SharePoint site for Faculty and Sessional Faculty

CTL has a SharePoint site (requires UTORid login) for Faculty and Sessional Faculty where you can find resources, forms, additional policy information, support contacts, and a knowledge base for topics that are relevant for instructors.

Marking & Grading Policies

Marking Scheme

  • Instructors must submit their course syllabi for approval/review to their respective Program Chairs (deadline: a week before the first day of classes for OISE students). If instructors are unsure who their Program Chairs are for a given course, they can contact the Associate Chair of our department.
  • Information should be included about the method(s) by which student performance will be evaluated (the course marking scheme/rubric). This includes:
    • Whether assessment/evaluation will be through essays, tests/examinations, class participation, seminar presentations, or any other type of assignment.
    • The relative weight of each of these assessment methods in relation to the overall grade.
    • The deadlines for submitting and the timing of marking for each major form of evaluation.
  • It is UofT School of Graduate Studies policy that not more than 20% of a course mark can be given for classroom participation. For more detailed information, please see the University of Toronto Assessment and Grading Practices Policy
  • Once announced, it’s difficult to make changes to the course information. After the methods of evaluation have been made known (i.e. syllabus released), the instructor may not change them or their relative weight without the consent of a simple majority of students attending the class, provided the vote is announced no later than in the previous  class. Any changes must be reported to the department or the graduate unit.



Submitting Final Marks

  • You will receive an email from our department shortly after your course finishes with instructions on how to access eMarks and when your marks are due for approval.
  • Final marks are submitted to the department for approval via eMarks (electronic marks system) before they are passed onto the registrar and made available for students to view on ROSI.
  • It is imperative that you do not release final marks to students prior to this. 
  • If you use Quercus to distribute grades and feedback to your students regarding assignments, make sure that your students cannot see/calculate their final grades before your final grades are approved on eMarks.

Term Work

In graduate courses, there is no requirement for term work to be returned to students before the final date for withdrawal from the course; however, if no work is to be returned by that date, this must be made clear in the course marking scheme/rubric.

Course Grading

Note that the range for course grading at OISE, as with all other divisions of SGS, is from A+ to B-.

Anything less than a B- (below 70%) is considered a failing mark. This information is published in the University of Toronto Assessment and Grading Practices Policy. Additional policies and guidelines governing graduate activity are available through the SGS website.

Course Evaluations

Course evaluations are completed through student email, usually during the last week of class. Instructors are encouraged to give in-class time for course evaluations to occur. There is a standard bank of questions that are CTL- and OISE-specific, which will appear on your course evaluation. You will receive an email about halfway through semester which gives you the option to add more questions to your course evaluation (up to 3 additional questions; these additional questions are optional to add).



Standard questions that will appear on course evaluations

You are presented with a series of statements about aspects of a course learning experience. Using the scale provided, please indicate the extent to which each aspect was part of your course experience (not at all, somewhat, moderately, mostly, a great deal):

  1. I found the course intellectually simulating.
  2. The course provided me with a deeper understanding of the subject matter.
  3. The instructor created a course atmosphere that was conducive to my learning.
  4. Course projects, assignments, tests, and/or exams improved my understanding of the course material.
  5. Course projects assignments, tests, and/or exams provided opportunity for me to demonstrate an understanding of the course material.
  6. Overall, the quality of my learning experience in this course was... (poor, fair, good, very goof, excellent).

Please comment on the overall quality of the instruction of the course.

Please comment on any assistance that was available to support your learning in this course.

Scale - not at all, somewhat, moderately, mostly, a great deal

  1. The course instructor made it clear what students were expected to learn in the course.
  2. The course instructor demonstrated respect for diversity (e.g., race, gender, ability, religion, sexual orientation, etc) in the classroom.
  3. The course instructor encouraged students to express their own ideas in the class.

Course Changes / New Courses - Governance

Proposals for program changes, new courses, or course changes must be brought up at a meeting of the Academic Programs Committee - usually early in the academic year.

If you need to make such changes, please speak to your program chair or the Associate Chair before proceeding to determine what needs to be done and when.

Academic Appeals

  • Graduate students registered in the School of Graduate Studies (SGS), may appeal substantive or procedural academic matters, including grades, evaluation of comprehensive examinations and other program requirements; decisions about the student's continuation in any program; or concerning any other decision with respect to the application of academic regulations and requirements to a student
  • Appeals are initiated within the student's home graduate unit first
  • Students must file an appeal within eight weeks after the date of the decision being appealed. 
  • SGS Graduate Academic Appeals


Informal Resolution of Concerns

  • The first step in resolving a student concern is to communicate with the instructor or other person whose ruling is in question. Should the matter not be resolved with the instructor, and should the student wish to pursue the matter, the student must discuss the matter with the Associate Chair.
  • The student may request that the Associate Chair meet with the student and instructor (either together or separately) in order to mediate the concern and facilitate a satisfactory resolution. 
  • In this context, it is possible that, with the consent of the parties involved, informal steps will be taken (e.g., asking a third party to read a student’s paper and provide feedback) to resolve the concern.
  • Note that at any stage prior to filing an appeal with the Graduate Academic Appeals Board, a student may consult the relevant SGS Vice-Dean, Students for advice and/or informal mediation. The Vice-Dean will serve as informal mediator, attempting to resolve the dispute or clarify issues.