BOPPPS shows no significant improvement in problem-solving or critical thinking skills compared with traditional teaching¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesisr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Two studies reported no significant difference in problem-solving skills between the BOPPPS group and the control group (SMD 0.27, 95% CI -0.43–0.97, P = 0.45). → Zhu Jing 2025
q3 i? Two studies reported no significant improvement in critical thinking skills in the BOPPPS group (SMD 0.88, 95% CI -0.12–1.88, P = 0.08). → 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 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2
Random-effects pooling of two studies (196 participants) reporting problem-solving skill scores; pooled SMD = 0.27 was not statistically significant (P = 0.45), with I² = 0.83. Equivalence was not tested.
"Two studies reported scores related to problem-solving skills, with no significant difference observed between the BOPPPS group and the control group (SMD 0.27, 95% CI -0.43-0.97; P = 0.45; 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 two studies (420 participants) reporting critical thinking skill scores; pooled SMD = 0.88 was not statistically significant (P = 0.08), with I² = 0.95. Equivalence was not tested.
"Two studies reported scores related to critical thinking skills with no significant improvement observed within the BOPPPS group compared to the control group (SMD 0.88, 95% CI -0.12-1.88; P = 0.08; Table 5)."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Critical Thinking — outcome: instruction changes it
- Problem Solving — outcome: instruction changes it
Related Claims¶
- Blended BOPPPS teaching is associated with favorable subjective outcomes including autonomous learning, teamwork, and problem-solving ability — reports the opposite
- Subgroup analyses show some blended BOPPPS effects are not significant for specific specialties and platforms — related
- BOPPPS teaching improves analytical ability 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 learning initiative compared with traditional teaching — related
- BOPPPS teaching improves learning retention skills compared with traditional teaching — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.