Subgroup analyses show some blended BOPPPS effects are not significant for specific specialties and platforms¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? No significant difference was observed in knowledge scores of TCM students, Rain Classes did not improve total scores, and Xuexi Tong was not significant for practice scores. → Li Shuze 2024

Evidence¶

Li Shuze 2024¶

Li Shuze, Wei Wei, Li Xiaofeng, Ma Li, Li Qiujuan, Sun Xiance, Chen Xin. (2024). Impacts of blended learning with BOPPPS model on Chinese medical undergraduate students: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 44 studies. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05917-x

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Subgroup analysis stratifying the 44 included trials by student specialty and online teaching platform (Table 3). No effect sizes were printed for these specific non-significant subgroup contrasts.

"However, no significant difference was observed in the knowledge scores of students majoring in TCM. The use of Rain Classes teaching did not improve students' total scores, and the use of Xuexi Tong was not significant in the evaluation of students' practice scores"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Blended BOPPPS teaching is associated with higher total scores than lecture-based learning in Chinese medical undergraduates — a broader claim this one bears on
• Blended BOPPPS teaching is associated with higher medical theory knowledge scores than LBL — a broader claim this one bears on
• Blended BOPPPS teaching is associated with higher practical skills scores than LBL — a broader claim this one bears on
• BOPPPS shows no significant improvement in problem-solving or critical thinking skills compared with traditional teaching — related