Abstract
Background
Traditional pediatric dentistry education often emphasizes passive knowledge transmission over active learning, which insufficiently addresses students’ proactive learning experiences and the cultivation of lifelong learning competencies. To address this, the study proposes an innovative model that integrates BOPPPS and flipped classroom, designed to enhance motivation and learning efficacy.
Methods
A total of 150 undergraduate at fourth-year of dental students (M/F: 51/99, 21.66 ± 0.68 years old) from the 2023 and 2024 cohorts at the Xiangya Stomatology College of Central South University were assigned to the experimental group, while the 2021 and 2022 cohorts at fourth-year with a total of 145 students (M/F: 51/94,21.86 ± 1.04 years old) were served as the control. A questionnaire administered to the control group informed a comprehensive analysis of the learning situation, which was subsequently integrated into a BOPPPS-flipped classroom teaching design for the experimental group. The effectiveness of this reform was evaluated by comparing academic performance and administering a student self-reported satisfaction survey.
Results
The experimental group attained significantly higher scores in both regular examinations and final examinations compared with the control group (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the innovative teaching model was associated with high level of student satisfaction.
Conclusion
The integration of blended online and offline instruction within the BOPPPS-flipped classroom framework was linked to improvements in teaching outcome and student motivation in Pediatric Dentistry education.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12909-026-08752-4.
Keywords: BOPPPS model, Flipped classroom, Hybrid teaching, Pediatric dentistry, Teaching reform
Background
The flipped classroom model inverts the traditional lecture-based paradigm by shifting foundational knowledge acquisition to pre-class sessions and dedicating in-class time to interactive problem-solving, discussions, and immediate feedback [1]. The shift emphasizes the development of intrinsic motivation and self-directed learning skills [2]. Formally introduced by Baker (2000), the model redefines the instructor’s role from a lecturer to a facilitator of learning [3]. This approach aligns closely with the goal with medical education, which prioritizes the cultivation of lifelong learning and clinical competence [4]. Evidences indicates that the flipped classroom could enhance student engagement and teacher-student interaction [2, 5]. The flipped classroom approach in dental education yields a significant improvement in student learning and satisfaction compared with traditional teaching methods [6, 7]. However, its effectiveness depends heavily on consistent student preparation and the ability to actively participate in class [8]. Challenges remain for learners with underdeveloped self-regulation skills, potentially leading to uneven outcomes. Consequently, strategies to enhance students’ active participation remain a critical area for further investigation and improvement.
The BOPPPS (Bridge-in, Learning Objectives, Pre-Assessment, Participatory Learning, Post-Assessment, and Summary) instructional model is a structured framework designed to enhance classroom teaching through active engagement and real-time feedback [9].Grounded in cognitive and constructivist principles, it shifts the focus from passive reception to participatory learning, allowing educators to adjust instruction dynamically based on ingoing student input [10]. This model supports the use of diverse, visually oriented teaching methods to maintain student involvement [11]. BOPPPS model increased the interpretation of abstract ideas and theories in dental material course, while integrating diverse methods and resources into six phases will significantly enhance the teaching effectiveness of the BOPPPS model [12]. Combined flipped classroom with BOPPPS, for instance, through curated online case libraries and instructional videos, further promotes proactive learning. This integration has demonstrated potential in stimulating enthusiasm for learning, enhanced learning outcome, and cultivating high-quality applied talents at applied universities in the field of medical education and bioengineering [13–17].
Pediatric dentistry, a core component of the stomatology curriculum, focuses on the oral health of patients from birth to adolescence-a period encompassing the distinct developmental stages of deciduous, mixed, and permanent dentition [18]. The anatomical and physiological characteristics of children’s teeth, gingiva, and occlusion differ significantly from those of adults, presenting unique educational and clinical challenges [18, 19]. Pediatric dentistry demands precise motor skills, operation in a small oral cavity, and management of patient behavior due to disturbances, which increases the difficulty compared to adult dentistry [20, 21]. Furthermore, the course encompasses extensive and abstract content within a constrained schedule which compromises teaching and learning effectiveness [9]. Evidence suggests that to overcome key challenges in pediatric dentistry education, the BOPPPS model—particularly when combined with case-based learning in clerkships—effectively develops clinical reasoning and knowledge integration, while its flipped classroom adaptation offers a promising avenue for further outcome improvement [22]. This approach might help establish a visual, understandable, and systematic framework for promoting practical skills, clinical and research thinking in pediatric dentistry.
Therefore, this study purposes a pedagogical design for Pediatric dentistry education in undergraduate students. By embedding data-driven insights throughout BOPPPS instructional framework, instructors can more precisely identify individual learning needs, clinical reasoning gaps, and student engagement levels. Through interactive and scenario-based teaching strategies integrated with flipped classroom, this learner-centered model aims to enhance student motivation, promote a deeper understanding of core concepts and clinical competencies, and improve overall educational outcomes.
Methods
Ethics
The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Xiangya Stomatological Hospital of Central South University (approval number 20210094). This study was conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki, with informed consent obtained from all participating students, who were assured of the confidentiality of their data.
Teaching reform survey
A questionnaire survey was administered to undergraduate students from the 2021 and 2022 cohorts majoring in stomatology at the Xiangya Stomatology College of Central South University to assess their awareness and acceptance of the BOPPPS model and flipped classroom approach. The questionnaire [23] included sections on current understanding, willingness to participate, specific suggestions, self-perception, and assessment methods. A total of 145 questionnaires were distributed, 104 subjects were validly returned, an effective response rate of 71.7%.
The questionnaire survey conducted among the control group in this study constitutes a component of learning analytics dedicated to optimizing the teaching reform. The objective of pre-survey of learning analytics was to investigate students’ learning preferences, as well as their perceptions and attitudes toward the teaching reform, thereby providing scientific guidance for the implementation of the reform. The survey results indicated that students prefer to engage in course learning through interactive approaches such as case studies, situational simulations, and group discussions, which also provides empirical evidence for the emphasis on interactive teaching methods in the pedagogical reform.
Teaching reform practice
This was a cohort-based designed study. The experimental group comprised 150 fourth-year undergraduate stomatology students (2023 & 2024 cohorts) from Xiangya Stomatology College, Central South University. The control group consisted of 145 students from the same program (2021 & 2022 cohorts). While the control group received conventional traditional instruction, the experimental group was exposed to an redesigned curriculum that integrated the BOPPPS model within a flipped classroom framework, based on a preliminary analysis of students’ learning characteristics. The design of BOPPPS-flipped classroom hybrid curriculum was showed in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
Design of BOPPPS-Flipped classroom hybrid curriculum
Instructors participated in collective lesson preparation prior to teaching, with efforts made to standardize critical instructional and assessment variables (i.e., course hours teaching faculty, course content, question difficulty, and grading criteria) across the two cohorts. Nevertheless, potential changes in instructors’ teaching performance constituted an unavoidable confounding factor that was difficult to control.
Prior to class, instructional videos, cases studies, course slides, and relevant literature were distributed to support self-directed learning, along with clearly stated learning objectives and key points. A pre-assessment was administered to gauge students’ preliminary knowledge. During class sessions, diverse teaching strategies such as rain classroom platform, case-based discussions, group discussions, and scenario-based simulations were implemented to enhance students’ interest in learning. Both pre-assessments and post-assessments were conducted to monitor knowledge acquisition and improve classroom interaction rates. Mind mapping techniques were introduced to summarize key concepts and foster logical reasoning skills. Following each class, discussion topics, questions and answer sessions, and quizzes were used to reinforce knowledge retention. Students were also encouraged to review scientific literature and develop independent problem-solving skills, thereby cultivating research-oriented thinking.
Teaching effectiveness was assessed through comparative analysis of examination results.
Satisfactory survey
A satisfaction survey was administered to students in the experimental group using a validated questionnaire to evaluate their perceptions of the BOPPPS-flipped classroom approach. The content validity of the questionnaire was assessed by three experts (2 associate professor and 1 attending doctor), yielding a Content Validity Index of 0.855 for the Learning Satisfaction Scale. Responses were collected on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very dissatisfied, 3 = neutral, 5 = very satisfied), higher scores indicated greater satisfaction with the educational interventions on pressure injury prevention and management [24]. A total of 150 distributed questionnaires were returned, with 144 valid responses, resulting in an effective response rate of 96.0%.
Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics were presented as percentages and mean ± SD. Intergroup comparisons were performed using the nonparametric rank-sum test, while nonparametric rank-sum test and chi-square tests were applied for the analysis of baseline data. Significance thresholds were set as: p < 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism 9.5.3 and SPSS 26.
Results
Baseline comparison
A total of 295 undergraduate dental students at fourth-year participated in two sessions of the course, with 150 in Experimental group and 145 in Control group. There were no significant differences between two groups on baseline information, such as grade point average (GPA), gender and age (p > 0.05) (Table 1).
Table 1.
Comparison of the two groups at baseline
| Group | N | GPA (± s) |
Gender (M/F) |
Age (± s, years) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental group | 150 | 83.11 ± 4.53 | 51/99 | 21.66 ± 0.68 |
| Control group | 145 | 82.31 ± 5.09 | 51/94 | 21.86 ± 1.04 |
| Statistic | Z = 1.04 | χ2 = 0.05 | Z=-1.49 | |
| p | 0.29 | 0.83 | 0.13 |
Awareness and perceptions of the BOPPPS-flipped classroom models
Awareness of the flipped classroom and BOPPPS models was 97.12% and 23.07%, respectively. However, only 36.54% of the respondents expressed willingness to participate in related teaching reforms, with students in the “5 + 3” integrated stomatology program demonstrating greater openness than those in the “5” program. In terms of learning process engagement, 64.42% of students indicated that they were willing to devote less than 90 min to pre-class learning, in-class feedback, and assessment activities. Regarding self-study resources, PowerPoint presentations were the most preferred (79.81%), followed by instructional videos (57.69%) and professional textbooks (52.88%). When surveyed on preferred learning methods, 57.69% favored increased case-based learning, 43.27% preferred question-and-answer sessions, 33.65% opted group presentations and discussions, and 31.73% supported scenario-based games. In self-assessment of learning capabilities, 33.65% of students considered themselves to have strong self-directed learning abilities, with “5 + 3” program students again rating themselves higher than their “5” program. Detailed data on willingness to participate in reforms, specific suggestions, and self-assessment results are demonstrated in Table 2. The questionnaire for the control group served as learning analytics to inform teaching reform adjustments. It aimed to assess students’ learning preferences and their perceptions of the reform, guiding its implementation. Survey results showed students preferred case-based learning, situational simulation, and group discussions; thus, interactive methods were widely used in the reform.
Table 2.
Willingness to participate in teaching reform and suggestions
| Project | Items | “5” (n = 31) |
“5 + 3” (n = 73) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Understanding of the flipped classroom | Never heard of it | 1 (3.23%) | 2 (2.74%) |
| Heard of but not familiar with it | 3 (9.68%) | 17 (23.29%) | |
| Familiar with it but never participated in it | 3 (9.68%) | 3 (4.11%) | |
| Participated in it | 24 (77.41%) | 51 (69.86%) | |
| Understanding of BOPPPS teaching model | Never heard of it | 25 (80.64%) | 55 (75.34%) |
| Heard of but not familiar with it | 3 (9.68%) | 15 (20.55%) | |
| Familiar with it but never participated in it | 2 (6.45%) | 1 (1.37%) | |
| Participated in it | 1 (3.23%) | 2 (2.74%) | |
| Willingness to participate in BOPPPS- flipped classroom model | Very willing | 0 (0%) | 7 (9.59%) |
| Willing to try | 8 (25.81%) | 23 (31.51%) | |
| Reluctant to try | 5 (16.13%) | 21 (28.77%) | |
| Unwilling | 18 (58.06%) | 22 (30.13%) | |
| Time willing to spend on pre-class learning, classroom feedback, and assessment | <90 min | 20 (64.52%) | 47 (64.38%) |
| 90–120 min | 10 (32.25%) | 23 (31.51%) | |
| 120–180 min | 1 (3.23%) | 2 (2.74%) | |
| 180–240 min | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |
| >240 min | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.37%) | |
| Flipped Classroom + BOPPPS as a percentage of total course hours | <20% | 25 (80.65%) | 44 (60.27%) |
| 20%-39% | 6 (19.35%) | 20 (27.40%) | |
| 40%-59% | 0 (0%) | 7 (9.59%) | |
| 60%-79% | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.37%) | |
| 80%-100% | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.37%) | |
|
The choice of pre-class self-study methods (MCQ) |
Literature | 1(3.23%) | 24(32.88%) |
| Video | 18(58.10%) | 42(57.53%) | |
| PPT | 25(80.65%) | 58(79.45%) | |
| Professional textbooks | 17(54.84%) | 38(52.05%) | |
|
The choice of learning format (MCQ) |
Group discussion | 9(29.03%) | 26(35.62%) |
| Scenario simulations | 6(19.35%) | 27(36.99%) | |
| Case-based learning | 14(45.16%) | 46(63.01%) | |
| Questions and Answers | 17(54.84%) | 28(38.36%) | |
| Self-learning ability evaluation | Very good | 0 (0%) | 6 (8.22%) |
| Good | 6 (19.35%) | 23 (31.51%) | |
| Fair | 15 (48.39%) | 32 (43.84%) | |
| Poor | 10 (32.26%) | 12 (16.43%) | |
| Self-discipline in learning | Very good | 0 (0%) | 4 (5.48%) |
| Good | 7 (22.58%) | 21 (28.77%) | |
| Fair | 13 (41.94%) | 33 (45.21%) | |
| Poor | 11 (35.48%) | 15 (20.54%) | |
| Scoring scheme for the BOPPPS-flipped classroom | 20% | 25 (80.65%) | 44 (60.27%) |
| 40% | 2 (6.45%) | 15 (20.55%) | |
| 60% | 0 (0%) | 3 (4.11%) | |
| 80% | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.74%) | |
| Abolish the traditional closed-book examination model | 4 (12.90%) | 9 (12.33%) |
(MCQ): Multiple-choice question
Practice of BOPPPS-flipped classroom teaching reform
Guided by the findings from pre-survey of the students, the teaching and research team redesigned 20% of the course learning content. The specific details regarding the implementation of the pedagogical reform were described in the Methods section. Based on student feedback, classroom performance, participation, and assignments completion, this component contributed 20% to the final grade. Throughout the reform process, teaching designs were iteratively refined according to ongoing student input, supervisory feedback, and peer evaluation.
BOPPPS-flipped classroom reform was linked to improved learning outcome
The experimental group achieved significant higher scores than the control group, with mean regular academic grades (74.63 ± 9.97 vs. 67.66 ± 12.26) and final exam scores (80.98 ± 6.23 vs. 77.68 ± 7.22), respectively (p < 0.05). Detailed results are presented in Table 3 for details.
Table 3.
Comparison of grades between two groups (
, points)
| Group | N | Regular academic grades | Final grades |
|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental group | 150 | 74.63 ± 9.97 | 80.98 ± 6.24 |
| Control group | 145 | 67.66 ± 12.26 | 77.68 ± 7.22 |
| Statistic | Z = 4.20 | Z = 5.01 | |
| p | <0.00 | <0.00 |
The distribution of final grades for dental students across four academic years is presented in Fig. 2. A comparison with the control group reveals that the experimental group underwent a positive transition toward higher scores, characterized by a reduction in students scoring below 79 and a rise in those scoring 80 and above.
Fig. 2.
Distribution range of final grades in the 2021–2024 academic years
Scores in the experimental group leaned toward higher intervals when compared with those in the control group (Fig. 2). When the groups were further divided into specializations, complete results were showed in Figure Supplementary 1–2 for details. In general, students in the “5” year program experimental group attained significantly higher scores on both regular and final examinations than their control group counterparts (p < 0.05). Similarly, “5 + 3” integrated program students in the experimental group also demonstrated significant improvement over controls.
The considerable satisfaction with the BOPPPS-flipped classroom reform
The details information about satisfactory survey was demonstrated in Table 4. Satisfaction survey conducted in the experimental group yielded an overall score of 4.29 ± 0.76 (rated on a 5-point scale), indicating a high level of approval. Notably, students reported strong satisfaction with the use of images, videos, case studies, scenario-based games, and group discussions, which effectively enhanced the learning interest and classroom participation. Students’ feedback indicated that the educational innovation was associated with promoting learning motivation, cultivating clinical and scientific research thinking, and enhancing clinical proficiency. Additionally, students proposed several improvements for future teaching reforms, including optimizing course content, providing teacher training, and clarifying assessment criteria.
Table 4.
Satisfactory survey results of BOPPPS-flipped classroom reform in pediatric dentistry 
| Items | Satisfaction score |
|---|---|
| Overall satisfaction with teaching | 4.29 ± 0.76 |
| The design of the syllabus is well-organized | 4.21 ± 0.84 |
| I think that images and videos make it easier for me to remember the course content | 4.40 ± 0.70 |
| I think the case studies, scenario-based games, and group discussions are attractive and valuable forms of learning | 4.10 ± 0.94 |
| I think the curriculum reform has allowed me to enhance my dental professional skills | 4.37 ± 0.73 |
| I think the course can increase my interest in learning and participation. | 4.24 ± 0.79 |
| I think this course will enhance my clinical thinking and scientific research thinking. | 4.21 ± 0.82 |
Discussion
This study highlights the potential and current limitations applying the flipped classroom and BOPPPS instructional models in pediatric dentistry education. Although both approaches have proven effective in various certain public and foundational courses [15, 17, 25, 26], their integration into the dental curriculum remains insufficient. Survey results reveal disparities in students’ awareness and engagement with the two models: the flipped classroom is relatively well-recognized but lacks standardized norms in practical application, whereas familiarity with the BOPPPS model was minimal, reflects inadequate promotion efforts and insufficient pedagogical penetration in stomatology courses. This finding highlights the disjunction between the innovation of teaching concepts and clinical teaching practice, emphasizing the need for systematic instructional reform.
The flipped classroom model redefines the traditional learning structure by encouraging students to acquire foundational content before class and devote classroom time to interactive, problem-solving activities [5, 25, 27]. This shift transforms students from passive recipients into active participants, promoting engagement, autonomy, and critical thinking. However, the smooth implementation of this model requires precise balance: excessive pre-class workloads may discourage participation and hinder learning motivation. Consistent with the previous studies [5, 27, 28], the current findings show that students prefer concise, well-structured preparatory resources and a moderate proportion of flipped sessions. Therefore, course designers should tailor the model to student capacity and provide progressive scaffolding to ensure smooth adaptation. Instructors play a central role in this process: they must design clear learning objectives, prepare high-quality online materials, and evaluate students’ readiness through diagnostic assessments. Notably, the use of micro-lectures for pre-class learning has proven effective in medical education contexts [8]. Survey feedback similarly indicated students’ preference for PowerPoint slides, instructional videos, and case studies as tools for pre-class preparation and post-class review to facilitate knowledge comprehension and skill transfer.
The BOPPPS model offers a structured, feedback-oriented framework that emphasizes the cyclical connection between teaching and learning [13]. Centered on formative assessment, this model enables real-time monitoring of learning progress and immediate instructional adjustment [10]. When integrated into dental education, BOPPPS improve interactive learning, clinical reasoning, and reflective practice. However, the effectiveness of its application depends on instructors’ understanding of its pedagogical logic and their ability to contextualize it within specific course objectives and student characteristics. The survey results revealed that many students encountered BOPPPS only in early elective courses, indicating its peripheral status in dentistry training. Thus, a major challenge lies in embedding its principles consistently across the curriculum.
Integrating the flipped classroom and BOPPPS models can generate complementary effects. The flipped classroom facilitates pre-class preparation and active participation, while BOPPPS structures in-class activities through targeted objectives, assessments, and reflection. Students in the experimental group reported high satisfaction with the integrated model, particularly regarding its positive influence on self-directed learning, teamwork, clinical reasoning, and patient–doctor communication [15]. Moreover, their performance in both continuous and final assessments surpassed that of the control group, underscoring the model’s capacity to enhance learning outcomes. These findings align with previous research indicating that interactive, student-centered designs improve both cognitive and practical competencies in medical education [8, 14, 29].
Based on historical control data, the potential confounders including student demographics, and prior GPA were adjusted, the experimental group achieved higher scores compared to the control group in the pediatric dentistry education. Despite these encouraging results, differences in student adaptability were evident. Approximately 70% of “5 + 3” program students expressed willingness to adopt the integrated model, compared with lower acceptance among “5” program students. The former group also demonstrated higher self-assessments of learning and self-management abilities, suggesting that longer or more advanced training programs may better prepare students for innovative teaching approaches. This variation highlights the necessity of tailoring implementation strategies to students’ readiness and learning habits. Gradual introduction, guided practice, and ongoing instructor support are essential to building confidence and promoting sustained engagement. To promote the active and effective participation of students, instructors can flexibly incorporate tools such as Rain classroom, case-based discussions, group tasks, and scenario simulations to enhance engagement and conceptual understanding. Students also expressed a need for more instructional hours, earlier clinical exposure, and better scheduling of assessments. Most favored moderate weighting of new evaluation methods while retaining traditional exams. An effective assessment system should balance accuracy, feasibility, and motivation without imposing excessive workloads. Practically, evaluation can be embedded across the learning cycle: pre-class self-assessment, in-class feedback, and post-class tasks such as open-book tests or essays, introduced incrementally and refined based on ongoing feedback [26].
Overall, the integration of BOPPPS and the flipped classroom models represents a promising direction for reforming pediatric dentistry education. The model depends on aligning teaching innovation with learner characteristics, faculty preparedness, and institutional support. Gradual, evidence-based implementation allows both instructors and students to adapt effectively, ensuring that active learning becomes a sustainable component of the curriculum. Future efforts should prioritize optimizing instructional design, enhancing delivery quality, refining assessment systems, and strengthening mentorship to guide students toward greater autonomy and professional competence. Ultimately, this pedagogical transformation aims not only to improve immediate learning outcomes but also to cultivate reflective, self-directed, and clinically capable practitioners equipped for the evolving demands of modern healthcare.
Limitations and future improvements
The current study involved students from 2021 to 2024, and employed distinct cohorts as the experimental and control group respectively, which has certain limitations. First, inherent differences may exist in learning approaches and outcomes across different student cohorts. Secondly, teachers’ instructional competence may fluctuate over time. Thirdly, the novelty effect of new teaching methods on students could also exert a potential impact on learning outcomes. These confounding factors might be difficult to fully quantify and control in this study, which could affect the accuracy of the findings. Future studies will focus on implementing the intervention within the same cohort across semesters, allowing for longitudinal comparison and better control of extraneous variables, thereby enhancing the reliability of the conclusions.
Conclusions
The experimental groups demonstrated significantly higher scores on both regular and final examinations compared to the 2021 and 2022 control cohorts, at the same time, the students from experimental group shared high satisfaction with the BOPPPS-flipped classroom model in Pediatric dentistry course. BOPPPS-flipped classroom approach may be associated with improved learning outcome and student motivation in dental education.
Supplementary Information
Acknowledgements
The students and teachers who participated in this study and providing feedback on their experiences.
Abbreviations
- BOPPPS
Bridge-in, Objective, Pre-assessment, Participatory Learning, Post-assessment, Summary
- GPA
Grade point average
- MCQ
Multiple-choice question
Authors’ contributions
XQ and TL contributed to project administration, data collection, analysis, and manuscript writing. SL, YH, and FL contributed to questionnaire survey and data analysis. JL and YY contributed to the design of the study and manuscript revisions. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
This study was supported by Hunan Province Undergraduate Teaching Reform Research Project (202401000357), Hunan University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Teaching Reform Research Project (approved in 2023, principal investigator: Li Tongjun).
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Xiangya Stomatological Hospital of Central South University (approval number 20210094). All participants provided written informed consent to participate.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Xili Qiu and Tongjun Li contributed equally to this work and are co-first author of this article.
Contributor Information
Jing Liu, Email: liujing2018@csu.edu.cn.
Yang Yu, Email: 1462402831@qq.com.
References
- 1.Chen Y, Chiu Y, Yu C, Chang Y, Chen Y. Flipped classroom teaching model with video instruction improves skills in local anesthesia training. J Dent Sci. 2024;19(2):1070–4. 10.1016/j.jds.2024.02.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Shi X, Lu B, Yin Q, Wang Q, Fang Y, Sun Z. Whether case-based teaching combined with the flipped classroom is more valuable than traditional lecture-based teaching methods in clinical medical education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med Educ. 2025;25(1):906. 10.1186/s12909-025-07465-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Lage MJ, Platt GJ, Treglia M. Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. J Econ Educ. 2000;31(1):30–43. 10.1080/00220480009596759. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Chang C, Panjaburee P, Lin H, Lai C, Hwang G. Effects of online strategies on students’ learning performance, self-efficacy, self-regulation and critical thinking in university online courses. Education Tech Research Dev. 2022;70(1):185–204. 10.1007/s11423-021-10071-y. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Gutiérrez-González R, Royuela A, Zamarron A. Student engagement in a flipped undergraduate medical classroom to measure optimal video-based lecture length. Med Educ Online. 2025;30(1):2479752. 10.1080/10872981.2025.2479752. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Baherimoghadam T, Naseri N, Tabesh A, Hamedani S, Mousavi SF. The influence of learning styles on the efficacy of flipped classroom in dental education. BMC Med Educ. 2025;25(1). 10.1186/s12909-025-07916-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 7.Hew KF, Lo CK. Flipped classroom improves student learning in health professions education: a meta-analysis. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1). 10.1186/s12909-018-1144-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 8.van Alten DCD, Phielix C, Janssen J, Kester L. Self-regulated learning support in flipped learning videos enhances learning outcomes. Comput Educ. 2020;158:104000. 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104000. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Shen M, Wan P, Feng Z. Action research on implementing the BOPPPS model in teaching mechanical prophylaxis techniques for deep vein thrombosis. BMC Nurs. 2025;24(1):311. 10.1186/s12912-025-02983-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Xu Z, Che X, Yang X, Wang X. Application of the hybrid BOPPPS teaching model in clinical internships in gynecology. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):465. 10.1186/s12909-023-04455-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Zhu J, Xiao H, Zhou R, Gan X, Gou Q, Tie H. The efficacy of the BOPPPS teaching model in clinical and health education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med Educ. 2025;25(1):997. 10.1186/s12909-025-07274-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Yang Y, You J, Wu J, Hu C, Shao L. The effect of microteaching combined with the BOPPPS model on dental materials education for predoctoral dental students. J Dent Educ. 2019;83(5):567–74. 10.21815/jde.019.068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Li S, Liu Q, Guo S, Li Y, Chen F, Wang C, Wang M, Liu J, Liu X, Wang D, et al. Research on the application of the blended BOPPPS based on an online and offline mixed teaching model in the course of fermentation engineering in applied universities. Biochem Mol Biol Educ. 2023;51(3):244–53. 10.1002/bmb.21716. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Cheng W, He L, Cai J, Fan X. Hybrid BOPPPS model in radiology education: a case study of pediatric undergraduates. BMC Med Educ. 2025;25(1):688. 10.1186/s12909-025-07279-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Wei L, Yu X, Wang Y, Shan N. Application of BOPPPS and flipped classroom joint teaching model into clinical practice ability of obstetrics and gynecology residents in standardized training. BMC Med Educ. 2025;25(1):655. 10.1186/s12909-025-07246-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Luo B, Zhou F, Zheng J, Hu W, Lv Z, Yang Z, Feng X. Application of the flipped classroom combined with BOPPPS model in standardized residency training for Gastrointestinal surgery. BMC Med Educ. 2025;25(1). 10.1186/s12909-025-07855-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 17.Siqiang L, Kun H, Quanlan L, Jie Z, Shumin W, Li H, Yun L, Fujia C, Hongwei G, Mingcheng W, et al. Innovative integration of the W + Flipped classroom and B + BOPPPS teaching models for enhanced learning outcomes. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):1050. 10.1186/s12909-024-06034-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Rodríguez-Olivos LHG, Chacón-Uscamaita PR, Quinto-Argote AG, Pumahualcca G, Pérez-Vargas LF. Deleterious oral habits related to vertical, transverse and sagittal dental malocclusion in pediatric patients. BMC Oral Health. 2022;22(1). 10.1186/s12903-022-02122-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 19.Cheng F, Huang G, Wang Y, Chang H, Wang S, Guo M, Chiang C. The implication of integrating pediatric education into a pediatric dentistry course for undergraduate dental students. J Dent Sci. 2023;18(4):1794–803. 10.1016/j.jds.2023.05.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.McNutt DE, Wells MH, DeSchepper EJ, Scarbecz M. Dental students and recent dental graduates’ perceptions of preparedness in treating pediatric patients. J Dent Educ. 2022;87(4):548–61. 10.1002/jdd.13147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Annamma LM, Varma SR, Abuttayem H, Prasad P, Azim SA, Odeh R, George BT, Nair C, Karobari MI. Current challenges in dental education- a scoping review. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24(1):1523. 10.1186/s12909-024-06545-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Lu J, Wu R, Zhu L, Zhao L, Zhao W, Ma L. Application of the BOPPPS combined with CBL method in clinical clerkship of pediatric dentistry. BMC Med Educ. 2025;25(1). 10.1186/s12909-025-07967-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 23.Zheng B, Zhang Y. Self-regulated learning: the effect on medical student learning outcomes in a flipped classroom environment. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(1). 10.1186/s12909-020-02023-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 24.Chao W, Liao W. Long-term effects of flipped learning on nurses’ self-efficacy and satisfaction in pressure injury management: A multi-center quasi-experimental study. Nurse Educ Pract. 2025;85:104368. 10.1016/j.nepr.2025.104368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Lin GSS, Tan W, Tan H, Khoo C, Afrashtehfar KI. Innovative pedagogical strategies in health professions education: active learning in dental materials science. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(3):2041. 10.3390/ijerph20032041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Yao Q, Cheng Y, Wang W, Yu X. Human anatomy curriculum reform for undergraduate nursing students: an exploratory study. Clin Anat. 2024;37(5):522–33. 10.1002/ca.24142. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Wang A, Xiao R, Zhang C, Yuan L, Lin N, Yan L, Wang Y, Yu J, Huang Q, Gan P, et al. Effectiveness of a combined problem-based learning and flipped classroom teaching method in ophthalmic clinical skill training. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):487. 10.1186/s12909-022-03538-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Pan L, Tlili A, Li J, Jiang F, Shi G, Yu H, Yang J. How to implement Game-Based learning in a smart classroom? A model based on a systematic literature review and Delphi method. Front Psychol. 2021;12. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.749837. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 29.Zhou Y, Zhang D, Guan X, Pan Q, Deng S, Yu M. Application of WeChat-based flipped classroom on root Canal filling teaching in a preclinical endodontic course. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):138. 10.1186/s12909-022-03189-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.