BOPPPS teaching improves learning initiative compared with traditional teaching¶

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 Four studies with continuous measures showed significant improvement in learning initiative in the BOPPPS group (SMD 0.73, 95% CI 0.48–0.98, P < 0.001). → Zhu Jing 2025 q3 i2 Three studies with dichotomous variables also showed a significant difference between the groups (OR 3.65, 95% CI 1.17–11.41, P = 0.03). → 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 four studies (595 participants) with continuous learning-initiative measures; pooled effect size SMD = 0.73 (95% CI 0.48–0.98), with I² = 0.5 reported in Table 5.

"Four studies employed continuous variables. These studies demonstrated a significant improvement in learning initiative within the BOPPPS group compared to the control group (SMD 0.73, 95% CI 0.48–0.98; 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 · i2 · quant-synthesis · r2

Random-effects pooling of three studies (579 participants) with dichotomous learning-initiative variables, effect size OR = 3.65 (95% CI 1.17–11.41), I² = 0.56, favoring BOPPPS.

"In three studies utilizing dichotomous variables, a significant difference was also observed between the two groups (OR 3.65, 95% CI 1.17–11.41; P = 0.03; Table 5)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• BOPPPS teaching improves classroom interaction on continuous measures, with a non-significant trend on dichotomous measures — related
• BOPPPS teaching significantly improves final examination scores compared with traditional teaching in undergraduate clinical and health education — related
• BOPPPS teaching improves learning retention skills compared with traditional teaching — related
• BOPPPS teaching improves analytical ability compared with traditional teaching — related
• BOPPPS teaching improves student satisfaction compared with traditional teaching — related
• 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 effects on self-study ability diverge by measure type: null on continuous, significant on dichotomous measures — related