This story has been updated as of Jan. 30 at 8:14 p.m. to better reflect the reduction of TA hours.
Public Service Alliance Canada (PSAC) 901 representatives say reduced Teaching Assistant (TA) hours, rising enrolment caps, and the introduction of Artificial Intelligence (AI) marking software are reshaping undergraduate courses across the University.
Yuanjin Xia, a PhD candidate in philosophy and a steward with PSAC 901, the union representing over 2,000 graduate student workers at Queen’s, said the union has received multiple reports from members across departments who feel workloads have increased while paid hours haven’t.
“At our November steward council meeting, […] there has been broad discussion of people feeling work has been increased, but the TA hours haven’t changed,” Xia said. “There are reports that even if the TA hours haven’t been changed, they feel the workload has been changed because there are more students per TA.”
She linked the reduction in available TA hours to budget decisions at the faculty level, referencing comments made at a Faculty of Arts and Science (FAS) town hall in November, where FAS Interim Dean Bob Lemieux stated the total TA budget hadn’t been cut but remained at 2023-24 levels. This is despite wage increases following PSAC 901’s strike in 2025.
“But our hourly wage has increased,” Xia said. “Effectively, it means available TA hours have to be reduced by approximately 18 per cent.”
In a statement to The Journal, the FAS confirmed there have been no changes to TA budgets, claiming “TA allocations within FAS follow student enrollments to address student needs and course demands to achieve all learning outcomes for students.” However, the University didn’t address the effective cut in hours due to the wage increases, despite specific requests from The Journal.
This comes after previous reports of TA hours decreasing in the School of Kinesiology and Health Studies, which saw the elimination of tutorials to address the issue.
READ MORE: TA hours decreasing by up to 56 per cent in certain FAS courses
Xia pointed to CHEM 112 as one of the clearest examples reported to the union. According to Xia, enrolment in the course increased this year, yet hours assigned to each TA decreased.
Rebecca Chen, a PhD candidate in chemistry, a TA in CHEM 112, and a steward with PSAC 901, confirmed the enrolment increase. Chen claimed that CHEM 112 expanded from about 1,100 students last year to approximately 1,600 this year.
“We’ve had to add four additional sections of lab and tutorial to accommodate everyone,” Chen said in an interview with The Journal.
Despite specific requests from The Journal, Queen’s didn’t address increased enrolment numbers in its statement.
Chen added that more TAs had to be brought into the class, which meant all TA contracts for the course were also reduced by five hours. Because many TAs hold two contracts for each term, she said the reduction totals 10 hours per term and 20 hours in total.
“For the lab TAs, there already weren’t enough hours for them to properly grade lab reports,” Chen said. “With the addition of all these new students, there’s just no way that the lab TAs could effectively [grade] the lab reports.”
Xia later added that reduced hours often translate into unpaid labour for TAs who feel responsible for maintaining academic standards.
“It basically means more de facto unpaid work,” Xia said. “If you really care about students […], it’s really hard to do it right.”
Chen then explained that CHEM 112 introduced an AI-based marking platform this year, called Stemble, which students are required to purchase to submit lab reports and access the lab manual.
“It’s essentially mandatory to buy it,” Chen said. “You can only access your lab manual through there, and also only submit your lab reports through there.”
Chen said the cost to students is approximately $90, but despite this, she says the software hasn’t been productive for both students and their TAs.
“The platform is actually really bad at grading. The TAs still have to scroll through every single lab report to see that it was marked correctly. So effectively, there really isn’t a huge reduction of work at all,” Chen said.
The Journal also inquired about the implementation of AI-marking in CHEM 112, but the University chose not to address it in its statement.
Chen also said the use of AI marking risks undermining educational quality.
“The feedback, if there is any at all, is really not the same,” Chen said. “It also creates this space between the student and the TA that doesn’t help with understanding the material.”
They added that they’ll continue raising concerns with the University but remain frustrated by what they describe as a lack of clear communication and accountability.
Tags
AI grading, PSAC 901, Teaching Assistants
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.