BOPPPS teaching improves student satisfaction 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 Two studies with continuous satisfaction measures showed substantial improvement in the BOPPPS group (SMD 0.94, 95% CI 0.63–1.26, P < 0.001). → Zhu Jing 2025 q3 i2 Three studies with dichotomous satisfaction variables also showed a statistically significant difference favoring BOPPPS (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.18–4.49, P = 0.01). → 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 (175 participants) using continuous satisfaction measures, reported in Table 5 with I² = 0. The pooled effect size was SMD = 0.94 (95% CI 0.63–1.26), favoring the BOPPPS group.

"Two studies employed continuous variables, indicating a substantial improvement within the BOPPPS group concerning student satisfaction when compared to the control group (SMD 0.94, 95% CI 0.63–1.26; 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 (929 participants) reporting satisfaction as dichotomous variables, with effect size OR = 2.31 (95% CI 1.18–4.49) and I² = 0.42, favoring the BOPPPS group.

"Three studies with dichotomous variables also showed statistically significant differences between the two groups (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.18–4.49; P = 0.01; Table 5)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Blended BOPPPS teaching is associated with higher classroom satisfaction than LBL — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• 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 analytical ability compared with traditional teaching — related
• BOPPPS teaching improves classroom interaction on continuous measures, with a non-significant trend on dichotomous measures — related
• BOPPPS teaching improves clinical thinking ability compared with traditional teaching — related