You describe a course as “flipped,” and the reader nods. But what have they understood? Maybe they picture videos before class. Maybe they picture group work. The label alone doesn't explain the teaching contribution you're trying to document.
The book's example separates preparation before class, application during class, and ongoing feedback. That's a useful structure for a review narrative because it shows how the pieces are supposed to work together. You don't have to sell the approach as automatically better. You need to explain the design and examine what happened.
Start with the learning task, not the label.
What did students need more time or support to do? Perhaps they could recall concepts but struggled to apply them to a new situation. Perhaps class time was going to explanations that students could revisit independently, leaving too little time for guided practice.
Describe that problem and the evidence that brought it to your attention. “I implemented a flipped classroom” names a choice. Explaining why you made it gives readers a reason to care about the choice.
Show how preparation connects to the class activity.
Identify the pre-class task and the level of preparation it was intended to support. Then explain how you checked understanding and used that information during class. A long video assigned before a meeting doesn't tell the reader whether students were ready for the next task.
In a hypothetical course, students might examine a short case before class, identify an initial response, and bring one unresolved question. Class time could then focus on comparing decisions and defending them with relevant concepts. The connection between preparation and application is the part worth making visible.
Be realistic about workload and access. Describe the supports and alternatives you actually provided rather than assuming every student could prepare in the same way under the same conditions.
Explain your role during application.
What did you do while students worked? You might have listened for a recurring misconception, asked a question that required stronger reasoning, or paused the activity for a brief explanation. If those were part of your practice, describe them.
Otherwise, “students worked collaboratively” can hide the teaching decisions. Show what the activity required from students and how your guidance supported the intended learning. Don't rely on claims about matching fixed learning styles; explain the concrete supports and opportunities the design provided.
Use feedback to assess the design.
The book includes continuous feedback as part of the approach. In your file, identify what you collected and how it informed a revision. Appropriate student work, brief checks, peer observations, and student feedback may contribute different perspectives, depending on the claim and institutional requirements.
An active room isn't proof of deep learning. A favorable reaction isn't proof that the method caused higher achievement. Keep the conclusion proportional to the evidence and note what you still need to examine.
For your review narrative, choose one complete cycle: preparation, application, feedback, and adjustment. Explain it in plain language before using the word “flipped.” If a reader can understand what students did, what you contributed, and what the evidence shows, the label can do its small job without carrying the whole argument.
Adapted from The New Faculty Handbook by Zafer Unal, chapter 16, pp. 285–286.
