Bargaining Survey Series: Review Report

Thank you to everyone who filled out LEO’s Review Survey! 122 Lecturers from 55 different units (30 from Ann Arbor, 10 from Dearborn, and 15 from Flint) responded, so we were able to collect information from disciplines across the three campuses. Next Monday (Feb. 17) we will send out the third survey in our series: Professional Development & Faculty Support.

The report of the Review survey results is below. If you want to work on any of the issues identified in this survey, or any issues that could be addressed through the collective bargaining process, please indicate your interest by sending an email to matt@leounion.org. 

The winner of the $50 Kroger gift card is Nora Venturelli from the Stamps School of Art & Design!
—————————————————————————————————
Lecturers’ experiences with performance reviews are as varied as the range of disciplines we teach. Respondents from all three campuses reported that their reviews are generally painless with clear guidelines and little difficulty in gathering materials. It is encouraging to know that there are departments that follow both the letter and spirit of our collective bargaining agreement. Unfortunately, there are units that still require an onerous amount of materials, that do not have clear procedures, and that provide little notification. 

Some Lecturers feel that their performance reviews are a worthwhile experience that allow for constructive feedback and professional growth. This is the model toward which LEO has attempted to move the contract, particularly for continuing reviews, so it is not surprising that mostly long-serving LIIs and LIVs reported positive experiences with reviews. With respect to materials, it appears that most units have implemented the new contract language for this academic year that does not require Lecturers to resubmit student evaluations and classroom observation reports in a major review. In addition to the materials listed in our questions, CVs appeared most often as required. 

Lecturers who described problems with reviews were usually concerned with a lack of clarity: they were frequently unsure what materials were required and did not know the standard against they were being evaluated. Despite the numerous provisions about reviews in our contract, the process remains mysterious in many units. Some Lecturers reported late notifications that afforded them little time to gather materials or prepare for a classroom observation. The biggest criticism of the review process is that it is often a confusing, onerous, and stressful experience that results in little useful feedback. One Lecturer described submitting a dossier over 600 pages long that received minimal response. 

Over 20 respondents stated that they have received inequitable feedback on student evaluations. There was little to no recourse available to most of these Lecturers through their units, although some units take implicit bias into account. Lecturers expressed concern over the continued reliance on student evaluations to assess teaching performance despite the wealth of research that finds them to be a poor measure of pedagogical or student success.