BOPPPS teaching improves classroom interaction on continuous measures, with a non-significant trend on dichotomous measures¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i2 medium
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i2 Two studies with continuous interaction measures showed substantial improvement in the BOPPPS group (SMD 0.83, 95% CI 0.46–1.21, P < 0.001). → Zhu Jing 2025 q3 i? Three studies with dichotomous interaction variables found no statistically significant difference, though relevant trends were evident (OR 4.11, 95% CI 0.79–21.35, P = 0.09). → Zhu Jing 2025 (2)

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 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r2

Random-effects pooling of two studies (197 participants) with continuous classroom interaction measures, covering both peer-to-peer and student-teacher interactions; pooled effect size SMD = 0.83 (95% CI 0.46–1.21), I² = 0.38 in Table 5.

"Two studies employed continuous variables, indicating a substantial improvement within the BOPPPS group concerning classroom interaction when compared to the control group (SMD 0.83, 95% CI 0.46–1.21; P < 0.001; Table 5)."

Zhu Jing 2025 (2)¶

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 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Random-effects pooling of three studies (505 participants) with dichotomous interaction variables; the pooled OR = 4.11 was not statistically significant (P = 0.09), with I² = 0.78. Equivalence was not tested.

"In three studies utilizing dichotomous variables, no statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups, although relevant trends were evident (OR 4.11, 95% CI 0.79–21.35; P = 0.09; Table 5)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• BOPPPS teaching improves learning initiative compared with traditional teaching — related
• BOPPPS teaching improves learning retention skills compared with traditional teaching — related
• BOPPPS teaching improves clinical thinking ability 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 student satisfaction compared with traditional teaching — related