University of Michigan
Lecturers’ Employee Organization (LEO)
Performance Evaluation and Review
Information Packet
Compiled by:
Department of Nursing
UM-Flint
March, 2009
Annual and Major Review Information
For Members of the Lecturer’ Employee Organization
At the University of Michigan-Flint
Under the current agreement between the University of Michigan and the Lecturers’ Employee Organization
(LEO), members of LEO (Employees) undergo two different forms of review: a periodic (or annual) review
and a major review.
I. Annual Review Procedures
The purpose of the Annual Review is to monitor the Employee’s satisfactory performance of duties during
the review period. Materials presented should indicate the Employee:
- holds class/learning opportunities regularly as scheduled
- presents a thorough syllabus on the first day of class and adheres to it throughout
the semester
- actively engages students in their own learning
- utilizes teaching methods that accomplish some, but not all of the following elements of effective
teaching: requires students to develop and use critical thinking skills, oral communication skills,
writing skills, creative skills, research skills, and computer or technology skills
- shares explicit learning objectives with students and utilizes appropriate assessments
- displays instructor work habits that can serve as a model for students
- is responsive to feedback from peers or students
Lecturers are responsible for gathering and collating all required documents for the annual review process in
order to meet the timeline described below. Copies of the annual evaluation and Director’s comments will
be permanently retained in your Department of Nursing personnel file. Lecturers may appeal decisions of
the annual evaluation by following procedures defined by the terms of the current LEO contract.
Annual Reviews cover the time period of Spring/Summer, Fall and Winter of the current academic year. The
following time-line is for Lecturers I and II only. Lecturers III and IV will follow the tenure and clinical
track faculty evaluation timeline. This timeline will be emailed to you in January of each year.
DATE
1/31
Mid March
End of March
4/01
4/30
TASK
All materials must be submitted by lecturers for review*
The Director will provide feedback to lecturer
Lecturer has one week to respond in writing to the faculty evaluation
Lecturer’ II – IV’s notified of future appointment status (only at the end of current
appointment)
Lecturer I’s notified of future appointment status
This process is completed for each subsequent year of employment.
*major review replaces the annual review process for the year in which the major review occurs
Annual review materials must include at the minimum:
 a record of courses taught and a syllabus for each.
 student evaluations (scores and all comments)
 summary and interpretation of student course evaluations
 self assessment of teaching over the year
 setting of goals for future teaching and analysis of any previously set goals
 record of all classroom observations (if any)
 current and updated Vita
In addition, annual review material for lecturers III and IV will include a table and description of how service
obligations are being met.
The following forms are used to help in the annual review process:



Lecturers Annual Review Form (additional “service” page for Lecturers III & IV)
Classroom Visitation Form (optional)
Analysis of Lecturer’s Materials for Annual Review
II. Major Review Procedures
The purpose of the major review is to evaluate an Employee for appointment as Lecturer II or Lecturer IV
status and for renewal consideration.
Lecturer I and II
Those Lecturer Is who have held appointments for four consecutive years of fall and winter semesters or
have held appointments for 8 out of 10 semesters will be evaluated with a major review before the end of
their 8th semester of service. Successful completion of this review will create a presumption of renewal at
Lecturer II status. Lecturer IIs will be subject to a major review every three years in addition to annual
reviews. Successful completion of the major review will result in a continued presumption of renewal.
Lecturer III and IV
Lecturer IIIs will be evaluated with a major review before the end of their 4th consecutive year of service.
Successful completion of this review will result in a presumption of renewal at an appointment as a Lecturer
IV for a period of 3 years. Lecturer IV’s will be subject to a major review before the end of the last year of
their subsequent appointment, in addition to annual reviews.
Lecturers are responsible for gathering and collating all required documents for the major review process in
order to meet the timeline described below. Copies of the major evaluation and Director’s comments will be
permanently retained in your Department of Nursing personnel file. Lecturers may appeal decisions of the
major review evaluation by following procedures defined by the terms of the current LEO contract.
Major Reviews cover all semesters that fall in the major review period (i.e. three years for Lecturers I and II
and four years for Lecturers III and IV).
Major Review Deadlines: (Winter Semester Review)
DATE
1/31
2/28
Mid March
End of March
4/01
TASK
All materials must be submitted by lecturers for review
Deadline for Committee to review submitted materials and provide feedback to the Director
Deadline for Director to provide feedback to the lecturer
Lecturer has one week to respond in writing to the evaluation
Lecturer notified of Major Review outcome and future appointment status
Major Review Deadlines: (Fall Semester Review)
DATE
9/30
10/31
Mid Nov
End of Nov
12/01
TASK
All materials must be submitted by lecturers for review
Deadline for Committee to review submitted materials and provide feedback to the Director
Deadline for Director to provide feedback to the lecturer
Lecturer has one week to respond in writing to the evaluation
Lecturer notified of Major Review outcome and future appointment status
Evaluators/Reviewers
The Administrative Advisory Committee will comprise the Major Review Committee for Lecturers I and II.
For Lecturers III and IV, the review committee will consist of two Nursing Department peers and one other
faculty member from another department within the School of Health Professions and Studies. Members
typically will be tenure track or clinical track faculty. The committee will compile a written summary of its
evaluation and make a recommendation to the Director of the Department of Nursing.
Materials for Review
In the year a major review is scheduled for a Lecturer, there will be no need to conduct an annual evaluation.
Many materials that would have been part of the annual evaluation should be presented to the major review
committee.
Major review materials must include at a minimum:
 current and updated teaching philosophy
 current and updated Vita
 list of Courses taught during the entire period of review
 syllabus for each course taught
 student course evaluations for each course taught
 summary and interpretation of course evaluations over time
 setting of goals for future teaching and analysis of previously set goals
 record of all classroom observations (if any)
In addition, major review material for lecturers III and IV will include a table and description of how service
obligations are being met.
The following forms are used to help in the annual review process:



Lecturers Major Review Form (additional “service” page for Lecturers III & IV)
Classroom Visitation Form (optional)
Analysis of Lecturer’s Materials for Major Review
Lecturers Annual Evaluation Form
Name: ________________________________________________
Evaluation Period: _____________________________________
Date Evaluation Was Completed: _________________________
Courses Taught During the Current Academic Year: 20___
Semester
Course &
Section Number
Enrollment
Enrollment
capacity
New (N) or
Repeat (R)
Other Info
(e.g., # missed or cancelled classes)
Spring 20___
Summer
20___
Fall 20__
Winter 20___
Please attach syllabi for each course taught to this evaluation form.
Assess successes and challenges in your course(s) over the past year. Describe your plans to address
challenges that have arisen. How will you know that you have improved student learning as a result of
changes you make? Do not exceed one page.
Summarize and interpret your student course evaluations. For each course taught, please attach both the
numerical ratings of student course evaluations (including a measure of central tendency - either mean or
median for each item) and typed copies of ALL student comments. Do not exceed one page.
Discuss your progress toward previously defined goals identified on your previous annual evaluation.
(If this is your first annual evaluation, please leave blank)
Goals
As stated on previous
evaluation.
Evaluation
Identify how achievement of
your goal from previous eval.
was determined. Include specific
evaluation criteria or method.
Outcome
State whether goal
achieved or current status.
Indicate date completed, if
appropriate.
Discuss 3 to 5 goals for continuous improvement in your teaching in the next calendar year.
Goals
State goals in terms of expected outcomes.
Evaluation
Identify how achievement of your goal will be
determined. Include specific evaluation criteria or
methods.
Please attach a copy of your current vita to this evaluation form. Vita should present information in
reverse chronological order, including information on any advanced degrees or certifications earned,
professional memberships, workshops/professional development activities attended (noting skills or
materials learned), including participation in mentoring programs, teaching circles, technology training, etc.
Classroom observation completed by a tenure-track faculty member or chairperson.
_____ Date of Observation (please attach classroom visitation form or comments)
_____ Not applicable
For Lecturers III & IV only:
This form should be individualized for the lecturer based on their contractual duties for service.
Describe Your Service Contributions
In the chart below, please provide committee name, describe your duties, and the time commitment (weekly,
monthly, etc. over a specified time period) for each service activity.
Committee Name
Duties
Time
Commitment
Descriptions of
Contributions
University Committees
College/School
Committees
Departmental
Committees
Complete all of the following as applicable:
Describe Your Contributions To Academic Advising
Please quantify the number of advisees you have and the nature of your contacts with these students.
Describe Any Contributions To Improve Teaching Quality In Your Department
(i.e., your involvement in departmental assessment efforts, mentoring of other faculty, etc.)
Describe Relevant Community Service/Professional Service
Department or Unit-Specific Service Responsibilities Are Added Here
i.e., student recruitment efforts, development efforts, ad hoc committees, etc.
Analysis of Lecturer’s Materials for Annual Review - ________________
(Review Year)
(The department director or designee will fill out this form, and the lecturer will see it)
Faculty Name: ____________________________________________
The following aspects of teaching have been associated with teaching effectiveness. Please rate the lecturer on each of the
following dimensions of teaching, indicating the sources of information used in the evaluation:
C – Course Evaluations completed by students
G – Goals for upcoming year
O - Observation
Sa- Self-assessment (strength/weaknesses)
Sy – Syllabi
V – Vita
A – Additional Information
_____* Please circle relevant sources of information for each aspect of teaching below______________
Sources of Information:
Meets
Expectations
Partially meets
Expectations
Does not meet
Expectations
Subject Matter Knowledge
C G O Sa Sy V A
Items to consider:
* vita suggests training or expertise in the field
* syllabi portray the current state of the field
* syllabi use readings reflecting current scholarship
* evidence of efforts to continue to develop new subject knowledge
Comments:
Meets
Expectations
Partially meets
Expectations
Does not meet
Expectations
Appropriate Presentation Style
C G O Sa Sy V A
Items to consider:
* materials presented indicate beliefs regarding active teaching styles
* a variety of instructional techniques are utilized
* student evaluations of instructor clarity are positive
* student evaluations of instructor’s use of course/instructional time are positive
Comments:
Meets
Expectations
Partially meets
Expectations
Does not meet
Expectations
Course Design and Planning
C G O Sa Sy V A
Items to consider:
completeness of syllabi
* course and instructor information
* readings
* learning goals and objectives clearly stated
* policy on grading, academic misconduct, late work, absences
* safety issues, accommodations for special needs
* calendar of class activities
* thorough descriptions of assignments and due dates
* support services available
* statement regarding academic assessment
clarity/tone/professional appearance of syllabi
* overall clarity about rights, responsibilities, consequences
* consistency with department or university policies
* communicates in a helpful, positive tone
* communicates the challenge/expectations of the course
* furthers rapport and respect between student and instructor
* formatted clearly
* grammar and spelling correct
appropriateness of course workload
intellectually challenging experience/appropriately high expectations
reasonable breadth and depth of content coverage
Comments:
Meets
Expectations
Partially meets
Expectations
Does not meet
Expectations
Assessment
C G O Sa Sy V A
Items to consider:
grading policies
* evidence of frequent student feedback
* syllabi describe fair policies, appropriate for course goals
* syllabi respect student’s diverse talents and ways of knowing
* self-evaluation shows appropriate sensitivity to student progress
* student evaluations suggest that instructor uses questions appropriately
and is concerned with student understanding
* review of grading patterns suggests reasonable distribution of
grades, given the course difficulty level, etc.
Comments:
Meets
Expectations
Partially meets
Expectations
Does not meet
Expectations
Interaction with students
C G O Sa Sy V A
Items to consider:
* evidence of holding class regularly as scheduled
* evidence of providing students with a syllabus at the beginning
of the course
* evidence that students are actively engaged in classroom or other
learning environments
* availability of instructor to students outside of scheduled
class times (Were office hours scheduled and kept?)
* evidence of clarity regarding grading policies/procedures
* pacing, voice tone, fluency, eye contact, rate of speech, and
gestures all contribute positively to interactions
* students report reasonable degree of instructor interest and
enthusiasm for the course material
Comments:
Meets
Expectations
Partially meets
Expectations
Does not meet
Expectations
Efforts in Pursuit of Teaching Growth
C G O Sa Sy V A
Items to consider:
* teaching self assessment statement describes continuous
improvement efforts
* vita lists workshops/conferences attended, books read, etc.
* appropriate, measurable teaching goals for upcoming year are
specified
Comments:
Meets
Expectations
Partially meets
Expectations
Does not meet
Expectations
Other (as defined by individual units or department)
Comments:
C G O Sa Sy V A
For Lecturers III and IV only
Meets
Expectations
Partially meets
Expectations
Does not meet
Expectations
Service Contributions
Items to consider:
C G O Sa Sy V A
* contractual service duties listed in position description match those listedon evaluation form
* time commitment for service duties is appropriate to the position
* type of activities listed indicates an Employee fully engaged in the department and university
Comments:
Overall Rating of Lecturer:
_____ Meets all expectations
_____ Meets some, but not all expectations
_____ Does not meet essential expectations
Recommendation of Reviewer:
_____ Re-appoint
_____ Re-appoint with remediation
Specify: _____________________________________________________
_____ Do not re-appoint
Comments:
________________________________________
Director/Associate Director
_______________________
Date
Lecturers Major Review Form
Materials for Review
In the year a major review is scheduled for a Lecturer, there will be no need to conduct an annual evaluation.

Please attach a current and updated teaching philosophy to this evaluation.

Please attach a current and updated Vita to this evaluation. Vita should present information in
reverse chronological order, including information on any advanced degrees or certifications earned,
professional memberships, workshops/professional development activities attended (noting skills or
materials learned), including participation in mentoring programs, teaching circles, technology
training, etc.

A list of Courses taught during the entire period of review. Indicate whether it was the first time you
taught the course or a repeat of teaching the course.

Student course evaluations for each of the courses listed above. Summarize and interpret your
student course evaluations over the term covered by this evaluation. For each course taught, please
attach both the numerical ratings of student course evaluations (including a measure of central
tendency - either mean or median for each item) and typed copies of all student comments.

Assess successes and challenges in your course(s) over the term of this evaluation. Describe your
plans to address challenges that have arisen. How has student learning improved as a result of
changes you have made during the period covered by this review?

Discuss your goals for continuous improvement in your teaching during your next appointment
period.
 Copy from your previous major review: (leave blank if this is your first major review)
GOALS
EVALUATION
OUTCOME
State goals in terms
Identify how achievement of
State whether goal
of expected outcomes.
your goal will be determined.
achieved or current
Include specific evaluation
status. Indicate date
criteria or methods.
completed, if
appropriate.
List your current goals:
GOALS
State goals in terms
of expected outcomes.

EVALUATION
Identify how achievement of
your goal will be determined.
Include specific evaluation
criteria or methods.
OUTCOME
State whether goal
achieved or current
status. Indicate date
completed, if
appropriate.
Classroom observation completed by a tenure-track or clinical-track faculty member or unit
administrator (preferably based on multiple visits to classrooms/online learning environment, as
well as examination of teaching materials)
_____ Date(s) of Observation(s) (please attach classroom visitation form(s) or comments)
Additional information which you may choose to include for Major review, but which is not required.
It is suggested you include appropriate materials so the committee will have a variety of instruments to
use in the evaluation of your teaching. You may wish to choose from the following: Selected sample of
graded assignments, papers, or tests showing the quality of student work and the level of feedback provided
by the instructor (written permission of students to use these materials is required); selected sample of tests
that demonstrate alignment of assessment techniques with course goals; selected sample of lecture notes or
other teaching materials; teaching Portfolio (detailed self and other evaluation of one course and its evolution
over time); information from course website or discussion boards; information on how teaching is consistent
with and improves the department and university’s assessment efforts; descriptions of your supervision of
Independent Study student projects; evidence of dissemination of teaching methods through workshops,
presentations, publications, etc.; data collected by instructor from students on learning/teaching practices
(i.e., mid-semester evaluations); alumni satisfaction data; letters from students and information about how
the letters were obtained.
For Lecturers III & IV only:
This form should be individualized for the lecturer based on his or her contractual duties for service.
Describe your service contributions over the period of review
In the chart below, please provide committee name, describe your duties, and the time commitment (number
of hours/week or month) for each service activity.
COMMITTEE
NAME
University Committees
DUTIES
TIME
COMMITMENT
DESCRIPTION OF
CONTRIBUTIONS
College/School
Committees
Departmental
Committees
Complete all of the following as applicable:
Describe your contributions to academic advising.
Please quantify the number of advisees you have and have had over the period covered by this review, the
nature of your contacts with these students, and your personal philosophy of advising.
Compile and describe any contributions to improve teaching quality in your department (i.e., your
involvement in departmental assessment efforts, mentoring of other faculty, etc.)
Compile and describe relevant community service/professional service
Department or unit-specific service responsibilities are added here
i.e., student recruitment efforts, development efforts, ad hoc committees, etc
Analysis of Lecturer’s Materials for Major Review- ____________________
(Review Period)
Faculty Name: __________________________________________
The following aspects of teaching have been associated with teaching effectiveness. Please rate the lecturer
on each of the following dimensions of teaching, indicating the sources of information used in the
evaluation:
SOURCES OF INFORMATION: C – Course Evaluations completed by students
G – Goals for upcoming year
O - Other
Sa- Self-assessment (strength/weaknesses)
Sy – Syllabi
T – Teaching Philosophy Statement
V – Vita
SCALE: 0 – Does not meet expectations
1 - Partially meets expectations
2 - Meets expectations
3 - Exceeds expectations
________________________________________________________________________
_____ Subject Matter Knowledge
C G O Sa Sy T V
Items to consider:
* vita suggests training or expertise in the field
* syllabi portray the current state of the field
* evidence of efforts to continue to develop new subject knowledge
Comments:
_____ Appropriate Presentation Style
C G O Sa Sy T V
Items to consider:
* teaching philosophy indicates beliefs regarding active teaching styles
* student evaluations of instructor clarity and understandableness are
high
* a variety of instructional techniques are utilized
* student evaluations of instructor’s use of course/instructional time are positive
Comments:
_____ Course Design and Planning
C G O Sa Sy T V
Items to consider:
completeness of syllabi
* course and instructor information
* readings
* learning goals and objectives clearly stated
* policy on grading, academic misconduct, late work, absences
* safety issues, accommodations for special needs
* calendar of class activities
* thorough descriptions of assignments and due dates
* support services available
* statement regarding academic assessment
clarity/tone/professional appearance of syllabi
* overall clarity about rights, responsibilities, consequences
* consistency with department or university policies
* communicates in a helpful, positive tone
* communicates the challenge/expectations of the course
* furthers rapport and respect between student and instructor
* formatted clearly
* grammar and spelling correct
appropriateness of course workload
intellectually challenging experience/appropriately high expectations
reasonable breadth and depth of content coverage
improvements and changes over time to courses offered multiple times
Comments:
_____ Assessment
C G O Sa Sy T V
Items to consider:
grading policies
* evidence of frequent student feedback
* syllabi describe fair policies, appropriate for course goals
* syllabi respect student’s diverse talents and ways of knowing
* self-evaluation shows appropriate sensitivity to student progress
* student evaluations suggest that instructor uses questions appropriately and is
concerned with student understanding
* review of grading patterns suggest reasonable distribution of
grades, given the course difficulty level, etc.
Comments:
_____ Interaction with students
C G O Sa Sy T V
Items to consider:
* evidence that students are actively engaged in classroom or other learning
environments
* availability of instructor to students outside of scheduled class times (were office
hours scheduled and kept?)
* evidence of clarity regarding grading policies/procedures
* pacing, voice tone, fluency, eye contact, rate of speech, and gestures all contribute
positively to interactions
* students report reasonable degree of instructor interest and enthusiasm for the
course material
Comments:
_____ Efforts in Pursuit of Teaching Growth
C G O Sa Sy T V
Items to consider:
* teaching philosophy statement describes continuous
improvement efforts
* vita lists workshops/conferences attended, books read, etc.
* appropriate, measurable teaching goals for upcoming year are
specified
Comments:
_____ Other (as defined by individual units or department) C G O Sa Sy T V
For Lecturers III and IV only:
Meets
Expectations
Partially meets
Expectations
Does not meet
Expectations
meet
Service Contributions
C G O Sa Sy V A T
Items to consider:
* contractual service duties listed in position (description to match those listed on
evaluation form)
* time commitment for service duties appropriate to the position
* type of activities listed to show an employee fully engaged in the department and
university
*evidence that suggestions made regarding service obligations in annual reviews have
been followed
Comments:
Overall Rating of Lecturer:
_____ Meets all expectations
_____ Meets some, but not all expectations
_____ Does not meet essential expectations
Recommendation of Review Committee:
_____ Re-appoint
_____ Re-appoint with remediation
Specify: ______________________________________
_____ Do not issue new contract
Comments:
_________________________________________
Director/Associate Director
_________________
Date
Classroom Visitation Form – Lecturer Annual and Major Evaluation
Instructor:______________________________________________________________
Classroom Visitor:_______________________________________________________
Course Visited:__________________________________________________________
Date of Observation:_____________________________________________________
Rating Scale
E
G
S
U
NO
NA
Excellent
Good
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Not observed
Not applicable
INSTRUCTIONAL PROCEDURES……………………………………………………
_____ Evidence of Planning
_____ Demonstrates knowledge/mastery of subject area
_____ Communicates clearly the objectives, guidelines, and expectations of the class and its
activities
_____ Uses a variety of appropriate techniques, materials, examples and equipment
_____ Skillfully uses questions, discussion techniques, and activities to help students to
improve their ability to solve problems and think critically
_____ Has challenging and appropriate expectations for students
_____ Establishes classroom climate that is pleasant and conducive to learning
_____ Uses test results and other student responses to assess the effectiveness of the lesson
_____ Utilizes active learning strategies
E = Excellent G = Good S = Satisfactory U =Unsatisfactory NO = Not observed NA = Not applicable
FACULTY-STUDENT INTERACTION SKILLS…….………………………………..
_____ Maintains good classroom discipline and morale
_____ Keeps room appropriately organized and interesting
_____ Establishes efficient classroom routine
_____ Gives evidence of planning ability: well organized
_____ Demonstrates respect between students and instructor
_____ Solicits student feedback
_____ Pacing, voice tone, fluency, eye contact, rate of speech, and gestures contribute positively to
interactions
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS……………………………………………………..
_____ Demonstrates poise and self-confidence in the classroom
_____ Uses sense of humor appropriately (if observed)
_____ Listens to students and shows sensitivity
_____ Maintains composure in difficult situations
PROFESSIONALISM…………………………………………………………………….
_____ Demonstrates enthusiasm for teaching
_____ Shows evidence of continued professional growth
OVERALL EVALUATION/COMMENTS…………………………………………………
_____ Exceptional
_____ Good
_____ Satisfactory
_____ Unsatisfactory