Guidelines

Faculty Periodic Performance Review

Revised 10/20/2026

These procedures are intended to assist a faculty member to create and submit a Periodic Performance Review (PPR) using the TWU Watermark Faculty Performance Review system.

The intent of the PPR is to provide an organized documentation of the faculty member’s growth and achievements in three domains: teaching, scholarship, and service to her/his field or discipline, academic component, university, and community. A periodic performance review is expected to contain a self-reflection and other materials that document the quantity, quality, and significance of a faculty member’s accomplishments in relation to the university and component’s criteria for promotion and tenure. It is not necessary to upload every piece of documentation referenced in a self-reflection. However, at each level of review, a reviewer may request a copy of any of the materials listed on the curriculum vitae or referenced in the faculty member’s narrative.

This procedure is intended to provide guidance for the application of University Regulation and Procedure 02.346, Faculty Periodic Performance Review/Evaluation.
Periodic Performance Reviews will be undertaken by each TWU faculty member and his/her academic component (AC) on the following schedule:

Table 1: Schedule of Reviews

swipe to see the full table⇨

Type of Faculty	Year of Employment	Frequency of Review	Period Review Covers
Tenure-track, Clinical, and Lecturer	1-5	Annual Year 3 PPR will contain explicit statements regarding progress of the faculty member toward promotion and/or tenure.	Year 1: The period from hire date to submission Years 2-5: The previous academic year
Tenure-track	6	Tenure and/or promotion review	All prior years considered
Clinical and Lecturer	6	Annual	The previous academic year
Tenured, Clinical, and Lecturer	After Year 6 or after a promotion or tenure review	Every three years	The previous three academic years

Except as noted below, the documentation of performance and its review will begin in the fall semester and proceed according to the published Faculty Performance Review Calendar. The time period under review will be the previous academic year.
1. The Year 1 PPR is conducted in the fall semester and typically addresses only the first few months of the 1^st academic year. (Note: Visiting Faculty are not required to be formally evaluated. Should the visiting faculty member or ACA request a formal evaluation, it will occur in February and will address the previous academic year.)
2. The Year 2 PPR is conducted in the fall semester and typically addresses the entire 1^st academic year plus the first two months of the 2^nd academic year.
3. The Year 3 PPR addresses the prior academic year. In addition, the Year 3 review also contains explicit statements regarding the progress of the faculty member in relation to the relevant criteria for promotion and/or tenure (see URP 02.342, Faculty Promotion and Tenure), as applicable. Preparation of a portfolio and external review are not required for this review.
4. Year 4 and 5 reviews highlight progress and areas that need improvement prior to the tenure and/or promotion review scheduled for Year 6 (or for promotion in general for non-tenure track faculty).
5. For tenure-track faculty, the Year 6 PPR (or an alternate year specified in the employment letter of a faculty member) is typically replaced by the preparation and submission of a tenure and/or promotion application. The application process begins in spring with a request for external reviewers. (See URP 02.342, Faculty Promotion and Tenure, and Faculty Performance Review Calendar.)
6. After Year 6 or following promotion or tenure, the PPR shifts from a 1-year interval to a 3-year interval. The review conducted every third year addresses the previous three academic years of performance. Preparation of a portfolio and external review are not required for this review.
7. Exceptions in the 3-year interval are noted below:
  - The schedule for the PPR changes from the 3-year interval to annual as follows:
    - At the request of either the faculty member or the AC administrator. Should either party disagree that a change is needed, the dean will make a determination.
    - When a PPR results in a rating of Performance Needs Improvement or Ineffective Performance in any of the three subcomponents (teaching, scholarship, or service) or overall.
  - A new 3-year periodic review cycle begins in the following situations:
    - Faculty member is promoted.
    - Successful completion of a professional development plan with an Effective Performance periodic review rating in each domain and overall.
    - Mutual agreement of a faculty member and his/her AC administrator.
8. Table 2 lists the workflow for reviews by type of faculty position and year of employment.

Table 2: Workflow of Review

swipe to see the full table⇨

Type of Faculty	Year of Employment	Order of Review
Tenure-track, Clinical, and Lecturer	1, 2, 4, 5	PRC (optional) AC Administrator Dean
Tenure-track, Clinical, and Lecturer	3, 6 (if not a promotion review)	AC PRC AC Administrator Dean
Tenured, Clinical, and Lecturer	After Year 6	AC PRC AC Administrator Dean

Faculty members creating a PPR will use the TWU Watermark Faculty Performance Review system to submit their review materials to their academic component peer review committee or academic component administrator by the deadline posted on the Faculty Periodic Performance Review Calendar. Appendix A provides step-by-step instructions for completing and submitting the faculty’s review materials.
The following are included in each performance review:
1. Faculty biographical information (name, component, college, years in rank)
2. Self-reflection narrative covering accomplishments in teaching, scholarship, and service
3. Faculty CV
4. Courses taught during review period
5. Student course evaluations
6. Appointment letter (for the first review following the appointment)
7. Supplemental documentation for teaching, scholarship/creative activities, and service (optional)
Format of Self-Reflections
1. Each faculty member is expected to produce a self-reflection document that covers teaching, scholarship, and service. The faculty member is to limit the self-reflection for all three domains to a total of no more than six (6) pages, not including attachments, appendices, etc. Appendix B provides guidance regarding the content of each section.
2. The six (6) total pages of self-reflection may be divided among the three sections (Teaching, Scholarship, and Service) as deemed appropriate by the faculty to convey the nature of their performance accomplishments. An introduction to the self-reflection and an overall conclusion may be included within the document.
3. The self-reflection document should have the following format characteristics: 1" margins on all sides; double spaced; Arial, Times New Roman, or similar font of 11 point or larger; and Arabic page numbers in the top right corner.
4. If a faculty member’s supporting documentation includes large files, it is recommended that a faculty member make her/his materials available on an external storage site (e.g., Google Drive). When an external storage option is used, the self-reflection must include a clear reference to the materials and a working link for access by any reviewer.
Peer Review Committee
1. Using the TWU Watermark Faculty Performance Review system, the Peer Review Committee (PRC) will review the faculty member’s self-reflection and other related materials. The PRC will make recommendations regarding ratings for each performance domain and overall performance. In addition, the PRC will provide candid and constructive feedback to the faculty member regarding areas where recent performance deserves recognition and commendation as well as suggestions and recommendations for improvement in performance and/or to better prepare for future promotion and/or tenure applications. In each case, it is recommended that the PRC reference the relevant TWU and AC criteria. The Chair of the PRC will submit the committee’s recommendations for ratings, including supporting rationale for the ratings and recommendation(s). Minority/ dissenting report(s), if any, are also to be uploaded into the system. These entries are to be made on or before the dates specified on the Faculty Performance Review Calendar. Appendix C provides step-by-step instructions for PRC members.
The AC administrator will review the materials submitted by the faculty member and the PRC recommendations. The AC Administrator may also consider other information relevant to the faculty performance review process when preparing his/her recommendations for performance ratings and feedback to the faculty member regarding areas where recent performance deserves recognition and commendation as well as suggestions and recommendations for improvement in performance and/or to better prepare for future promotion and/or tenure applications. The recommendation(s) must be accompanied by a rationale and submitted no later than the date designated on the Faculty Performance Review Calendar. The faculty member will receive an email when recommendations are available for review and comment.
The dean will review the materials housed in the FPR system as well as the recommendations from the PRC and the AC administrator. The dean will make a final determination regarding performance ratings and provide a statement of rationale for the decision. These determinations are to be recorded in the FPR system no later than the date specified on the Faculty Performance Review Calendar. The faculty member will receive an email when these materials are available for review.
Additional actions outside of the FPR system will be required if any of three following situations apply:
1. A rating of Performance Needs Improvement in any area requires the creation of an informal plan to address the area(s) in need of improvement.
2. A rating of Ineffective Performance in any area requires the creation of a professional development plan.
3. A faculty member elects to appeal the results of a performance review by following URP 02.350 Faculty Grievance, Review, and Appeal Processes.

Appendix A: Instructions for Faculty Performance Review Submission

Submitting Your Performance Review:

Log into Watermark or click the link provided in the email. The email will come from the “Office of Faculty Affairs” with the email address notifications@watermarkinsights.com.
You may also navigate to your performance review within Watermark by selecting Workflow and Tasks on the menu.

Original View:

New View:

Go Back View

Review

Open your performance review submission screen.
Type in your name.
Select your Academic Component from the drop-down menu.
Select your College from the drop-down menu.
Select your present rank from the drop-down menu.

Type in the date of appointment to your present rank (this is your official contract start date in rank; typically either September 1 or January 16 and the year).
Upload your initial letter of appointment (only required for your first performance review following this appointment). (NOTE: this letter will also be needed for the first promotion.)
Upload your self-reflection narrative document in the box provided. This should be one document (can be word or pdf), maximum of six pages, that details your accomplishments in Teaching, Scholarship/Creative Activities, and Service during the review period.
Your CV will pull directly into your review at the time the review process launches, and the date and time it was last updated will appear. If you made changes to your CV since the review launch date, refresh the CV using the circular arrow on the right. You may also review the CV that is to be included with the review by clicking on the pdf icon on the left.
Your courses taught will pull directly into your You may review the courses taught report by clicking on the pdf icon and refresh if needed using the circular arrow button.
Your Course Evaluations from both the legacy system and Watermark for the period under review will pull from Watermark. If no course evaluations show with either of these reports, that means you do not have any evaluations in that system.
1. 1. For any course evaluations conducted through Watermark (this includes a pilot group of faculty for Fall 2025, Spring 2026; and all faculty beginning with Summer 2026), quantitative course evaluations will automatically populate. You may choose to include the qualitative student comments by following the steps below.
    1. In Watermark Activities under the Teaching/Mentoring section (old view) or My Profile (new view), select Scheduled Teaching.
    2. Select each semester where there are embedded course evaluations, scroll to the bottom, and click the box to “Include the Student Comments in Periodic Performance ” This must be done for all semesters under review; faculty may not select some semesters to show student comments but not others.
  2. Quantitative course evaluations conducted through the legacy system will automatically populate. You may elect to include the qualitative student comments by following the steps below.
    1. In Watermark Activities under the Teaching/Mentoring section (old view) or My Profile (new view), select Course Evaluations – Legacy System.
    2. Select each semester for the period under review, scroll to the bottom, and click the box to “Include the Student Comments in Periodic Performance Review.” This must be done for all semesters under review; faculty may not select some semesters to show student comments but not others.
Upload any optional supplemental evidence in support of your Teaching, Scholarship/Creative Activities, or Service. There is not a limit to the number of files you may upload. Any supplementary evidence uploaded here should be referred to in your narrative and the documents should be labeled clearly to identify what they contain.
Save your review if you do not plan to submit Navigate to the Actions bar at the top right corner and select Save Draft. You will be able to access your review until it is submitted.
Submit your materials. Faculty completing a Year 1, 2, 4, or 5 review have the option to submit to their component peer review committee or to their academic component administrator. Faculty completing a Year 3, Year 6, post-tenure, or post-year 6 review are required to submit to the component peer review committee and will not have the option to submit directly to the AC Administrator.

Submission

Recalling Your Review:

If you advance a submission to the next step, you can recall the submission in order to:

Correct factual or typographical errors
Add a critical piece of information that was missed
Further review a submission that was prematurely advanced

However, once the next reviewer has opened the submission, the recall option is no longer available. The next level reviewer does have the ability to return the submission back one step, so contact that reviewer directly (either the PRC Chair or the Academic Component Administrator) to request your review be returned to you.

Recalling Review

Monitoring Your Submission:

After you have advanced the submission to the next step, you will see it move from the Inbox to the History section in Watermark | Workflow | Tasks. There, you can see where in the process the submission stands as it advances through each future step. This is where your completed reviews will also be stored for easy access.

Monitoring Submission

Acknowledging Your Performance Reviews:

After every review step (PRC, ACA, Dean), you will have the opportunity to review and comment on the evaluation prior to it moving to the next step in the review process. You will receive an email each time you need to take an action, and the process will appear in your Workflow in Watermark. You will be given one week to review and comment, if you choose. If you do not choose to comment, you may submit the review to the next level by selecting the Action button at the top right and submitting. If you do not submit your review, it will automatically route to the next level reviewer in seven (7) days.

Achknowledgement Review

Type any optional comments in the box provided.
Submit to the next required level.

Final Submit

Technical Support Options:

Email facultycommons@twu.edu for technical issues or support or for questions about your submission.

Appendix B: Self-Reflection and Documentation

The self-reflection documents the accomplishments of the faculty member in relation to each of the University and AC criteria in the areas of Teaching, Scholarship and Creative Activities, and Service and the quality, relevance, and impact of the faculty member’s work. In the self-reflections, it is not necessary to duplicate achievements listed on the curriculum vitae. The faculty member should, however, discuss how the items listed on the curriculum vitae demonstrate that University and AC criteria have been met. Selected supporting documentation may be included with each section. Particular attention should be given to accomplishments since the last review.

Introductory Narrative (typically included at the beginning of the Teaching self-reflection)

The introductory narrative describes the faculty member’s roles and responsibilities within the academic component, the college, and the university. Within the introductory narrative or within each section of teaching, scholarship, and service, the faculty member may provide a philosophy statement and explain how teaching, scholarship, and service are connected and integrated. The following is a list of types of documentation that may be included in PPR self-reflections or supporting documents. It is not meant to be exhaustive.

Teaching

Peer observations of teaching
Peer examination of a teaching portfolio
Analysis of student evaluations and learning outcomes
Analysis of courses taught, number of preparations, class sizes, course levels, types of courses in relation to component criteria for promotion and tenure
External review of course materials
Honors or special recognitions for teaching
Grants related to instruction
Development of new programs and courses
Teaching innovations
Preparation of publications to be used in class
Reports from alumni and their employers
Recognition of the quantity and quality of mentoring
Evidence of student achievement
Service learning and internships directed
Evidence of the quality and quantity of graduate student research and creative projects, independent studies, professional papers, theses and/or dissertations directed by the faculty member in those areas with graduate programs

Scholarship and Creative Activities

Published/peer-reviewed works, articles, book reviews, bibliographies, essays, papers in anthologies, proceedings, translations, book chapters, books, monographs
Published curriculum or training materials
Artistic works (include venue), short stories, poems, dramatic works, musical composition or arrangement, choreography, exhibitions, performances, recitals, direction of works in the performing arts, recorded works in the performing arts, refereed or invited works
Peer-reviewed presentations at professional meetings
Non-referred works and non-juried creative works
Contributions to the art of teaching, textbooks, articles on pedagogy, development of technological applications for teaching, audiovisual media for classroom use
Internal and external grant proposals, grants, and contracts
Honors and awards (explain the nature of the award and method of selection)
Professional development for research, scholarship, and other creative activities
Inventions, patents, and copyrights

Service

Participation and leadership in university, college, and component committees and task forces
Service to student organizations and student recruitment and retention activities
Development of newsletters, brochures, in-service programs, non-credit continuing education courses, and professional conferences
Recognition of the quantity and quality of advising
Service to the profession (indicate state, regional, national, and international affiliations), membership and leadership in professional organizations, journal editorship, consulting projects, technical reports, panel chair or discussant, etc.
Manuscript and grant reviews, adjudication of exhibits, performances, and designs
Voluntary participation in local, regional, state, national or international non-profit organizations (role, years of service, major contributions, elected or appointed)
Honors and awards related to service (explain nature of award and method of selection)

Appendix C: Instructions for Component Peer Review Committee Reviewers

Log into Watermark or click the link provided in the email generated when the faculty has submitted materials for PRC review.
You may also navigate to the performance review submitted to the PRC within Watermark by selecting Workflow on the menu.
Open the performance review to evaluate.
The faculty’s information will be visible.

Click on the documents to download and review. Required documents include the self-reflection narrative, CV, courses taught, and course evaluations. Optional documents include supplementary evidence for teaching, scholarship/creative activities, and service.

Note: If the committee finds that something is missing from the faculty candidate, the PRC chair has the option to return the submission back to the faculty for correction.

Number 5

PRC Members:

Based on the candidate's submission, committee members should determine their recommended ratings for teaching, scholarship/creative activities, service, and overall to participate in the committee's evaluation discussion. Committee members may input comments within Watermark. These comments go directly to the PRC chair only and are not seen by the other PRC members, nor anyone else in the review process.

The committee members can also see the This Committee's Response but cannot fill that out; this section will be completed by the PRC chair after the committee meets and agrees on the final ratings. Once the PRC chair enters the ratings and either saves or submits, PRC committee members will see those ratings.

Once the PRC has met and determined the final ratings, a dissenting PRC member may elect to submit a signed minority/dissenting report if they disagree with the majority opinion on any recommendation. This would need to be completed before the PRC chair submits the final response. To submit a minority/dissenting report, the PRC member goes back into the review, uploads the signed dissenting report in the box provided, and resubmits their response to the PRC chair. This report goes directly to the PRC chair to upload into the committee's final recommendation. To submit the minority/dissenting report, upload the document then select Publish My Response to chair from the Actions button.

Screenshot showing Actions menu with Save and Publish options

PRC Chairs:

Once the committee meets and determines This Committee’s Response, the PRC chair will enter those ratings. The chair must also upload the written evaluation before submitting.

If a PRC member wants to submit a signed minority/dissenting report, the PRC chair should Save a Draft of the recommendations but not submit, allowing the PRC member to return to their review and upload their report. Once this is done, the PRC chair will see the dissenting report within the PRC member’s review. The PRC chair will click on the document to download it, and then upload it to submit to the faculty along with the ratings and the written evaluation.
Once the Committee is in agreement and the chair is ready to submit, the PRC chair:
1. Selects the ratings for teaching, scholarship/creative activities, service, and overall;
2. Uploads the comprehensive written evaluation of faculty performance;
3. Uploads the minority/dissenting document, if provided;
4. Submits to Faculty Acknowledgment of PRC Recommendation

Technical Support Options:

Email facultycommons@twu.edu for technical issues or support or for questions about your submission.
Complete a help ticket in our new Watermark ticketing system available on the Faculty Commons | Faculty Career web page: https://twu.edu/faculty-commons/faculty-career/watermark-cv/

What is Watermark

Page last updated 2:28 PM, October 27, 2026