BOPPPS teaching improves analytical ability compared with traditional teaching¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Three studies with continuous measures indicated significant improvement in analytical ability in the BOPPPS group (SMD 1.06, 95% CI 0.46–1.65, P < 0.001). → Zhu Jing 2025

Evidence¶

Zhu Jing 2025¶

Zhu Jing, Xiao Heng, Zhou Rui, Gan Xiaochuang, Gou Qitao, Tie Hongtao. (2025). The efficacy of the BOPPPS teaching model in clinical and health education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07274-9

q3 · i3 · quant-synthesis · r2

Random-effects pooling of three studies (486 participants) with continuous analytical-ability measures; pooled effect size SMD = 1.06 (95% CI 0.46–1.65), with I² = 0.87 reported in Table 5, indicating substantial heterogeneity for this outcome.

"These studies indicated a significant improvement within the BOPPPS group concerning analytical ability compared to the control group (SMD 1.06, 95% CI 0.46–1.65; P < 0.001; Table 5)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• BOPPPS teaching improves clinical thinking ability compared with traditional teaching — related
• BOPPPS shows no significant improvement in problem-solving or critical thinking skills compared with traditional teaching — related
• BOPPPS teaching significantly improves final examination scores compared with traditional teaching in undergraduate clinical and health education — related
• BOPPPS teaching improves learning initiative compared with traditional teaching — related
• BOPPPS teaching improves learning retention skills compared with traditional teaching — related
• BOPPPS teaching improves student satisfaction compared with traditional teaching — related