for final exams. The one exception to this rule is for Y courses where an instructor may want to schedule a term test in the December (or for summer Y, June) Examination Period. Undergraduate Administrators should contact the Faculty Registrar’s Exams Office to have such a test included in the December (or June) Exam Schedule to help minimize student exam schedule conflicts. Y-course instructors should note that, if they choose to have a term test during the Fall exam period, a make-up test should be scheduled after classes resume in the Winter term, not when the University reopens, which may be several days earlier and when students may not yet have returned to campus.
• Term tests may not be scheduled during Fall or Winter Reading Week.
• Term tests may be held on the A&S Make-Up Day, which is an extra teaching day in lieu of classes missed for holidays that fall on the same day of the week that your class is normally scheduled. The make-up class should be held during the same time as your regular class since students may have other make-up classes (possibly with tests as well) on that day. Make-Up Days are specified in the Faculty’s Academic Dates & Deadlines. If you intend to make use of a Make-Up Day, be sure to include this in your syllabus, so that students know well in advance that they are expected to attend class on that day.

Tests for online meeting sections that are synchronous should take place to the normally-schedule class time.

Scheduling Term Tests Outside of Class Hours

There are only three reasons the Dean’s Office accepts as legitimate grounds for holding tests outside of regular class hours:

1. A multi-sectioned course requires a common testing time to administer a common test.
2. The regularly scheduled classroom is not an adequate testing space, and no other suitable room is available at that time.
3. The test in question is a make-up test.

If necessity requires that a test be scheduled outside the normal meeting hours of one or all of the course’s sections, instructors should announce such test dates and times at the beginning of the course (or as early as possible) to allow students time to make arrangements to accommodate this extra obligation.

Instructors may request classroom or testing space through their Undergraduate Administrator or Associate Chair, Undergraduate (or equivalent), who can make appropriate arrangements with the Office of the Faculty Registrar (OFR).

Scheduling Conflicts with Tests Held Outside of Class Hours

The course with the irregularly scheduled test must accommodate the student in an appropriate way that does not conflict with the student’s other academic obligations.

Tests/Assignments During the Final Two Weeks of Classes

Term Work Deadline Extended into the Exam Period

Term work deadlines are typically within the term. However, if a course has no final exam, instructors can set the submission deadline of one term assignment during the Final Exam Period, which includes “take-home” tests (submitted online or in-person). The deadline should be indicated in the syllabus. If possible, refrain from setting the deadline at the end of the Final Exam Period. This will allow for accommodations, ample time for grading, and other unforeseen concerns that may arise.

Students must receive all questions and instructions more than two weeks before the last day of classes to ensure that they can begin upon receipt. Extending the deadline into the Final Exam Period can provide students with flexibility at this busy time, but it is also important to ensure that students can, if they wish, complete this piece of term work before the Final Exam Period.

5.2 Test Administration and Invigilation

Instructors are responsible for printing test materials and coordinating with their academic unit’s Undergraduate Administrator for other materials, such as Scantrons, student signature sheets, etc.

Test Invigilation

Instructors are responsible for proctoring their own tests. If the course has TAs, then TAs may also assist in invigilating. Engaging TAs can be especially helpful in large rooms or when the class is spread out across multiple rooms. Instructors and/or TAs should bring the test materials into the test room and should collect and bring the materials out of the room at the end of the test.

5.3 Missed Test Policy & Make-up Tests

Pedagogical best practice suggests that regular assessment and meaningful feedback are conducive to learning, and so a situation where too much of a student’s final mark is based on the final exam is to be avoided. Where possible, an opportunity to write a make-up test should be provided to students who miss a term test for legitimate reasons.

As the Faculty expects these best practices to inform most situations, it has formulated its make-up test rules in the form of general principles with specific exceptions:

General Principles for Make-up Tests

• If a student misses a test due to a legitimate absence, a make-up opportunity should be offered to the student. See section 4.7 regarding documentation for missed term work.
• Where either the student’s circumstances or the instructor’s difficulty in composing/implementing an effective test makes a make-up test unreasonable, the instructor may allocate the percentage weight of the test to any combination of the remaining term work and/or the final exam.
• If the student misses the remaining term work/tests for reasons acceptable to the instructor, the full percentage weight of the missed work may be allocated to the final exam if no other option is available. Consideration should be given to how this will impact the weighting for the final exam, and students should be referred to their College Registrar if this re-weighting results in an exam weight over 50%.
• No student is automatically entitled to a second make-up test opportunity.

Exceptions for Make-up Tests

• If a missed term test is the only marked work in the course aside from the final exam, an initial make-up opportunity must be given.
• As an initial accommodation for a legitimate absence, the weight of a final exam in a 100-series course may not be reweighted beyond 80%. However, if a student misses a make-up opportunity that was re-weighted to accommodate their original missed test, then the weight of the final exam may be increased beyond 80%.
• If the weight of a final exam in any course is increased beyond 80%, the instructor should ensure the student receives support around academic planning, referring them to their College Registrar for advising.

A student who misses term work (e.g., a test, lab, assignment deadline, etc.) should come forward to the appropriate person in the course as soon as possible, and no later than one week after returning to class. Normally this means within one week of the test, lab, assignment deadline, or other term work. For example, in courses with more than one instructor, students should be told in the syllabus which instructor to contact should they miss a test or assignment deadline for legitimate reasons.

Instructors should advise students to discuss re-weighted exams with their College Registrar if the re-weighting results in a weight of over 50% of any one remaining assignment or final exam.

Back to table of contents

 

6. Final Examinations

6.1 Final Exams

Faculty final exams are formal examinations held within the Final Exam Period after classes end. All exams are scheduled by the Faculty through the Office of the Faculty Registrar (OFR), and in-person exams are also conducted and invigilated by the OFR, while the setup and administration of online exams are the responsibility of the academic unit and the course instructor.

The Grading Practices Policy (Section 1.7.1) states that normally “in courses that meet regularly as a class, there should be an examination (or examinations) conducted formally under divisional auspices.”

Final Exam Exemptions

The processes for attaining exemptions for final exam requirements for a course are as follows:

• Exemptions for 100-level final exams can be requested by the academic unit’s Associate Chair, Undergraduate (or equivalent) to the Vice-Dean Undergraduate.
• Exemptions in 200-level courses are decided within the academic unit. Instructors should contact their Associate Chair, Undergraduate (or equivalent) for unit-specific policy.
• Exemptions are not required for 300/400-level courses; the decision to have a final exam is left to the instructor’s discretion.

In general, instructors should consult their Associate Chair, Undergraduate (or equivalent) on unit practices and expectations for exams in courses above the 100-level.

Final Exam Weighting & Duration

As mentioned above, final exams for 100-level courses must carry a weight of at least 1/3 (and not more than 2/3) of the final mark.

The weighting of final exams in 200+series courses is a pedagogical matter for the instructor to decide. However, instructors are asked to consider the costs of a Faculty final exam weighted less than 25%. These include the cost of administering it, the short supply of exam rooms, potentially requiring students to stay in Toronto for a low-weight exam, and student petitions if unable to write.

Specifications for Final Exams

The Faculty uses a standard cover sheet for in-person final exams specifying essential information, which is available through each unit's Undergraduate Administrator.

Instructors should specify what manner of “aids” are permitted in the final exam, if any (i.e., none, dictionaries, specific calculators, etc.), and consult their Associate Chair, Undergraduate or equivalent) regarding any other issues or questions they may have about final exam specifications. Note: laptops are not an allowable “aid.”

Final Exam Period

Instructors may not schedule their own tests or “exams” during this Final Exam Period, including take-home tests or online exams. The only exams and the few exceptional term tests that may be scheduled into the Final Exam Period are those scheduled by the OFR. The OFR must have at its disposal the schedules of all students and all classrooms to make the complex exam scheduling process work. There are no exceptions to this prohibition.

Student Absences or “Exemptions”

Students requesting accessibility-related accommodations must arrange these through Accommodated Testing Services (ATS). Students requesting accommodations based on religion or creed should submit a final exam conflict form before the specified deadline. Students reporting other reasons for not being able to write a scheduled final exam should be directed to their College Registrar's Office for advice on the petitions process for final exams. Best practice, especially in first-year courses, suggests that instructors remind students of the rules and procedures regarding missed examinations in class prior to the Exam Period. This is best done by including a link to the Final Exam Information for Arts & Science.

6.2 Final Exam Preparation & Deadlines

The Office of the Faculty Registrar sets a firm deadline for in-person final exam question papers to be submitted to the Undergraduate Administrator in each unit. The deadline for submitting the final exam question paper through the Course Information System (CIS) is usually several weeks before the final exam. Although the deadline may seem early, it accounts for the time needed by the OFR Exams Team and their print suppliers to print, assemble, and distribute high volumes of exam copies, including to offices responsible for students writing in accommodated settings, at outside examination centres, or writing within the exam conflict room. If the deadline causes unusual pedagogical issues in a course, instructors should consult with their Undergraduate Administrator. Note: Online exams are not subject to the above submission deadlines. It is the instructor’s responsibility to ensure that online exams are prepared in time for the scheduled exam.

It is essential that course instructors proofread their exam questions carefully. Staff do not have the specialized knowledge to identify errors in content. Typographical errors or miscues may create confusion for students during an exam, because instructors may not be available to answer questions for students writing an exam in accommodated settings, at outside test centres, or in a conflict room with the Office of the Faculty Registrar. If an instructor detects an error after their final exam text has been submitted, they should notify their Undergraduate Administrator immediately.

6.3 Publication of Exams & “Restricted Exams”

A&S shares in-person final exam question papers through the University of Toronto Libraries Exam Repository for the benefit of students in future offerings of the course, in accordance with policy. This is a secure U of T site, where exams are stored for three years and then purged.

Restricted Exams

If an instructor has a strong rationale for not wanting their exam question paper to be posted on the U of T Library Exam Repository, they can select the appropriate option in the Course Information System (CIS).

Restricted exams follow a different set of procedures. All copies of the exam papers are collected from students and counted at the end of the exam, to ensure the protection of the exam questions.

Students are still able to see their completed exam papers. However, students will only be able to view their final exam papers in a supervised viewing session within 6 months of the final exam session, and the exam paper will not be posted in the Exam Repository.

6.4 Invigilation of Faculty Final Exams

Chief Presiding Officers (CPOs) supervise Faculty final exams and work cooperatively with the instructor and other invigilators to ensure Faculty policies, rules, and procedures are followed to provide students with an equitable writing environment. CPO duties include room set-up, student count and signatures, and managing exam procedures. CPOs are not responsible for maintaining the academic integrity of the examination beyond ensuring that the rules and procedures are followed, as that is the role of the invigilator(s), and they do not answer questions about the content of exams. CPOs have final authority over logistics and process in the exam rooms, even if the course instructor is present.

Course instructors are expected to attend the final exam to answer content-related questions and to invigilate. If an instructor is unable to do so, it is their responsibility to have someone with knowledge of the exam content attend in their place. The instructor or designated alternate must be in the room or within contact to resolve any issues or questions for the CPO. Instructors are strongly encouraged to provide contact information (e.g., cell phone number) so that, if they are not present during the exam, or if an exam is being written at multiple locations, or if a student is writing at an alternate location, the instructor can be reached if a student has a question. The contact information is considered confidential and will not be shared or used for any other purpose.

Invigilators (also known as Presiding Officers) include the course instructor and may also include additional people appointed by academic units and that are typically course TAs but may be other individuals appointed to support the exam. Invigilators are responsible for monitoring students writing the exam, ensuring academic integrity, and bringing any concerns forward to the CPO and/or the instructor, and assisting the CPO with room management and exam procedures. Invigilators should remain alert and regularly circulate through the exam room.

Online final exams are scheduled by the OFR in partnership with Learning Space Management in the same way as in-person exams, in order to minimize scheduling conflicts for students. This means online exams must be either two or three hours in duration and held during the scheduled time slot (extended completion windows are not allowed). The setup and administration of an online exam is the responsibility of the academic unit and course instructor, including any alternate time slots scheduled for students with exam conflicts or religious accommodations, and deferred sittings approved through petition. Students will not write their online exam in a classroom or other physical testing space (e.g., Exam Centre), and there will be no in-person invigilation. The use of video (e.g., Zoom) or other tools for online invigilation are not permitted. As such, it is recommended that instructors consider their exam to be “open book” and carefully consider the wide availability of generative artificial intelligence tools, whether students are permitted to use such tools, and any potential risks they may pose to academic integrity.

6.5 Required Minimum Exam Mark

Although it is unusual, it is permissible for instructors to require a minimum mark on a final exam for a student to pass their course, regardless of the other term work marks. The highest minimum mark instructors may require on such a final exam is 50%. This requirement should only be used when there are relevant pedagogical principles at play; for example, when the final exam is cumulative and earlier assessments were not, and the exam is worth a substantial percentage of the course mark.

6.6 Marking & Rereading of Failing Exams

Since students can request to review copies of their final exams, and can query how examination marks were arrived at, instructors should indicate what the mark is for each question (either on the front cover or next to each question) on an exam. This grading recommendation helps ensure marking accuracy and can save instructor time in the event of a request for a reread. Upon completion of marking final exams, the instructor is responsible for sorting and providing the exam materials to their Undergraduate Administrator to give to the Office of the Faculty Registrar. Final exams must be stored by the Office of the Faculty Registrar.

Rereading of Failing Exams

If the examination, or part of it, was marked by a TA, best practice says that the course instructor should do the reread.

6.7 Marking Deadlines

Instructors are required to complete marking of their final exams in a timely manner in order to submit recommended final course marks via eMarks for academic unit approval by the unit and/or eMarks deadline. Timelines for returning bundled marked in-person exams to the Office of the Faculty Registrar will be circulated to Undergraduate Administrators in a memo.

Instructors will receive separate exam booklets for marking from students who have written their final exams through alternative arrangements such as with Test & Exam Services.

Submitting marks in a timely manner is essential to the Office of the Faculty Registrar’s ability to assess students’ academic status or approve them for graduation. Instructors who have extenuating circumstances preventing them from meeting the marks submission deadline should contact their Undergraduate Administrator.

Back to table of contents

 

7. Final Course Marks, Petitions, and Appeals

7.1 Grades, Grading Scales, and GPAs

Grading Scale

The Faculty uses a 4.0 grading scale with each letter grade range having a defined meaning, as follows:

 

7.2 Percentages, Letter Grades & GPAs

If graduate students are enrolled in a course, eMarks will automatically convert their marks to letter grades.

While instructors submit marks in percentages, the grade that is used in calculating GPA and determining the student’s academic status is the letter grade corresponding to that percentage. “Percentage averages” form no real part of the Faculty marks scheme. From an instructor’s perspective, this means that 80% and 84% are essentially the same mark, but 84% and 85% are very different marks. Truly exceptional performance, i.e., 90+%, is displayed as an A+ on the student’s record but has the same GPA weight as an A. The fact that this grade has no additional GPA value should not discourage instructors from awarding it when the student’s outstanding performance indicates it would be appropriate.

7.3 Marks Distribution Guidelines

The Faculty has broad guidance on what might normally be expected in courses of different sizes and at different levels. This is contained in a Tri-Campus Deans’ memo (2009) best quoted directly:

“For a larger first- or second-year course, the proportion of As in any given offering of the course might reasonably vary from 15% to 35%. Courses with marks consistently at the lower or upper end of this range should be reviewed to determine whether changes are needed to the course content, prerequisites, or assessment mechanisms. At the other end of the scale, the proportion of Fs in a first- or second-year course should generally not exceed 10%.

“These guidelines can help instructors gauge the fairness and consistency of their proposed marks in a course. Instructors proposing a percentage of As outside the range of 15-35% in first- and second-year courses should review the marks to ensure that the assessments used in the course were fair and consistent with disciplinary practice. Similarly, instructors proposing a percentage of Fs greater than 10% should consider those grades carefully. An individual instructor should reflect on whether the assessments have been scaled appropriately. A unit head seeing a consistently higher percentage of Fs in a course over time might conclude that the course has inappropriate prerequisites or requires some restructuring, or that additional student supports need to be put into place.

“Similarly, instructors proposing a percentage of Fs greater than 10% should consider those grades carefully. An individual instructor should reflect on whether the assessments have been scaled appropriately. A unit head seeing a consistently higher percentage of Fs in a course over time might conclude that the course has inappropriate prerequisites or requires some restructuring, or that additional student supports need to be put into place.

“Since courses with fewer than 40 students, as well as courses in upper years, show much greater variation due to individual factors, detailed expectations of distributions of grades are less useful. However, we can state some general guidelines on third- and fourth-year courses. Specifically, we expect student marks in upper year courses to shift towards the higher end of the scale (with more As and many fewer failures) as students adjust to university-level work and as they pursue courses in their chosen areas of interest. Distributions with 30-40% As (or even more) would not be unusual in 300- and 400-level courses, while even 5-10% Fs at these levels would be worthy of attention.”

7.4 Bell Curves, Quotas, and Calibrating Raw Scores

The University does not restrict or limit the number or percentage of students who can attain any given course grade, or otherwise enforce a specified distribution of marks.

Calibrating Raw Scores

Instructors, especially those who are new, teaching a new course, or have undertaken significant course redesign, may want to consider monitoring grades on a regular basis or, at a minimum, analyzing grades at the midterm point of a course and, if issues are identified, reaching out to their academic unit to discuss possible solutions and adjustments.

Calibration of test scores should be done fairly and bear a clear relationship to academic performance. While calibration may include the use of a mathematical method such as linear adjustment, (e.g., adding the same number of marks to all scores or multiplying a score by a single value for all students), this is not the same thing as adjusting marks in order to meet a pre-determined distribution, such as a bell curve, or any other set quota of marks in different ranges, which is not allowed. Calibration, however, need not require a linear modification, but can still be done in a way that is unrelated to meeting a specified distribution of marks. To avoid misconceptions on the part of students, instructors and TAs who calibrate or adjust marks should avoid using the terms “belling” or “curving” marks, even if students use these terms, as this may be interpreted as adjusting marks to meet a quota or other predetermined distribution.

Best Practices in Calibrating Scores Include:

• Providing regular feedback to students through marked work, properly calibrated and adequately explained.
• Making adjustments to marks assignment-by-assignment rather than to the entire term mark at the end. Students should have an accurate and ongoing understanding of their performance relative to the official grading scale.
• Explaining or contextualizing mark calibration to students so they can interpret feedback appropriately. While it is important that TAs understand the grading policies, decisions about score calibration and methods, and subsequent communication to students, should be done by the instructor to help ensure consistency.
• Conducting comparison marking (benchmarking) when training TAs.
• Giving particular attention to students who receive a failing mark, especially those in the “marginal failure” range, to ensure the mark is a complete and fair reflection of overall performance.
• Optionally, leaving some portion of the course mark as an “overall assessment mark” (including, for example, class contributions), allowing instructors to incorporate the quality of students’ individual effort and engagement in the course. Keep in mind that instructors must be able to explain such a mark to a student upon request.
• Using a standardized marking rubric and calibration procedure.
• Taking into account past average course grades, the size of the sample, and other relevant factors.

7.5 Interpreting Marks: “What is an A?”

The A&S Calendar gives official definitions for letter grades, as in the Grading Scale table above: A = Excellent, B = Good, etc. These phrases offer helpful guidance when you are considering adjusting term assessments or recommended final marks. The University and the Faculty allow a great deal of latitude to our instructors in determining what level of performance in their particular courses corresponds to these rubrics, subject only to the official review process described below.

When reviewing your marks during and at the end of your course, it is helpful to keep in mind these considerations, among others:

• Course level: Assessment of students’ demonstrated mastery of material should be calibrated to the level of the course. The relevant question is “Does this student demonstrate a command of what one might reasonably expect from a student at the introductory stage, the advanced stage, etc.?”
• Overall performance: Consider whether the letter grade corresponding to the calculated percentage mark appropriately reflects the student’s performance in the course as a whole. For example, it may be that the calculated numerical percentage mark falls just below 80%, but the student has performed above that level on many of the assignments and below on only a few. Does the overall performance merit a designation of “Excellent”? If so, you should feel justified in raising the final mark to indicate this. Note that it is more problematic to move final marks down, especially when a strict calculation puts it at 50% or just above. If your overall assessment conflicts with the numerical calculation, you might look at the various individual elements or at the discretionary margin you have allowed in your marking scheme to see whether some adjustment is warranted.

When reviewing the performance and final marks of the highest scoring students in a course, particularly in a class of some size, you may wish to keep in mind both the A and A+ designations, so that excellence is clearly signaled with an A, and the outstanding students have an outstanding mark visible to all as an A+.

7.6 Marks Just Under Grade Thresholds

On the Faculty grading scale, there are some percentage marks where one more percent would have an impact on a student’s GPA. Some of the more significant ones are 49%, 59%, 69%, 79% and 84%. Another threshold may be the line a unit has established for entrance into limited enrolment programs. You may want to give special attention to marks just below these thresholds as they are often contentious, and you may expect to hear from a number of students who receive such marks. That said, there is no Faculty policy or practice to automatically “round up” such marks, and you should not feel pressured to do so. However, you may wish to decide intentionally whether to leave a mark just under one of these thresholds or to adjust it.

7.7 Failing Marks

As mentioned in the section Rereading of Failing Exams regarding rereading exams with failing marks, instructors should give some attention to those students who receive a failing course mark, especially those in the “marginal failure” range, in order to ensure the mark is a complete and fair reflection of overall performance.

7.8 Entering Final Course Marks

When preparing final marks, if some elements of a student’s work remain incomplete, enter a mark of 0% for any missing element and then calculate and submit the final mark accordingly. Do not leave the final mark blank for incomplete work or put in a final course grade of 0% (unless nothing has been assessed) or try to signal “incomplete” or some other non-percentage element. Note in the appropriate place in your records what elements are missing and whether any informal extensions were given before the end of the course (and provide it to your Undergraduate Administrator if that is the practice in your unit). This information will be valuable should the student petition later. Also, should a petition for an extension beyond the course be granted and the student still does not complete the work, a correct default final mark will be available on the record without the need for further action on your part.

If a student has an outstanding allegation of academic misconduct, the same protocol applies as for missing work. Instructors should enter a mark of 0% in their records only for the assignment being reviewed, not for the entire course mark, and calculate the final mark using the remaining completed portions. The instructor should then enter NGA (No Grade Available) into eMarks, which will remain until the allegation is resolved.

7.9 Marks for Incomplete or Outstanding Work

Incomplete/Outstanding Term Work

Instructors may have students in their courses with outstanding or incomplete assignments at the end of the term.

The final mark for a student should be calculated based on all completed work, using mark entries of 0% for any missing assignments. Grade amendments that update the final mark for sanctioned late assignments can be entered into eMarks at a later date.

Instructors should note any missing assignments in their records, along with information about any informal extensions provided. This information will be valuable should the student submit a petition at a later date.

In submitting the final mark, instructors:

• should not leave the final mark blank for incomplete work
• should not enter a final course grade of 0% (unless nothing has been assessed)
• should not try to signal “incomplete” or some other non-percentage value

Outstanding Allegation of Academic Misconduct

If a student has an outstanding allegation of academic misconduct, the same protocol applies as for missing work. Instructors should enter a mark of 0% in their records only for the assignment being reviewed, not for the entire course mark, and calculate the final mark using the remaining completed portions. The instructor should then enter NGA (No Grade Available) into eMarks, which will remain until the allegation is resolved.

7.10 Marks Review Process

The Dean is ultimately responsible for all marks in the Faculty of Arts & Science.

The University Assessment and Grading Practices Policy (GPP) and the Faculty’s procedures outline a review and approval process for all final marks.

This means that, if an instructor plans to add the “overall assessment” portion, “participation mark,” or the final exam mark to the Quercus grade book and then open it for viewing by students, this must not be done until after they have received confirmation from their Associate Chair, Undergraduate (or equivalent) or Undergraduate Administrator that the final course marks have been approved and released to students on ROSI/ACORN.

Marks Review Process at the Unit-Level

Each Fall, the Associate Chair, Undergraduate (or equivalent) and/or a committee in each academic unit reviews all the marks from the previous few years to determine whether the marking practices of the unit’s instructors are meeting the unit’s and the Faculty’s goals, and whether the marks distributions point to any problems in the design of the curriculum. Problems with marking practices or curriculum may then be addressed during the academic year.

Marks Review Process at the Course-Level

1. At the end of each course, all instructors submit their recommended final marks to the head of the academic unit for review and approval. Instructors are not required to write a pre-emptive memo explaining any given set of marks.
2. The head of the unit (or an appropriate academic delegate such as the Associate Chair, Undergraduate) reviews these recommended marks in the context of the nature of the course and the unit’s marking practices.
3. Should the unit head find the recommended marks anomalous in some way, they may contact the instructor for further information and discussion. The Grading Practices Policy (Section 3.3) specifically states that the head of the unit has the authority to adjust the recommended marks before approving them, but that any adjustment of final grades should be made in consultation with the instructor.
4. Once the head of the unit approves a set of marks, it is sent on to the Office of the Faculty Registrar for divisional review and approval on behalf of the Dean. The Dean’s Office does have the authority to adjust recommended marks before finally approving and posting them on ROSI/ACORN as official final course grades. However, it is the Faculty’s practice to first engage in consultation and discussion when dealing with apparently anomalous course marks.
5. Where marks have been adjusted before their approval, both the students and the instructor shall be notified of the change and provided (upon request) with the reason for the adjustment, the methodology used, and a description of the divisional grades appeal process.

7.11 Course Records and Marks Protocol

Backing-up Course Records and Marks

Instructors that use an electronic marks record, such as the Quercus grade book, should regularly back up this information offline and also save an additional copy at the end of the course.

• Later appeals, petitions or disciplinary proceedings may require specific information about a student’s participation or performance in a course.
• Records should be as complete as possible and contain at least the number and type of required assignments, in addition to the weighting and the actual marks given for them.
• Class records must not be destroyed at the end of the year but kept by the instructor or Undergraduate Administrator for a minimum of one year, and preferably two years.

Collecting & Maintaining Assignment/Test Marks

TAs may mark assignments and update a marks database, but the course instructor should keep the primary copy throughout the course and collect assignment marks from TAs as soon as they become available (and not wait until the end of the course).

If using a grade book function on Quercus or some other database for marks, instructors should make back-up copies regularly and keep them separate from the primary copy.

7.12 Explaining Test & Assignment Marks

If circumstances do not permit individualized commentary on assessments, instructors should provide general information to the class, such as:

• basic statistical metrics about class performance, such as the mean, median, and/or distribution
• plain-language interpretation of the different zones on the marking scale
• whether the test or assignment was designed to be particularly challenging or basic
• mark ranges that indicate a student should seek help or is performing especially well

7.13 Formal Appeals: Definitions

The Faculty allows students two types of formal appeals: “academic appeals” and “petitions.”

Academic Appeals

Petitions

The most common petitions relate to:

• deferring a final exam
• a term work extension beyond five days after the end of the term
• a withdrawal without academic penalty
• a lift or early return from suspension

Students should, in all cases, contact their College Registrar’s Office for guidance in navigating petitions and academic appeals. For more information visit the Petitions & Appeals section on the Arts & Science website.

Back to table of contents

 

8. Academic Integrity

The preferred approach to academic integrity (AI) at the University is prevention. Course and assignment design, careful handling of assessments, and perhaps use of the University’s plagiarism detection tool are all techniques one might use to lead students toward good outcomes.

8.1 Academic Integrity Rules

The most common offences are plagiarism, cheating on tests and exams, fraudulent medical documentation, and improper collaboration on marked work.

The primary criterion for a student’s behaviour to be deemed an academic offence is the pursuit of an unfair academic advantage.

Informing Students About Academic Integrity Rules

Instructors should be explicit in their syllabi and lectures about the rules, including putting text and links on Quercus. Sample syllabus text to include is available on the Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation (CTSI) website and included here:

“All suspected cases of academic dishonesty will be investigated following procedures outlined in the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters. If you have questions or concerns about what constitutes appropriate academic behaviour or appropriate research and citation methods, please reach out to me. Note that you are expected to seek out additional information on academic integrity from me or from other institutional resources (for example, the University of Toronto website on Academic Integrity).”

Instructors should not rely on what they think should be “obvious” or assume that a student’s prior educational experiences would have taught them these principles.

If you have explicitly banned or restricted the use of generative AI, then students who use generative AI to complete assessments have committed an academic offense, use of an unauthorized aid, which is the same category as obtaining an assignment solution from a private tutor or paper mill. However, detecting work generated by AI poses significant challenges. The University does not support the use of automated AI detection tools and output from such tools is not admissible as evidence in support of an academic integrity case, as false positives (student work that is incorrectly flagged as containing AI-generated content) can lead to significant negative consequences for students. Prompting an AI tool with an assessment question and then comparing the results to the work of a student is also not admissible evidence, as AI tools may not produce consistent and replicable output that can be considered reliable.

Generative AI can produce "hallucinations" meaning that if students use these tools, their assessments may contain incorrect facts or citations. This may fall under the academic offence of concoction, meaning the inclusion of false data, fact, or references in an assignment.

8.2 Information, Resources, and Help

The A&S Student Academic Integrity team has compiled resources for instructors and units, including guidance for using the Student Academic Integrity (SAI) system, on the Student Academic Integrity SharePoint site.

8.3 Academic Integrity Process

The process for dealing with allegations of academic misconduct is meant to enforce responsibility and be educative. It is designed to resolve matters at the lowest level and earliest stage where possible and is described in full on the Academic Integrity website.

The first step is for the instructor to meet with the student.

The second step is for the instructor to inform their academic unit of the matter so the Associate Chair, Undergraduate (or equivalent) can record its occurrence. This is crucial to the identification of prior academic integrity offences.

The Academic Integrity Resources SharePoint has several quick-start guides for instructors and units to help in understanding this process and the systems involved.

• Matters may only be resolved at the academic unit-level if the assignment in question is worth 10% or less. In such cases, sanctions may only be applied by the Chair or head of the unit. Under the Code, instructors are not permitted to apply sanctions for academic integrity offences.
• Offences on assignments worth more than 10% must be dealt with at the divisional-level and be referred to the Arts & Science Student Academic Integrity team.

Regardless, the instructor-student meeting must take place in all instances. Before conducting a meeting of this sort, all instructors are advised to refresh their understanding of the process by reviewing the process and procedures section of the Academic Integrity website.

Normally, instructors and units should make every effort to investigate academic misconduct at the unit level to facilitate the student-instructor meeting and, when necessary, as per the Code, refer them to the Student Academic Integrity team within one month of the suspected misconduct (or one month after the end of term at the latest).

Mass Academic Misconduct Cases

Some instructors may suddenly face a situation, especially in large courses, of many students having allegedly committed an academic misconduct offence. It is strongly recommended that instructors and units facing a “mass academic misconduct case” reach out to the Student Academic Integrity (SAI) team for guidance and assistance. The SAI team can offer advice on ways to manage what could potentially become a time-consuming and resource-intensive situation. In addition, instructors should consider reporting to the SAI team troubling trends or any observations around academic integrity that could benefit from coordinated approaches.

8.4 Sanctions and Outcomes

Sanctions tend to be serious but not onerous for first offences. The sanctions escalate steeply if the offence is truly egregious or part of a pattern of repeated offences.

• At the unit/department level, the maximum penalty is a “0%” for the assignment.
• At the divisional level, a common penalty is a “0%” for the assignment and a reduction in the course mark leading to a failed course; the maximum penalty is a one-year suspension.
• At the Tribunal level, longer suspensions or expulsions are applied to sufficiently serious offences.

Cases may be forwarded to the institutional level when one of the following occurs:

• a student is unresponsive
• a student does not admit to the allegation of misconduct at the divisional level
• an offence is considered sufficiently serious, or a student has multiple instances of academic misconduct on their record

The institutional Academic Integrity site details the process at each level.

Back to table of contents

 

9. Student Support, Accessibility, and Accommodations

Beyond legislative obligations, the University and the Faculty take pride in its serious commitment to an inclusive and accessible learning environment that both meets the needs of students and preserves the essential academic integrity of the University's courses and programs.

9.1 Accessibility & Accommodation Essentials

Accessibility Services

If a student approaches an instructor regarding a disability-related academic accommodation need(s), and if they do not already have an approved accommodation by Accessibility Services, then the instructor should refer the student to one of the following resources: their Accessibility Advisor, the Accessibility Services (AS) office, or their College Registrar's office.

Accessibility Services staff are mandated to review appropriate documentation and determine reasonable academic accommodations for students registered with Accessibility Services. For this reason, it is important to connect students to Accessibility Services to help ensure appropriate supports are in place for the student in relation to their courses.

Accessibility Services is permitted to disclose the functional impact of a disability on the student’s learning and can discuss with an instructor the specific accommodations which may relate to the requirements in their course.

Instructors and their academic units determine what students must demonstrate in a course; Accessibility Services acts as a resource on alternate ways by which students might demonstrate their knowledge.

Staff at AS work with instructors to ensure that students with disabilities have a chance to learn and demonstrate their learning. If instructors have questions about a student’s academic accommodations, they may contact AS directly.

Instructors should be considerate when responding to students and should avoid individual arrangements with a student who discloses a disability outside the formal accommodation process. However, when a faculty or staff member verifies that a student is encountering serious difficulties and the student is in the process of obtaining the necessary accommodations, a student may request interim accommodations.

9.2 Student Letters of Academic Accommodation

Most accommodations can be managed through an adaptation to allow the student to undergo the same mode of assessment as other students in the class. It is worth noting, however, that while maintaining the consistency of assessment methods across all students is normally a pedagogical goal, achieving the necessary accommodation for a student may make it impossible to have perfect consistency of method in assessment, and so instructors may be asked to devise alternate means of assessment.

Accommodations are put in place to address barriers to learning. Accessibility Services works with the student, and sometimes directly with an instructor, to identify appropriate accommodations that address barriers to learning that are also aligned with course learning objectives. If instructors have concerns about a proposed accommodation, they should reach out to the Accessibility Advisor to discuss as soon as possible.

A student’s accommodations are stated in their Letter of Academic Accommodation. The Vice-Provost, Students website articulates that “Under the Human Rights Code provisions, students may choose to provide their Letter of Academic Accommodation (as a PDF file) directly to a faculty member or request that the accessibility office send the letter of accommodation to the faculty member. This letter verifies that the accessibility office has received and reviewed documentation confirming a disability and provides details on the proposed accommodation. Letters of Academic Accommodation may be issued at any time during the year."

If instructors have specific questions or concerns regarding the student’s academic accommodations and/or how to implement the accommodations, they should contact the student’s advisor through the contact information provided in the student’s accommodations letter, or at Accessibility Services at accessibility.services@utoronto.ca or 416-978-8060.

9.3 Accommodated Tests & Exams

Some students require accommodations to write tests and exams. On the St. George campus, this is done by Accommodated Testing Services (ATS). Instructors will be notified by Accommodated Testing Services if a student in the course will be writing with ATS.

Such accommodations may require that test questions be formatted in a special way through adaptive technology and will require test questions to be delivered to a location different from where the rest of the class is writing.

Meeting the University’s legal obligations to accommodate requires that test papers be prepared and delivered in a timely manner.

For assistance, questions can be directed to the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) office.

9.4 Religious Accommodations

The University has a policy on accommodation of religious observance, strongly articulated on the Provost's website.

“Please note that the obligation not to discriminate on the basis of religion (“creed”) is a statutory duty arising from the Ontario Human Rights Code. It carries with it the obligation to accommodate religious requirements where doing so does not cause undue hardship to the University. For example, accommodation normally requires that scheduled graded term work or tests conflicting with religious requirements be adjusted by providing similar evaluation on alternate dates.”

Please consult the above website for specific guidance on religious accommodations.

9.5 Academic Advising

Departmental advisors are best positioned to answer academic questions about their specific unit’s courses and programs, while general academic advising and problem-solving for A&S undergraduates should happen at the College Registrar’s office in the student’s college.

College Registrars’ Offices are a student’s reliable first stop for any information, referrals, or advising they may need throughout their degree. Colleges provide academic, financial, and personal advising to undergraduate students, and often form lasting relationships with students during their time at U of T.

9.6 Students in Crisis

Faculty and staff may occasionally experience students who appear to be in crisis and require immediate support. The following resources should be used in these situations, depending on the level of urgency and severity.

Back to table of contents

 

10. Teaching Support, Resources, and Contacts

10.1 Teaching Support & Resources

The Faculty of Arts & Science and the University offer a range of resources to support instructors in their teaching and pedagogical development.

General Teaching Support

A&S Teaching & Learning (T&L) Team: The T&L team, part of the A&S Office of the Dean, is available to answer questions and offer instructor consultations about all aspects of teaching, from effective accessibility practices to classroom management, from designing assignments and activities to clarifying academic policies. T&L is your key contact whether you are fine-tuning a syllabus or brainstorming the structure of a new course. T&L also operates a multimedia production studio available for use by all A&S instructors and can assist with the full range of education technology (EdTech) available to instructors, including Quercus, the M365 suite, audience response tools, JupyterHub, and various media authoring platforms.

Email: teachinglearning.artsci@utoronto.ca

Centre for Teaching Support and Innovation (CTSI): Offers in-person and online programming, consultations, support for scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) research, and resources for U of T instructors at all stages of their teaching career (including guides for tools available through Quercus). CTSI also offers individual pedagogical consultations and support for the development of teaching dossiers.

Email: ctsi.teaching@utoronto.ca

IT and Technology Support

Information & Instructional Technology (IIT): Supports the Faculty’s teaching, learning, research, and administrative operations through its service desk, computing lab management, research computing system administration, data centre operations and application development.

Email: iit@artsci.utoronto.ca

Academic Integrity

A&S Student Academic Integrity Team: The Student Academic Integrity team promotes academic integrity and advises students, instructors and staff on matters related to academic integrity and academic misconduct. This team, within the Governance unit of the Faculty Arts & Science at U of T, is responsible for administering the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters.

Email: sai.artsci@utoronto.ca

Classroom Support

Learning Space Management (LSM) is responsible for the central or “shared” space at the University, including both classroom spaces (except those controlled by an academic unit or College) and shared community (non-classroom) areas, as well as Accommodated Testing Services (ATS). LSM provides service and support related to “central” classrooms and technology, including teaching stations, the Opencast Content Capture System (OCCS) for lecture recording, and Tech2U, which provides real-time, personalized technical support for instructors.

Email: lsm.team@utoronto.ca

Library Services

Library Services for Faculty: The list of services the librarians provide for faculty in support of their teaching can be found on the Library’s Supporting Teaching site. It includes subject-specific advice on research materials available for courses.

Library Services for Students: The Library can also assist instructors by providing students with library orientations and teaching students the information skills that they will need for a course. View the services and workshops they offer directly to students on their website. Instructors can also contact their library liaison about a tailored session for their course.

College Contacts

College Registrars’ Offices: Contact information for each college Registrar’s Office.

College Writing Centres: Information about St. George campus and college Writing Centres.

10.2 Instructor Support and Accommodation

Employee Health and Well-being Programs & Services

Health & Well-Being supports employees and managers involved in sick leave, long-term disability, occupational health issues, workplace injuries, and workplace accommodation for employees with disabilities.

10.3 University Student Services

Centre for Learning Strategy Support

Workshops and individual support for learning skills including time management, memorization, exam preparation, note-taking and stress management.

Centre for Learning Strategy Support website

Accessibility Services

Advising for students on learning and other strategies, facilitating of assessment and accommodations for students with disabilities. Advice for instructors on adapting assessment and other course elements for students with disabilities.

455 Spadina Avenue, 4th floor, Suite 400
416-978-8060
accessibility.services@utoronto.ca
Accessibility Services website

Campus Safety

For security and safety concerns. Emergencies requiring immediate response from Toronto Police Service should go through 911, but Campus Safety can respond promptly to other situations. The nature of work performed on campus provides the potential for emergencies of a unique nature. Special Constables are specially trained to deal with campus occurrences that require sensitivity and discretion when responding to community needs.

21 Sussex Avenue (behind Robarts Library)
24/7 Regular Dispatch Line: 416-978-2323
Urgent Line: 416-978-2222
Campus Safety website

Career Exploration & Education

Research tools, workshops, and advice on choosing and preparing for careers, on-campus employment and work study listings.

416-978-8000
careercentre@mail.careers.utoronto.ca
Career Exploration & Education website

Centre for International Experience

Logistical and social support for international students; information and support for international student exchange students, both inbound and outbound.

Cumberland House, 33 St. George Street
416-978-2564
cie.information@utoronto.ca
Centre for International Experience website

Community Safety Office

Responds to students, staff and faculty members of the U of T community who have personal safety concerns.

21 Sussex Avenue, 2nd Floor
416-978-1485

Family Care Office

Provides confidential guidance, resources, referrals, educational programming and advocacy for the University of Toronto community and their families.

Koffler Centre, 214 College Street, 1st floor, Room 103
416-978-0951
family.care@utoronto.ca
Family Care Office website

Indigenous Student Services/First Nations House

Provides culturally-sensitive services to Indigenous students in support of academic success, personal growth and leadership development.

Borden Building, 563 Spadina Avenue, 3rd floor
416-978-8227
fnh.info@utoronto.ca
First Nations House website

Health & Wellness Centre

Supports students’ mental and physical health, uses OHIP and UHIP.

Koffler Centre, 214 College Street, 2nd floor
416-978-8030
Health & Wellness Centre website

Ombudsperson

Offers confidential advice to students, faculty and staff. As part of the University’s commitment to ensuring that the rights of its individual members are protected, the University Ombudsperson is devoted to ensuring procedural fairness and just and reasonable outcomes. The Ombudsperson offers advice and assistance and can recommend changes in academic or administrative procedures where this seems justified.

ombuds.person@utoronto.ca
Ombudsperson website

Student Academic Progress

For concerning student situations or advice on how to proceed in situations with a possibly distressed student, staff and faculty should visit the Student Life website for further information.

Student Crisis Response

For student crisis situations involving disturbing behaviour or references to suicide or violence, staff and faculty should call Student Crisis Response at 416-946-7111 and Campus Police at 416-978-2222 or the Toronto Police Service at 911.

Student Housing Service

Provides assistance for students in finding off-campus housing.

Koffler Centre, 214 College Street, Room 150
416-978-8045
For residence inquiries: residence@utoronto.ca
For all other inquiries: housing.services@utoronto.ca
Student Housing Service website

Back to table of contents

 

11. Who's Who

Chair: Academic administrator responsible for the department’s budget, hiring, promotions, and tenure, as well as for the management of the department.

Undergraduate Academic Lead, e.g., Associate Chair, Undergraduate; Undergraduate Coordinator: Usually the person who arranges the teaching assignments, approves your marks before sending them on to the Faculty, and handles appeals on academic matters in the department/unit. An invaluable source of advice and help should you need academic information or guidance handling thorny matters with your undergraduates.

Undergraduate Administrator: The administrative staff person in each unit who handles much of the undergraduate administrative business for the unit: classroom locations, marking schemes, Quercus access, class lists, marks, enrolment matters, petition questions, final exam texts, exams written by students registered with Accessibility Services, and all manner of other things.

College Registrar: The primary source of academic advising for students. There are 7 colleges associated with the Faculty and each has a College Registrar with a staff of academic advisors. These valuable people are the initial contact points for students needing information, assistance, advising, and guidance. While the Undergraduate Administrator may handle many program or course-specific questions, the College Registrarial staff takes on the integrated holistic advising that addresses the student’s whole experience while at university, including academic, financial, personal, and developmental.

Faculty Registrar: The Faculty Registrar looks after the registrarial functions in the Faculty: admissions, the Calendar, timetabling, enrolment, petitions, final exams, assessment of academic status (probation, suspension, etc.), assessment of degrees, and convocation, as well as coordinating student advising.

Dean & Vice-Deans: The Dean, Vice- and Associate Deans, and decanal advisors are responsible for academic matters in the Faculty, including appointments (hiring), tenure, promotions, the Faculty’s overall budget, all academic matters including marks, and the academic management of the Faculty.

Principals: Each of the colleges has a Principal (although at Trinity College the title is Dean of Arts). The federated colleges (Trinity, St. Michael’s and Victoria Colleges) also have their own Presidents.

Provost: The Vice-President and chief academic officer of the University.

Back to table of contents

 

12. Acronyms

A small sampling of the acronyms in play that a faculty member might need identified:

A&S — Faculty of Arts & Science.

AP&P — Academic Policy & Programs: a standing sub-committee of the Governing Council’s Academic Board, responsible for approval of all curricula.

APUS — Association of Part-Time University Students: the U of T student organization representing part-time students.

ASSU — Arts & Science Student Union: the official student organization representing all full-time Arts & Science students, and umbrella organization for the many course unions (i.e., departmental student societies).

CPAD — Council of Chairs, Principals & Academic Directors: Dean’s primary consultative body of academic leaders in the Faculty (not a policy-making body).

CTSI — Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation: U of T resource for faculty members in support of all aspects of teaching.

DO — A&S Dean’s Office: Sidney Smith Hall, 2nd floor.

EDU — Extra-Departmental Unit: a formal academic unit, with four different levels ranging from full departmental equivalency to research-only centres without appointing powers.

ELL — English Language Learning program: assists non-native English-speaking students with increasing their facility in the language of instruction.

FAS — Faculty of Arts & Science.

FLC — First-Year Learning Communities: para-academic small groups of 25 students each, who are taking a common cluster of courses, to encourage community and impart academic skills.

LMS — Learning Management System (Quercus).

NGSIS — Next Generation Student Information Services: name given to the suite of U of T student information systems.

OFR — Office of the Faculty Registrar: Sidney Smith Hall, 1st floor, NW corner (includes the U of T Transcript Centre and the Exams Office).

P&B — Planning & Budget: Office in the Provost’s Office responsible for all academically-related resources.

PDAD&C — Principals, Deans, Academic Directors & Chairs: Provost’s consultative body of academic leaders in the University (not a policy-making body).

ROSI/ACORN — Repository of Student Information: the student information system.

SAI — Student Academic Integrity: the branch of the Dean’s Office that investigates cheating, plagiarism, and other allegations of academic misconduct by undergraduate students.

SGS — School of Graduate Studies.

SWS — Student Web Service: the students’ user interface for ROSI.

TCard — Students’ U of T photo ID student card (required ID for writing exams).

T&L — The Arts & Science Teaching & Learning team assists instructors with all aspects of pedagogy, curriculum development, teaching technology (including Quercus), teaching awards and course evaluations.

UTM — University of Toronto at Mississauga: separate arts & science division of U of T, with its campus 45 min. west in Mississauga.

UTQAP — University of Toronto Quality Assurance Process: U of T’s implementation of the Provincial Quality Assurance Program

UTSC — University of Toronto at Scarborough: separate arts & science division of U of T, with its campus 40 min. east in Scarborough.

UTSU — University of Toronto Students’ Union: the official student organization representing all U of T full-time students.

WIT — Writing Instruction for TAs: a Curriculum Renewal project to leverage TA resources in order to increase the amount of student writing done especially in large courses.

 

Back to table of contents

 

13. Further Regulations & Policies

The University has many other policies, guidelines, codes or bodies of rules you may need to consult in specific situations. A small sampling follows:

Code of Student Conduct: This sets out the limits on student behaviour in non-academic matters. Offences bring non-academic sanctions, with offences involving safety generally being the only ones that would interfere with a student participating in courses.

Appropriate Use of Information & Communication Technology: This may apply to some unwanted email or web activity by students in a course, but there is also a section in the Code of Student Conduct dealing with unauthorized access.

Freedom of Information and Privacy Protection and Access & Privacy Practices: As a government-supported body, the University adheres to FIPPA principles and practices. Instructors should be aware of the general limits on getting or giving access to personal information in their control and should know how to handle such sensitive student information appropriately. Consult your unit or the FIPPA office on any challenging issues.

Access to Faculty, Students, Staff for Research Purposes: Most research, including that by students on students in relation to courses, is covered in the normal research protocols in your unit, but these guidelines address other research on students.

Close Personal Relations: This memorandum outlines the obligations placed on faculty members under the University of Toronto Policy on Conflict of Interest.

You can also view further Governing Council policies and Provostial guidelines as well as policy and guidelines on advancing an environment built on respect, diversity and inclusion.

Back to table of contents

 

14. Appendix A: Academic Integrity Elements for a Syllabus

A useful academic integrity statement should include:

• a comment on why academic integrity is important
• a list, in clear language, of the behaviours that constitute academic misconduct
• a reminder that not knowing the rules is not an excuse, and that students are expected to know and follow the rules of the University

Sample Syllabus Paragraphs

The University of Toronto treats cases of academic misconduct very seriously. Academic integrity is a fundamental value of learning and scholarship at the U of T. Participating honestly, respectfully, responsibly, and fairly in this academic community ensures that your U of T degree is valued and respected as a true signifier of your individual academic achievement.

The University of Toronto’s Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters outlines the behaviours that constitute academic misconduct, the processes for addressing academic offences, and the penalties that may be imposed. You are expected to be familiar with the contents of this document. Potential offences include, but are not limited to:

In papers and assignments:

• using someone else’s ideas or words without appropriate acknowledgement
• submitting your own work in more than one course without the permission of the instructor
• making up sources or facts
• obtaining or providing unauthorized assistance on any assignment (this includes working in groups on assignments that are supposed to be individual work)

On tests and exams:

• using or possessing any unauthorized aid, including a cell phone
• looking at someone else’s answers
• letting someone else look at your answers
• misrepresenting your identity
• submitting an altered test for re-grading

Misrepresentation:

• falsifying or altering any documentation required by the University, including (but not limited to) doctor’s notes
• falsifying institutional documents or grades

All suspected cases of academic misconduct will be investigated following the procedures outlined in the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters. If you have any questions about what is or is not permitted in this course, please do not hesitate to contact me. If you have questions about appropriate research and citation methods, you are expected to seek out additional information from me or other available campus resources like the College Writing Centres, the Centre for Learning Strategy Support, or the U of T Writing Website.

Back to table of contents

 

15. Appendix B: Examples of Mark Calibration Methods

Example 1

After marking, the instructor discovers a test to have been unusually difficult such that there are marks spread throughout a range, but the highest scores do not reach beyond 80%. Looking at the test, the instructor sees that there were difficult questions to test the finer points of the material but not enough questions to test more basic knowledge. The instructor adds X% to all scores on the rationale that every student would have been able to achieve roughly this many more points if the questions had given them the opportunity to show more of the knowledge they had acquired.

Comment:

This simple method assumes that students with marks at the lower end of the range would have achieved the same number of additional points as the students with marks at the higher end, since the material not tested well was the most basic. This may not be precisely true of those at the very bottom of the failure range, but the imprecision has no real significance since those were merely moved around in the lower failure range.

Example 2

A test is discovered after marking to have been unusually easy, such that there are marks spread through the range, but the lowest scores are beyond the 50% threshold, when quizzes and assignments have shown no unusually strong grasp of the material by all. The instructor subtracts X% from all students’ scores on the rationale that every student would have achieved roughly this many fewer points if the questions had not been so heavily weighted toward truly basic material.

Comment:

This method assumes that the students with the lowest marks have obtained the same number of points on the easier questions as the students with the highest marks, since there were more of those easier questions on the test. This may not be precisely true of marks at the very bottom of the range, but again the imprecision has no real significance.

Example 3

The instructor finds the results look as they do in Example 1, but upon reviewing the test finds that they had simply made the questions in all ranges of difficulty more challenging than intended. The instructor adjusts by adding X% of each student’s score to that score (i.e., multiplies each score by some percent greater than 100% to calibrate upwards, by less than 100% to calibrate downwards). By multiplying by some percent, you are not adding or subtracting a fixed amount; you are recalibrating the scale proportionately rather than absolutely. The assumption behind calibration upwards in this instance is that the resulting additional points would be differentially greater rather than absolutely the same.

Comment:

This method works well when scaling scores up, but some instructors are reluctant to use it to scale scores down.

Example 4

A more complex model. The instructor decides on a “floor” mark, on the basis of relevant factors such as (but not necessarily limited to) the instructor’s post-marking assessment of the difficulty of the assignment for the students. A student whose raw score is below the floor mark is assigned the floor mark for the test/exercise, other things being equal. (Other things might not be equal, as when the student did not answer any of the questions.)

Comment:

The instructor will need a rationale for setting a floor mark. One possible rationale would be to try to minimize (or at least reduce) the likelihood of there being students in the class who get a mark so low that they become discouraged and drop the course. This rationale might be appropriate in a course that aims to teach certain skills — skills that, in the instructor’s experience, most students develop over time and with repeated practice. On the other hand, the floor mark should not be so high that it gives a student who receives it little or no incentive to do better; other things being equal, it should be one that most students would not be content with.

Example 5

The same procedure as in Example 4, plus the following steps. The instructor calculates the average score increase for those students whose raw scores are raised to the floor mark and then raises the raw scores of the other students (i.e., those students whose raw scores are equal to or higher than the floor mark) by a percentage of that average or by different percentages of that average for different ranges of raw scores. For example, suppose that the floor mark is 60% and that the average score increase for those students whose raw scores are raised to the floor mark is 4%. The instructor might raise raw scores in the 60-69% range by x% of 4%, raw scores in the 70-79% range by y% of 4%, and raw scores in the 80-100% range by z% of 4% provided that the increase does not raise the student’s mark above 100%.

Comment:

In contrast to Example 4, the method illustrated in Example 5 benefits (by awarding a score increase) students with raw scores at or above the floor mark, as well as those students with raw scores below the floor mark who are assigned the floor mark.

Back to table of contents