Skip to main content
Download PDF

Innovative integration of the “W + Flipped Classroom” and “B + BOPPPS” teaching models for enhanced learning outcomes

BMC Medical Education volume 24, Article number: 1050 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

With the demand for more effective and engaging teaching strategies in higher education, there is an imperative to blend traditional and innovative methods to optimize student learning outcomes. To address this educational need, this study sets out to design and evaluate a hybrid learning approach that integrates a flipped classroom based on working process systematization (termed “W + flipped classroom”) teaching design with blended online and offline methods based on the BOPPPS (bridge-in, objective/outcome, preassessment, participatory learning, post assessment, summary, termed “B + BOPPPS”) teaching model and explore its application effects in the field of biological separation engineering.

Methods

The undergraduate class of 2020 majoring in biomedical engineering from Huanghuai University was designated the control group (n = 74), while the undergraduate class of 2021 was chosen as the experimental group (n = 79). The control group received traditional teaching methods. The experimental group adopted the integrated “W + flipped classroom” and B + BOPPPS teaching models. After the conclusion of the teaching period, comparisons were made between the two groups in terms of course objective achievement, academic performance, and critical thinking skills. A survey was distributed to assess learning effectiveness. Semistructured interviews were conducted with teachers and students from the experimental group to evaluate teaching effectiveness.

Results

The integrated “W + flipped classroom” and B + BOPPPS teaching models significantly improved the academic performance and critical thinking skills of the experimental group. The teaching evaluation revealed high levels of acceptance among both teachers and students, along with improved satisfaction with the teaching methodology.

Conclusion

The integration of the “W + flipped classroom” teaching design with the “B + BOPPPS” teaching model provides a scientific foundation for future teaching reforms. This study serves as a valuable reference for implementing the OBE philosophy, enhancing learning outcomes, achieving engineering education accreditation, and cultivating high-quality applied talents in the field of bioengineering at applied universities.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

“Biological separation engineering” (BSE) is a mandatory professional course fundamental for various undergraduate programs in China, including life sciences, biological engineering, traditional Chinese medicine, food science, and pharmaceutical sciences [1,2,3]. Furthermore, BSE serves as a pivotal course, aiding students in honing their abilities to analyze and address complex engineering issues spanning diverse disciplines and subsystems. For example, BSE encompasses chemical engineering, biochemistry, general engineering principles, and equipment, highlighting its comprehensive and interdisciplinary nature [4]. The BSE curriculum includes topics such as pretreatment of fermentation broth, cell separation and fragmentation, precipitation, membrane separation, extraction, chromatography, crystallization, and drying [5, 6]. The aim of BSE is to enhance students’ knowledge, skills, and abilities in the field of biological separation. BSE not only covers the concepts, principles, advantages, disadvantages, and influencing factors of different separation methods but also integrates numerous formulas, presenting a substantial challenge for both teaching and learning [4, 7]. The course maintains a strong correlation between theory and practice, necessitating students’ internalization of theoretical knowledge and its effective application in practical situations [4, 7].Therefore, BSE continues to be a challenging professional course with a significant scope for improving educational and teaching outcomes while leading the way in educational and teaching reform research. In China, BSE serves not only as a mandatory professional course for bioengineering students, connecting diverse curricular components but also as a critical component in shaping a modern engineering curriculum system and an engineering education accreditation framework [1, 3].This plays a crucial role in fostering top-tier professional talent.

Currently, the traditional lecture-based teaching model prevails in BSE classes in China, posing two significant challenges in teaching and learning. First, traditional teaching design fails to align with job requirements [8,9,10,11]. The traditional teaching design sequentially covers categories, structures, contents, methods, and the organization of knowledge. Traditional teaching design boasts close vertical connectivity and a systematic organization of chapters and sections, facilitating students’ knowledge retention based on their individual cognitive frameworks. However, this approach suffers from a lack of horizontal connectivity between chapter contents and inadequate cultivation of students’ knowledge application abilities. Additionally, the BSE content closely aligns with the latest bioengineering trends, guaranteeing timely knowledge updates. Consequently, traditional teaching design falls short of meeting job requirements. Second, the traditional teaching model lacks efficiency and presents challenges in implementing a student-centered approach [12,13,14]. Teaching and demonstrating basic knowledge and technology consume significant time, leading to a predominantly teacher-centered class with limited opportunities for student practice. This results in superficial internalization and application of after-class knowledge. Furthermore, the traditional teaching model imposes limitations on class time. Additionally, low student participation and a passive learning approach in traditional classrooms hinder the rapid development of knowledge structures and the understanding of complex problems, resulting in suboptimal learning outcomes. Moreover, the assessment methods of the traditional teaching model pose challenges in obtaining timely feedback regarding teaching effectiveness.

To support China’s rapidly developing new economy and foster innovative engineering talent, the Ministry of Education has proposed the establishment of “new engineering” to comprehensively innovate and reform engineering education in higher learning institutions [15, 16]. Simultaneously, since 2016, the China Engineering Education Accreditation Body’s formal membership in the Washington Agreement has introduced new standards for engineering education in China [17]. These standards necessitate universities to produce graduates who can adeptly adapt to the demands of the job market. One current debate is that undergraduate students majoring in bioengineering at applied universities struggle to adapt to the rapid development of China’s bioengineering industry [1,2,3,4]. A significant reason for this is the failure to implement the Outcome-Based Education (OBE) philosophy, leading to suboptimal learning outcomes [7, 9, 12]. The primary objective of this study is to develop and implement a hybrid learning approach that combines a flipped classroom model, grounded in working process systematization (termed “W + Flipped classroom”), with a blended online and offline teaching method based on the BOPPPS model (termed “B + BOPPPS”). The aim is to investigate the effectiveness of this integrated teaching strategy in improving learning outcomes using the “Bioseparation Engineering” course as an example. This will ultimately provide valuable insights for implementing the OBE philosophy, enhancing learning outcomes, achieving engineering education accreditation, and cultivating high-quality applied talents in the field of bioengineering at applied universities.

Subjects and methods

Participants

In this study, undergraduate bioengineering students from the 2020 class at Huanghuai University composed the control group, whereas those from the 2021 class composed the experimental group. The control group included 75 students, and the experimental group comprised 79 students. Regarding teaching, both groups maintained consistency in terms of teacher qualifications, course content, teaching duration, textbooks, and course outlines, thus ensuring balanced research conditions.

Methodology

There were no significant differences between the two groups of students in terms of their general demographic characteristics or curriculum arrangements (P > 0.05). Prior to the start of the course, both the control and experimental groups were administered a standardized pre-test to evaluate their baseline knowledge of the subject matter. The pre-test consisted of questions that were aligned with the course objectives and were designed to be representative of the content that would be covered during the semester. The results of the pre-test indicated no significant difference in prior knowledge between the two groups (P > 0.05), suggesting that the groups were equivalent in terms of their initial understanding of the course content.

Control group

The control group, consisting of undergraduate bioengineering students from the 2020 class at Huanghuai University, was instructed using a traditional expository teaching method. This method involved a structured academic semester, which was 16 weeks in duration, with a total of 48 sessions, with 32 theoretical classes meeting weekly for 2 h over 16 weeks, and 16 practical classes held bi-weekly for 2 h over the same period.

Pre-class activities

There were no pre-class learning activities scheduled for the control group. The focus was on in-class instruction.

In-class activities

During class, the primary mode of instruction involved teachers delivering lectures, with students passively absorbing theoretical knowledge. The teaching approach heavily relied on oral explanations and blackboard writing. To ensure engagement, teachers provided immediate supervision to students who might have been less focused, which was integral to the teaching process.

Post-class activities

Following the class sessions, the learning activities were limited, with homework assignments given a few times throughout the semester. These assignments were designed to reinforce the material covered in class.

Online teaching resources

The control group had access to an online teaching platform that offered a wealth of learning resources. This platform was intended to support independent study and knowledge reinforcement outside of the traditional classroom setting. While the online component was introduced to supplement the learning experience, the core of the teaching method remained centered on the traditional, in-person instructional approach, with online teaching serving as an auxiliary tool.

By maintaining this structured schedule and methodological approach, we ensured that the control group’s teaching conditions were consistent with the experimental group, thus providing balanced research conditions for comparison.

Experimental group

The experimental group, consisting of undergraduate bioengineering students from the 2021 class at Huanghuai University, was instructed using an innovative teaching method, which will be detailed in the subsequent sections. Similar to the control group, the experimental group’s academic semester was structured over a 16-week period, encompassing a total of 48 sessions. This included 32 theoretical classes that met weekly for 2 h over the 16-week period, as well as 16 practical classes, which were also held bi-weekly for 2 h each, totalling the same duration as the control group.

  1. (1)

    “W + flipped classroom” Teaching Design

Course development based on working process systematization

Course development based on working process systematization is outlined as follows (refer to Fig. 1). First, based on the fundamental principle of systematizing work processes, four distinct learning contexts were established in relation to the cellular locations of biological products. These contexts include the separation of cell products, cell wall products, extracellular products, and intracellular products. Second, the learning steps align with the “purification” job steps, encompassing task analysis, process design, initial process assessment, process optimization, process execution, and final process evaluation. Third, a frame of reference is established that progresses from easier to more challenging learning contexts, ensuring a gradual increase in difficulty. Fourth, students are empowered to apply their knowledge to practical work assignments, resulting in the creation of products that adhere to the established work process.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Course development of BSE based on work process systematization

Full size image

Integrating the concept of the flipped classroom

Evidently, students actively engage in learning, while teachers serve as guides, following the learning steps outlined in the BSE course development rooted in work process systematization.

These steps align with the three key components of the flipped classroom model. The teaching scheme is tailored to the learning context, incorporating flipped strategies to direct students’ learning in authentic scenarios and projects. The students are guided through six structured learning steps, referred to as flipped activities. Therefore, BSE course development grounded in work process systematization constitutes a flipped classroom approach, specifically referred to as the “W + flipped classroom” (illustrated in Fig. 2). The teaching design of the “W + flipped classroom” transforms a traditional passive learning environment into an active learning setting, aligning with the demands of relevant professional fields. Xiang Xianhua group taking the course “Enterprise Value Assessment” as an example, introduced how the teaching reform of “W + Flipped Classroom” improved students’ problem-solving abilities and better achieved the goal of cultivating applied talents [18]. Besides, Cai Shuangshuang using the course Marketing as an example, demonstrated how the teaching reform of “W + Flipped Classroom” enhanced student participation [19]. Teachers should primarily prepare by: developing a substantial collection of MOOC resources; motivating students to participate in every stage of the learning process, encompassing task analysis, process design, initial process assessment, process optimization, process execution, and final process evaluation; promptly recognizing and encouraging excellence while bolstering those who need support; conducting thorough post-activity summaries and consolidations. Seven learning projects are set in four learning contexts of the “W + flipped classroom” teaching design (Table S1 in the supporting information), and students are required to study in groups and write experimental reports according to the learning steps.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Teaching design diagram of the “W + flipped classroom”

Full size image
  1. (2)

    “B + BOPPPS” Teaching Model

The concept of the BOPPPS teaching model meets the standards of engineering education certification and has been introduced and applied in more than 100 universities across 33 countries [20,21,22]. The core of this teaching mode lies in its teaching design, which is grounded in teaching objectives. All teaching activities revolve around achieving students’ learning objectives and encompass six key modules: bridge-in (B), objective (O), preassessment (P1), participatory learning (P2), postassessment (P3), and summary (S). The bridge-in aims to capture students’ attention and link learning content with their interests. Learning objectives are set to ensure the clarity of what students should accomplish after completing their studies. Preassessment involves testing students to analyze their learning status and prepare for subsequent teaching adjustments. Participatory learning comprises a range of engaging teaching activities that form the backbone of classroom instruction. Postassessment checks whether students have met their learning goals, and the summary reviews what they have learned. The BOPPPS model adheres to the teaching cycle process by effectively organizing classroom instruction and gathering feedback. To implement the teaching design of a “W + flipped classroom”, the teaching process integrates online and offline teaching modes with the BOPPPS teaching model, which optimizes the sequences, namely, “B + BOPPPS” (Fig. 3). Online learning takes Chinese universities’ massive open online courses (MOOCs) as the platform and establishes an independent small private online course (SPOC) as the online resource for students’ online learning. Exercise question banks and discussion question banks are created in the MOOC platform to assist with students’ offline learning. This paper outlines the application of the “B + BOPPPS” teaching model to achieve the “W + Flipped classroom” design in practical settings. An outline of the “B + BOPPPS” teaching model for a lecture is listed in Table S2 in the supporting information, which includes “Removing proteins from capsular polysaccharide derived from Streptococcus pneumoniae by salt-out precipitation” derived from learning project 1 of learning context 2 as an example.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Teaching model diagram of “B + BOPPPS”

Full size image

Before class

Teachers release resources in advance for students to clarify learning objectives, engage in online learning, and fulfill assigned tasks (see Fig. 3). All learning activities revolve around achieving the learning objective (O). Thus, we rearranged the BOPPPS teaching model, prioritizing the learning objective (O). Once the learning objective (O) is clear, students proceed with online learning, submit test questions, and complete a portion of the preassessment (P1). This allows for an analysis of the preclass learning situation and preparation for in-class teaching adjustments. Meanwhile, to fulfill the technological tasks assigned by their teachers, students engage in independent learning, collaborating in groups on the “task analysis” and “technological design” steps of the “W + flipped classroom” (see Fig. 3).

During class

First, creating a contextual backdrop to pique students’ interest in learning and smoothly integrating it into classroom instruction (B) is crucial. Second, the “preliminary process assessment” step of the “W + flipped classroom” is conducted via group mutual assessments and teacher feedback (see Fig. 3). This module not only fulfills the preassessment (P1) but also lays the groundwork for deeper learning analysis, flexible in-class adjustments, process clarification, understanding of job responsibility, and preparation for subsequent studies. Third, participatory learning (P2) ensues. By utilizing the “process optimization” step of the “W + flipped classroom”, students tackle challenging theoretical problems and apply their expertise to crafting and refining experimental designs (see Fig. 3). Fourth, students undertake the “process implementation” step of the “W + flipped classroom”, blending theory with practice to validate their learning and further their participatory engagement (P2) (see Fig. 3). Fifth, the “process evaluation” step of the “W + flipped classroom” involves student mutual assessments and teacher feedback to appraise the overall implementation outcomes, highlighting the challenging and advanced nature of the work. This module doubles as the posttest (P3) for assessing in-class implementation and learning objective achievement (see Fig. 3).

After class

Teachers summarize the course content using a knowledge framework and assist students in reviewing detailed knowledge points (S). To further assess learning objectives, a postassessment (P3) was conducted through after-school tests that highlighted advanced issues, challenges, and innovations. (See Fig. 3). Simultaneously, homework assignments were given to reinforce learning and enhance performance. Furthermore, the Questionnaire Star survey was utilized to assess learning effectiveness, provide guidance during the learning process, evaluate reflection, identify areas for improvement, and track progress.

Evaluation of learning outcomes

To assess learning outcomes, standardized assessments, the CTDI-CV critical thinking scale, a questionnaire, and semistructured interviews were utilized. The assessment instruments evaluated students’ course goal achievement, critical thinking abilities, course satisfaction, and qualitative feedback from both students and teachers. GraphPad Prism 8.0 facilitated data analysis, providing insights into the effectiveness of the implemented teaching methods.

  1. (1)

    Analysis of Basic Performance and Attainment of Course Goals

Teaching evaluation plays a crucial role in assessing learning objectives, gathering feedback, facilitating continuous improvement, and evaluating the impact of course reforms. After the conclusion of the course, the Bioengineering Teaching and Research Section will evaluate the students using standardized criteria, ensuring consistency across both groups in terms of assessment standards and evaluators. The calculation of course objective achievement is based on a weighted combination of regular assessments and final exam scores. To facilitate the calculation, analysis, and evaluation of course objective achievement, all scores for regular assessments, exams, and the overall evaluation are expressed as percentages. The regular assessment comprises 40% of the total score, including classroom performance (15%), lab reports (10%), and online learning activities (15%). The final exam score contributed 60% of the total score (Table 1). According to the course syllabus, each course objective is supported by various assessment processes and scores. The calculation formula is as follows:

$${\rm{Pi}}\,{\rm{ = }}\,\sum {{\rm{Nj}}\, \cdot \,{\rm{Aij/Bij}}}$$

where Pi represents the achievement level of course objective i; i denotes the number of course objectives; j represents the number of assessment types; and Nj is the weight of assessment type j related to course objective i (predefined in the course syllabus, with Σ Nj = 1, as shown in Table 1).

Aij represents the actual score of assessment type j related to course objective i, also known as the actual score contributing to the objective; Bij is the total score of assessment type j related to course objective i, representing the maximum possible contribution to the objective.

Table 1 Nj (%) of Course Objective Achievement
Full size table
  1. (2)

    Critical Thinking Skills Assessment

To evaluate the critical thinking abilities of the participants, the Critical Thinking Skills Measurement Scale (CTDI-CV) was employed [23]. This scale is comprehensive and assesses critical thinking across seven key dimensions: openness to ideas, pursuit of truth, analytical skills, confidence in critical thinking, systematic capabilities, curiosity, and cognitive maturity. The CTDI-CV consists of 70 items in total, and each item contributes to an overall score that can range from 70 to 420.

The scoring system for the CTDI-CV is structured as follows: Scores of 210 or less are indicative of negative critical thinking skills; Scores between 211 and 279 suggest moderate critical thinking skills; Scores between 280 and 349 are associated with positive critical thinking skills; Scores of 350 or above are considered to represent strong critical thinking skills.

The CTDI-CV was administered to both the control and experimental groups at the beginning and end of the course to determine any changes in their critical thinking skills. The results from the CTDI-CV were used to classify participants into four distinct skill groups based on their total scores.

  1. (3)

    Questionnaire

The questionnaire, generated on the “Questionnaire Star” platform, consisted of seven topics related to course satisfaction. Students were allowed to answer the questions only once within 48 h. The topics included achievement of learning goals, in-depth understanding of knowledge points, enhancement of learning initiative and enthusiasm, improvement in communication and collaboration skills, advancement of self-learning abilities, refinement of problem-analyzing and thinking capabilities, and promotion of moral values and professionalism. At the end of the semester, a closed-book theoretical knowledge test was administered using a hundred-point scoring system. The examination papers were designed in accordance with the curriculum standards and teaching content.

  1. (4)

    Semistructured interviews

After completing the teaching study, the researchers conducted face-to-face semistructured interviews with the students in the experimental group. These interviews, guided by a predetermined outline, aimed to gather in-depth information. The interview outline for students included the following questions:

How do you feel about the blended learning approach in “Biological Separation Engineering”?

Compared to previous experiences, do you perceive any changes in your learning?

What suggestions or improvements would you recommend for the blended learning implemented in this course?

Additionally, interviews were conducted with teaching team members to assess their evaluation of the employed teaching methods. The interview outline for teachers comprised the following queries:

During your teaching process, did you notice any differences in the performance of the experimental group compared to the control group?

How effective do you believe the integration of the w + flipped classroom with the B + BOPPPS teaching model has been?

  1. (5)

    Data analysis

The data from both the control and experimental groups were analyzed and compared using GraphPad Prism 8.0 software. The rank-sum test was applied for comparing measurement data, while the chi-square test statistic (X²) was calculated to determine the discrepancy between the observed and expected frequencies of responses. The corresponding P-values were then used to evaluate the statistical significance of the associations. A P-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant, indicating that the observed differences in responses between the two groups were unlikely to be due to random chance. Cohen’s d was computed based on the arithmetic means of the groups and the pooled standard deviation, in order to assess the effect size following the implementation of the teaching method. The thresholds for small, medium, and large effect sizes, as defined by Cohen’s d, were 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8, respectively.

Results

Basic performance and attainment of course goals

The present study evaluated a course using diversified assessment methods, with clearly defined evaluation criteria, assessment content, and weighting outlined in the syllabus. As Table 2 illustrates, the experimental group significantly surpassed the control group in average scores for regular performance, course experiments, and final exams (P < 0.001). The effect size was large on the dimension of above 3 dimensions (see Table 2 for details). Additionally, their online learning engagement was notably greater than that of the control group (P < 0.05), and had a small effect size (d = 0.381). The experimental group achieved a passing rate of 93.67% in the final exam, significantly exceeding the 66.22% of the control group. A further breakdown of final exam scores by question type (as detailed in Table 3) showed that the experimental group significantly outperformed the control group in essay questions, calculations, case studies, and innovative/creative questions (P < 0.001). However, their performance on multiple-choice and fill-in-the-blank questions was significantly inferior to that of the control group (P < 0.001). There was a large effect size for the intervention on improving final examination score, especially in calculation question (d = 1.868). To comprehensively assess the achievement of course objectives, we calculated the objective attainment degrees based on the scores and weightings of each assessment method. The experimental group achieved objective attainment degrees of 0.767, 0.779, and 0.837 for objectives 1–3 of the BSE course, respectively, which were notably higher than the control group’s scores of 0.663, 0.688, and 0.744, respectively. Hence, under the diversified assessment methods, students in the experimental group exhibited superior learning effectiveness and higher levels of objective attainment. (Raw data was performed in Table S3 in the supporting information)

Table 2 Comparison of scores between the two groups of students
Full size table
Table 3 Final examination score summary of the two groups of students
Full size table

Critical thinking skills scores

The effectiveness of a critical thinking training course was evaluated by comparing the scores of experimental and control group students across seven dimensions of critical thinking ability. Data analysis results show that the experimental group students scored higher than the control group on average in seven dimensions: seeking truth, open-mindedness, analytical skills, systematic capabilities, confidence in critical thinking, curiosity, and cognitive maturity, with significant differences in some dimensions (see Table 4 for details). Specifically, in the dimensions of seeking truth and open-mindedness, the experimental group students scored an average of 36.92 and 36.38 respectively, significantly higher than the control group’s 32.46 and 31.62 (p < 0.001), with effect sizes of 0.679 and 1.138, indicating that the course effectively enhanced students’ spirit of seeking truth and open-mindedness; In the dimensions of confidence in critical thinking and curiosity, the experimental group students scored an average of 35.02 and 31.76 respectively, significantly higher than the control group’s 28.87 and 29.05 (p < 0.001), with effect sizes of 1.119 and 0.540, indicating that the course significantly strengthened students’ self-confidence and curiosity; In the dimension of cognitive maturity, the experimental group students scored an average of 38.66, significantly higher than the control group’s 35.05 (p = 0.005), with an effect size of 0.502, indicating that the course provided considerable help in improving students’ cognitive maturity; In the dimensions of analytical skills and systematic capabilities, the score differences between the two groups did not reach a significant level (p > 0.05), with effect sizes of 0.142 and 0.381 respectively, indicating that the course provided limited help in enhancing students’ logical reasoning abilities and systematic thinking skills.

Overall, the critical thinking training course significantly enhanced students’ critical thinking abilities, especially in dimensions such as seeking truth, open-mindedness, confidence in critical thinking, curiosity, and cognitive maturity. However, the impact on analytical skills and systematic capabilities was relatively small. Future course design and implementation processes could further explore more effective teaching methods to comprehensively improve students’ critical thinking abilities. (Raw data was performed in Table S4 in the supporting information)

Table 4 Comparison of critical thinking scores between the two groups of students
Full size table

Teaching effectiveness evaluation

This study surveyed 79 students from the 2021 grade and achieved a 100% response rate, with all questionnaires being valid. Similarly, 74 students from the 2020 grade were surveyed, and all 74 questionnaires were also determined to be valid, again resulting in a 100% response rate. The findings, summarized in Table 5, indicate that 100% (79/79) of the students in the experimental group believed that the teaching approach facilitated the achievement of learning objectives, deepened their understanding of knowledge, and enhanced their moral values and professional ethics. Additionally, 97.47% (77/79) reported an improvement in their learning initiative, motivation, and self-study abilities, while 94.94% (75/79) felt that their analytical and problem-solving skills had improved. Notably, across these six evaluation metrics, the experimental group consistently demonstrated significantly greater scores than did the control group (P < 0.05). However, in terms of cultivating communication, collaboration, and teamwork skills, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P > 0.05).

Table 5 Questionnaire survey results of course satisfaction with the two teaching models
Full size table

Results of the semistructured interviews

Student interview results

Based on the saturation principle, where no new information emerged from the interview data, a total of 16 students from the experimental group were ultimately selected. Through the collation and analysis of students’ learning experiences, the following insights were gained.

  1. (1)

    Flexible and Comprehensive Learning Experience of B + BOPPPSO

E1 (Experimental group student 1, E1): “The online platform is highly convenient, enabling me to preview and review BSE content anytime and anywhere while also facilitating communication with classmates in the discussion area. This fosters a sense of autonomous learning.” E3: “Simulated real-life scenarios have deepened my understanding of BSE’s theoretical knowledge, enhancing both my practical abilities and problem-solving skills.” E4: “The online platform offers an abundance of learning resources, including course videos, PPTs, and discussion topics, thus providing ample opportunities and perspectives for learning.” E8: “The systematic design of the work process has facilitated a more comprehensive understanding of the course content. It not only aids in grasping key concepts but also instructs on their practical application.” E10: “Interactive sessions in the offline classroom are highly engaging, allowing for hands-on experiments and collaborative discussions. This has significantly enhanced my understanding of BSE principles and techniques.” E13: “The online platform’s rapidly updating learning resources keep me well informed about the latest research developments and industry trends, proving extremely beneficial for our BSE studies.” E14: “Teachers in the offline classroom provide meticulous explanations while attending to each student’s needs and queries. This personalized approach fosters a sense of being valued and cared for.”

  1. (2)

    The learning effectiveness of the “W + Flipped Classroom” has significantly improved, particularly in fostering autonomous learning abilities

E2: “Since adopting this new learning approach, I have noticed significant improvements in my learning effectiveness, particularly in autonomous learning. I am now more proactive in exploring and thinking critically about problems.” E4: “Now, when encountering problems, instead of immediately seeking answers as before, I first attempt to think and solve them independently. I believe this ability for independent thinking has been cultivated through this learning model.” E5: “Through participating in flipped classroom activities, I have not only acquired knowledge but also learned how to apply it to practical situations. This ability to apply what I learn provides me with a great sense of accomplishment.” E7: “Under this learning model, I have not only enhanced my learning effectiveness but also developed my problem-solving skills and critical thinking abilities. These skills are extremely valuable for my future development.” E15: “The flipped classroom provides me with opportunities to showcase my talents and viewpoints. I actively participate and share my insights and experiences during class, which boosts my confidence and courage.” E16: “I believe that the flipped classroom not only enhances our learning effectiveness but also fosters communication and collaboration among us. As a result, we are now more proactive in sharing resources, discussing issues, and helping each other.”

  1. (3)

    There remains a need to optimize both online resources and offline interactions to accommodate personalized learning needs

E1: “I believe online resources could be enriched by including explanation videos with varied styles, enabling us to select based on our individual learning preferences.” E2: “Occasionally, the volume of preclass and postclass tasks can be considerable, leading to stress. It would be beneficial if the workload was either appropriately reduced or offered more flexibility.” E4: “I hope video materials will incorporate subtitle options to enhance comprehension and retention, particularly for individuals with limited listening skills.” E5: “I suggest that online platforms should integrate more interactive components, such as quizzes and online discussions, to increase the engagement and enjoyment of online learning.” E6: “Occasionally, I desire to delve deeper into specific topics, yet online resources are limited. Offering more comprehensive and specialized online learning materials would meet my personalized learning needs.” E10: “Occasionally, I encounter issues online and struggle to find assistance. It would be beneficial if online platforms provided Q&A sessions or real-time support.”

Interview results of team members

Based on teachers’ observations of the experimental and control groups during the teaching process, along with assessments of learning outcomes, the following viewpoints were obtained.

  1. (1)

    The experimental group showed more active participation, demonstrating significant improvements in interaction and practical abilities

T1 (teacher 1, T1): “The students in the experimental group are more active in class. They not only ask questions proactively but are also willing to discuss issues with their peers. This interactive environment greatly enhances learning outcomes.” T2: “I have noticed significant improvements in the practical abilities of the experimental group students. They are more proficient in completing experimental tasks and can flexibly apply their knowledge to solve practical problems. This encouraging progress indicates the effectiveness of our teaching method reform.” T3: “Compared to before, the experimental group students have made noticeable progress in teamwork and communication skills. They are more willing to share ideas with peers and can humbly accept suggestions. This positive interaction is crucial for fostering students’ comprehensive literacy.” T5: “The performance of the experimental group students demonstrates the effectiveness of our teaching reform. Their progress in interaction and practical abilities not only validates the effectiveness of our teaching methods but also offers valuable insights for further optimizing and refining our teaching models. I am confident that in future teaching, we will continue to explore and innovate, paving the way for the comprehensive development of students.”

  1. (2)

    The application of teaching reform has yielded remarkable results, thereby improving teaching quality

T1: “Since the implementation of the new teaching reform, I have noticed a significant increase in classroom engagement. Students are more willing to participate, and their receptivity to new knowledge has greatly improved. This finding undoubtedly indicates that teaching reform has effectively enhanced teaching quality. “T2: “Based on my recent teaching evaluations, student feedback on the new teaching model has been overwhelmingly positive. They feel that this approach is more aligned with their learning needs and helps them better understand and grasp the material. As a teacher, I am also very satisfied because I have witnessed a noticeable enhancement in teaching quality.” T3: “I believe that the greatest strength of the teaching reform lies in its emphasis on student-centered learning. By incorporating more interactive and practical elements, we have successfully transformed students from passive recipients into active participants. This transformation has not only sparked students’ interest in learning but has also significantly boosted teaching quality.” T4: “Compared to before, the current teaching content is significantly richer and more diverse, and teaching methods have become more flexible and varied. This is due to our teaching team’s in-depth exploration and implementation of the new teaching model. Based on student feedback, these changes have been highly welcomed, and they report feeling more engaged and enjoying the learning process under this approach. This further underscores the marked effectiveness of the teaching reform in enhancing teaching quality.”

Discussion

Inspired by international curriculum concepts such as skill-based modules, competency frameworks, and learning domains, Chinese vocational courses often integrate the systematization of work processes into their instructional design. However, the establishment of “double first-class” disciplines alongside engineering education accreditation has generated new imperatives for reforming engineering education and cultivating highly skilled, practice-oriented professionals in China. As a result, there has been a shift toward an outcome-based education paradigm that emphasizes outcomes, student-centered learning, and continuous improvement. In China, local undergraduate institutions aim to cultivate applied talents, and the “application-oriented demand” embedded in the logical structure of work process systematization fulfills this positioning requirement. Guided by the theory of “teaching process as work process, and work process as systematized,” learning scenarios are introduced on top of the existing knowledge system. The theoretical foundation for the systematic development of work process courses primarily stems from constructivist and situational learning theories. These theories emphasize learners’ active construction of knowledge through hands-on practice and problem solving in authentic or simulated work environments [24]. The flipped classroom model further inverts the traditional roles of teaching and practice in the classroom. Before class, students preview new concepts through self-study materials, while class time is primarily dedicated to fostering deep interaction and practical application between teachers and students. The theoretical underpinnings of the flipped classroom model encompass blended learning theory and mastery learning theory. Implementing a flipped classroom model has emerged as a crucial means for realizing outcome-based education (OBE) teaching reforms.

Drawing from international curriculum development ideas such as skill-module courses, competency-based approaches, and learning areas, Chinese applied courses frequently incorporate the systematization of work processes into their teaching design. Nonetheless, the establishment of a “double first-class” discipline alongside the accreditation of engineering education has raised fresh demands for reforming engineering education and nurturing high-caliber, practically oriented professionals in China. Consequently, the adoption of the outcome-based education paradigm, which emphasizes results, student-centeredness, and continual enhancement, has taken place. The theoretical basis of the systematic development of work process courses mainly comes from constructivist learning theory and situational learning theory. It emphasizes that learners actively construct knowledge through practical operations and problem solving in real or simulated work situations [20]. The flipped classroom model further reversed teaching and practice in traditional classrooms. Before class, students preview new knowledge through self-study materials, and class time is mainly used for deep interaction and practical application between teachers and students. Its theoretical basis includes blended learning theory and mastery learning theory [25]. Implementing a flipped classroom has emerged as a pivotal means to actualize OBE teaching reforms. For instance, Omar M. Mahasneh demonstrated that the flipped learning approach proved more efficacious than traditional teaching methods [26]. Since its inception, the flipped classroom paradigm has evolved from its initial rigid format of students watching materials beforehand and subsequently interacting in class toward a more dynamic “student-centered, teacher-facilitated, self-directed” learning philosophy, transcending traditional teaching molds. Hence, the flipped classroom is no longer confined to a static teaching methodology but has evolved into a transformative educational concept. The combination of the W + flipped classroom and teaching design demonstrated several advantages. First, it facilitates the deep integration of theory and practice. Through the flipped classroom model, students engage in autonomous learning of theoretical knowledge before class and apply this knowledge in practical, work-process-oriented activities, achieving a seamless blend of theory and practice. A study revealed significant differences in course experiment scores between the experimental group (91.28 ± 6.97) and the control group (84.49 ± 5.98), with the former exhibiting a notably greater performance (P < 0.001) (see Table 2). Furthermore, survey results indicated that 100% (79/79) of students in the experimental group believed that this approach contributed to enhancing their professional qualities (see Table 5). Second, the W + FC model enhances learning efficiency and quality. By allocating more classroom time for hands-on practice, discussions, and problem solving, coupled with the authentic professional contexts provided by the systematic teaching design, students can learn more effectively and efficiently. The study revealed that students in the experimental group significantly outperformed those in the control group in terms of average scores for usual performance, course experiments, and final exams (P < 0.001). Additionally, their online learning participation was notably greater than that of the control group (P < 0.05) (see Table 2). The final exam pass rate in the experimental group was impressively high, reaching 93.67%, significantly surpassing the 66.22% of the control group (see Table 2). A further analysis of final exam scores by question type revealed that the experimental group scored significantly higher on short answer, calculation, case analysis, and innovative creative questions than did the control group (P < 0.001) (see Table 3 for details). The survey results also showed that 100% (79/79) of the students in the experimental group felt that this approach helped them achieve their learning goals and deepen their understanding of the subject matter (see Table 5). Third, the approach significantly improved students’ higher-order thinking skills. The survey results indicated that 97.47% (77/79) of the students in the experimental group believed that the intervention enhanced their learning initiative, enthusiasm, and self-learning abilities. Similarly, 94.94% (75/79) of the students reported improvements in their analytical and problem-solving skills (see Table 5). In interviews, students expressed their appreciation for the cultivation of comprehensive abilities and innovative spirits, emphasizing that curriculum design effectively integrates theory and practice, stimulates learning interest, and boosts learning efficiency.

Additionally, the implementation of the B + BOPPPS teaching model facilitated the development of the W + flipped classroom teaching design. The theoretical model of blended online and offline teaching emphasizes the integration of curriculum design, diverse learning resources, interactive learning activities, and varied evaluation methods. However, it has limitations such as a strong reliance on technology and high demands on students’ self-discipline. The BOPPPS teaching model is rooted in constructivist learning theory, emphasizing a student-centered approach with clear learning objectives, consideration of students’ prior knowledge, active participation, prompt feedback, and effective course summaries. Integrating online and offline blended teaching with the BOPPPS model combines the strengths of both approaches, leading to complementary teaching. The interconnected teaching components of this model engage students and enrich their learning experience. Through pre- and postclass assignments, the B + BOPPPS teaching model fostered students’ scientific research spirit, teamwork skills, and lifelong learning mindset, embodying a student-centered approach. The effectiveness of the B + BOPPPS teaching model was evaluated based on students’ final scores. Furthermore, the B + BOPPPS teaching model emphasizes the cultivation of students’ critical thinking skills. This teaching approach promotes active thinking and problem solving among students through interactive and participatory methods such as scenario simulation, self-assessment, and peer evaluation. In evaluating teaching effectiveness, the majority of students (94.94%) reported that blended learning fosters clinical critical thinking skills (see Table 5). Through continuous problem evaluation and resolution both inside and outside the classroom, students sharpen their independent thinking skills. During course experiments, teachers employ diverse evaluation methods to encourage self-reflection and practice improvement among students, leading to enhanced flexibility and critical thinking in complex problem solving. The online learning component expands opportunities for independent study, enabling deeper exploration of engineering topics and fostering the development of critical thinking skills. According to Dutch scholar Joke Voogt, the cultivation of critical thinking skills is a fundamental aspect of educational literacy [27]. The American scholars Broenr and Keeley suggest that critical thinking is rooted in curiosity, enabling individuals to reflect, question, and independently analyze personal and others’ perspectives [28].

Bioengineering education demands a specific way of thinking that aligns with its disciplinary characteristics. The bioseparation process serves as a prime example of a critical thinking application. The development of critical thinking skills for engineering students is vital for enhancing bioengineering teaching quality, nurturing top-tier talent, and empowering students with improved decision-making and social adaptability. Therefore, cultivating critical thinking skills in bioengineering is essential. It equips students to adeptly handle complex bioseparation challenges and boosts their practical abilities and overall prowess, thus paving the way for future career success. However, research indicates that despite some improvement in students’ critical thinking skills following bioseparation engineering curriculum reform, progress remains limited. During the teaching process, relying solely on a single course to bolster students’ critical thinking skills has been shown to be inadequate. Clarifying the means and methods for cultivating critical thinking, an essential ability for future professions, is necessary for defining the talent training objectives of bioengineering majors. This, in turn, raises new requirements for promoting and applying the content of this educational reform.

Conclusions

Based on industry demand, promoting the combination of production and education is the key cultivation characteristic of applied talent. Against the background of the “engineering education certification,” a higher level and application-oriented talent training in application-oriented universities should be clearer. Regarding the core problem of cultivating high-level application-oriented talent, how to give play to the educational function of the curriculum is one of the hot issues attracting widespread attention. This paper takes BSE as an example through the implementation of a “W + flipped classroom” teaching design fused with a “B + BOPPPS” teaching model. This allows us to overcome the barriers of theory and practice teaching, stimulate students’ learning enthusiasm, improve learning outcomes, effectively solve the problems of teaching design and teaching models in traditional teaching, and fully embody OBE education ideas. It is an effective attempt at curriculum education to practice gold course standards and realize the integration and unification of knowledge teaching, ability cultivation, and value shaping for students, providing a reference for the construction of engineering education certifications and high-level talent training for bioengineering majors at applied universities. It is important that although the benefit is obtained through the practice of a BSE course, we suggest that the “W + flipped classroom” teaching design, combined with a “B + BOPPPS” teaching model, can be applied to courses in engineering majors (such as bioengineering mayors). At the same time, to further stimulate students’ learning enthusiasm and improve their learning outcomes, the teaching design of a “W + flipped classroom” needs to be constantly optimized in curriculum development to improve the degree of integration, etc., while the “B + BOPPPS” teaching mode needs to constantly improve the teaching skills of teachers, which will become the goal of teaching teams in future teaching practice.

Data availability

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article and Supplementary material, and further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Abbreviations

W + flipped classroom:

a flipped classroom based on working process systematization

B + BOPPPS:

a blend of online and offline BOPPPS (bridge-in, objective/outcome, preassessment, participatory learning, post assessment, summary)

B:

bridge-in

O:

objective

P1:

preassessment

P2:

participatory learning

P3:

postassessment

S:

summary

MOOCs:

Chinese universities’ massive open online courses

SPOC:

Small private online course

CTDI-CV:

Critical Thinking Skills Measurement Scale

BSE:

Biological Separation Engineering

OBE:

outcome-based education

References

  1. Wei Y, Lin J, Kang LQ, Lu B. Hybrid teaching reform and exploration of Biological Separation Engineering based on the construction of new engineering disciplines. Insight·Shaanxi. 2023;12:37–39. Article in Chinese. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=8XtZWovJaIT2AauqLKA4o7duSfYISC280wYKCTmm3nIT_GWJn_fdhwdrcKy--WshQCe1PkGVxj3PMEe4fg0v9eLqdN9gUaCGc2BgMM4AJ2LsYcFTQ0N9bNayffZcDvmtZ2mcrFDK6X1b8Xkx7uKfQO_2KVUEHAO46wa6TILzaXnqh0ewZymydg==&uniplatform=NZKPT&language=CHS

  2. Li S, Deng Y, Chen Z, Chen H, Ma J, Liu XY. Exploration of teaching in biological separation engineering courses under the background of Double First-Class Initiative. Guangdong Chem Ind. 2023; 50(13):233–234. Article in Chinese. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=8XtZWovJaITWvAOAP8jPWj7H_7G6k8HZ7gBnH5QhoCj4tCfKiCElekCL8l_uSm5edoMY0_FmOv7ciN7a54w68zZUT0BmdcPqSTgsBv3eHPzUSWV1GerBUUZTf8S1cqGF3_IdwOkAMNTvNanGGg4JyUynD25Tay71&uniplatform=NZKPT

  3. Sun X, Tang TT, Zhang WW, Reform, Exploration of Teaching in Biological Separation Engineering Courses Based on the OBE Educational Concept. J High Educ-UK. 2023;9(33):137–40. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=8XtZWovJaITo6wvFM2zn7sZwuBsgfzX7NGk8My_c_sFQf5c63fazO909QTvLY3TMrzko89npAp8H-PwS6CzR_mFeq0DNQBmpZqmk-tSyQSfuSuH-HvEDF5fRN5Q-wgjU5Ebz6aCKpmD_EphJeRGALcTqN7q4jtGCQK-Cxqz-BEtemw002RRqKA==&uniplatform=NZKPT&language=CHS.

  4. Hu XL, Zhu WY, Tian ZG. Exploration and Practice of Teaching Reform in the Biological Separation Engineering Course for the Cultivation of Innovative and Applied Talents. Journal of Education Guide. 2022; (03):62–64. Article in Chinese. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?FileName=KJDS202203022&DbName=CJFQ2022

  5. Mejía-Manzano LA, Vázquez-Villegas P, Díaz-Arenas IE, Escalante-Vázquez EJ, Membrillo-Hernández J. Disciplinary competencies overview of the first cohorts of undergraduate students in the Biotechnology Engineering Program under the Tec 21 Model. Educ Sci. 2024;14(1):30. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14010030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Xu J, Han B, Li T, Zhao P, Yu X. Exploration and Practice of teaching reform of Biological Separation Engineering under engineering education certification. Guangdong Chem Ind. 2021; 48(04):209–210. Article in Chinese. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?FileName=GDHG202104102&DbName=CJFQ2021.

  7. Ni H, Fan RF, Yin L, Wang YT, Chen JF. Reform of the bio-separation engineering curriculum under the context of Emerging Engineering Education. Chin J Biotechnol. 2022;38(04):1612–1618. Article in Chinese. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?FileName=SHWU202204027&DbName=DKFX2022

  8. Xie H, Zhang B, Lu YY. Comprehensive experimental design of Biological Separation Engineering. Guangdong Chem Ind. 2022; 49(22):260–261. Article in Chinese. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=8XtZWovJaIQ2trCXOCmg7vUcBbtuQSfc0JPmC22OhB5-h4ldpCdl0nL-doWvd55UdVO8i9grzLnAnX2sHCxZSA_8vh1MVO6XtOHHHii37iMjdPEes7SezSw2PHiQG0JbMvVvYBeYwxg0IVb4D-e4ccQBRTaAuJLc&uniplatform=NZKPT

  9. Guo JL, Gong DC, Tu ZY, Deng ZS, Ren LW. Teaching design and practice of Biological Separation Engineering course under the background of engineering education accreditation. Guangdong Chem Ind. 2022; 50(03):156–158. Article in Chinese. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?FileName=GZHA202203050&DbName=CJFQ2022

  10. Xu JW, Han BY, Li T, Zhao P, Yu XY. Exploration and Practice of Teaching Reform in the Biological Separation Engineering Course under Engineering Education Accreditation. Guangdong Chem Ind. 2021; 48(04):209–210. Article in Chinese. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?FileName=GDHG202104102&DbName=CJFQ2021

  11. Anjos FEVD, Rocha LAO, Silva DOD, Pacheco R. Virtual and augmented reality application in production engineering teaching-learning processes. Production. 2020;30:e20190088. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6513.20190088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Liu JG, Qu JB, Ge BS, Wang XQ. Methods and approaches to strengthen the practical teaching of Biological Separation Engineering. Guangdong Chem Ind. 2022; 50(17):197–199. Article in Chinese. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?FileName=GZHA202217060&DbName=CJFQ2022

  13. Liu XZ, Li YF, Liu XH, Tang WY. Exploration and Practice of Teaching Reform in the biological separation Engineering Course for the Major of Brewing Engineering. Methods Approaches Strengthen Practical Teach Biol Sep Eng. 2021;48(14):337–8. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?FileName=GDHG202114143&DbName=CJFQ2021. Article in Chinese.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ni H, Fan RF, Yin L, Wang YT, Chen JF. Curriculum innovation and reform of Bio-separation engineeringunder the background of Emerging Engineering Education. Chin J Biotechnol. 2021;1–7. Article in Chinese. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?FileName=SHWU20210914000&DbName=DKFX2021

  15. Zhu JQ, Dai HP, Hong L, Zheng CY, Ceng HQ. Research on teaching reform of pattern recognition course for new engineering disciplines. J Sci Educ. 2022; (04):64–66. Article in Chinese. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=8XtZWovJaISkrUZroeoO3bSuGR4270ElTJMNpJIAvcRg6zMozjX4r5BzPSVobSCjSgOFug8JAUT8C8Ocx-am6xhDYtd5n-2uo_fjpfZoanIN57eFTP1UqtReTvuWi8qXxpmFiiIOCUWiMQ_3dTKjdZnVLdlnFXQh_ILmbfzcVRpKks624zUAw==&uniplatform=NZKPT&language=CHS

  16. Shang WL. Research on the quality evaluation system of new engineering majors from the perspective of integration of industry and education. Popular Stand. 2021; (01):128–30. Article in Chinese. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=8XtZWovJaIQTQ5xtxkyfs8ZxQvvsDKRljCOSwvmvqEJkymxwoG8o2D-SHGBl9_lviEyqP0ZLsIPDO5fonjhNjlaBEHlMp0iwGEyUvoGMB3eVR3pQxsTnorE4Ezd-e0uWjP5eWZi09oY_w5qLwhBSmD-TR4jEybBU&uniplatform=NZKPT

  17. Xu HY, Wang T, Zhang ML. Research on the evaluation of the achievement degree of environmental chemistry course objectives based on engineering professional certification and continuous improvement measures. Henan Chem Ind. 2022; 39(04):66–69. Article in Chinese. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=8XtZWovJaIQlM85JTzMca92kweBhrxc_L1Rd7KXkbSBW8R27Cdmrg_7n77pt75w0qF5wHiSi0Rg7Ji80tMfPPIoiQ6WK4DyoItdJcqMNovM8CF6JhFOTaPRDinMZQI_AqNeUcfWLh5Lg9kX4_TsVZCddJoD5OduR9357setXpvqUr0NpMeFBQQ==&uniplatform=NZKPT&language=CHS

  18. Xianhua X, Teaching Reform Based on the Flipped Classroom with Work Process Systematization. : A Case Study of the Course Enterprise Value Assessment. Theory and Practice of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 2021; 14(4):37–39. Article in Chinese. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=8XtZWovJaIRYahFGkPCKwZbp_SArnIdVKm_tLDDCBJGzMYmycCCDy429hxtNzyhYkgrotGzAhSnPYb0G7uRYXX7xZtgY5oIxfju4NGoJU9yN8k9oP0hOY38gqallm0XqoXFc7w_kZ3ZAvPJnZwrJKH25s1h2KXRSONI5EBUayN7aYmDgreK6E35QpW3BQ8pNMVcHrI2O-vnRKRbtyJvVIwY5H2089&uniplatform=NZKPT&language=CHS

  19. Shuangshuang S. Teaching reform of marketing based on work process systematization + flipped Classroom. J Changchun Normal Univ. 2019;05(38):179–82. Article in Chinese. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=8XtZWovJaIRsft06cRUTS4E0eLFOG5zmPaz6rrNmkE6Q0wuj5Fn9V6T-xvmATKbZr4aAo6Mobyvw8-BxNATlvMr42YtDS0FAoz6odHF-tJM7JnaT0vUVnijEms02l9sys9mb8pra679JHw5Q0fuuQALrzJNuGt4gwto4I3m_Sh9ishTWnVia7UmDB-QMP8Nc6a48Jl2C-IIHsbiGUZpxiLjUzTp7uOg092r175NgM_zGSFVqaFpc-a_20Ewv5BaPsd-co1aehrD4RGAfl0Tu-NQ_ug9pKT-RTZVTH97JlnXpJJBhkTDEyJsL2xMESbynHu9g-I-vswiq8vRfiLu6di28HpFxdJJndp523XNzzxPmFiwMw3MNdQ==&uniplatform=NZKPT&language=CHS.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Wen H, Xu W, Chen F, Jiang X, Zhang R, Zeng J, Peng L, Chen Y. Application of the BOPPPS-CBL model in electrocardiogram teaching for nursing students: a randomized comparison. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):987. Article in Chinese.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-023-04983-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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 Edu. 2023;51(3):244–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Walsh CM, Seldomridge LA, Badros KK. California critical thinking disposition inventory: further factor analytic examination. Percept Motor Skill. 2007;104(1):141–51. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.104.1.141-151. Article in Chinese.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jiang D. The structural logic of systematic courses based on the work process. Educ Vocation 2017; (13):5–12. Article in Chinese. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?FileName=JYYZ201713002&DbName=CJFQ2017.

  25. Maureen J, Lage GJPA. Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway to Creating an Inclusive Learning Environment, Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1183338 Accessed: 22-03-2015 13:25 UTC. The Journal of Economic Education. 2000; Vol. 31(No. 1):30–43.

  26. Mahasneh OM. The effectiveness of flipped learning strategy in the development of scientific research skills in procedural research course among higher education diploma students. Res Learn Technol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v28.2327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Voogt J, Roblin NP. A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: implications for national curriculum policies. J Curriculum Stud. 2012;44(3):299–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.668938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Browne MN, Keeley SM. Asking the right questions: a guide to critical thinking. Pearson Education; 2007.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the students who participated in the study for their cooperation.

Funding

This work was supported by the Research and Practice Project of Inquiry Teaching Reform in Henan Province (Jiao Gao [2023] No. 388): Applied Research on Inquiry Teaching Mode Serving Local Characteristic Industries in the Course of Biological Separation Engineering in Application-oriented Universities; the significant projects of higher education teaching reform research and practice in Henan Province (No. 2021SJGLX029); 2024 Henan Province Higher Education Teaching Reform Research and Practice Project (No. 2024SJGLX0482); the Notice of the Ministry of Education of Henan Province on the Announement of the Recognition Results of the First-Class Undergraduate Courses in 2020 (No. 193 [2020] of the Ministry of Education); Education and Teaching Reform Research Project of Shandong First Medical University (No. XM2022069); 2021 Education and Teaching Reform Research Project (2021XJGLX42), and the Young Backbone Teachers Foundation of Huanghuai University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Biological and Food Processing Engineering, Music College, Center for Faculty Development, Personnel Department, Huanghuai University, Zhumadian, 463000, China

    Li Siqiang, Hu Kun, Liu Quanlan, Zhong Jie, Hu Li, Li Yun, Chen Fujia, Guo Hongwei, Wang Mingcheng, Liu Junhe, Liu Xianli & Li Enzhong

  2. College of Business and Management, Saint Paul Universityin Philippines Manila, 680 Pedro Gil St., Malate, Manila, Metro Manila, 1004, Philippines

    Liu Quanlan

  3. School of Life Science, Shandong First Medical University (Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences), Taian, Shandong, 271016, China

    Wang Shumin

  4. School of Biological and Food Processing Engineering, Huanghuai University, Zhumadian, 463000, China

    Li Enzhong

Authors
  1. Li Siqiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hu Kun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Liu Quanlan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zhong Jie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wang Shumin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hu Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Li Yun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Chen Fujia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Guo Hongwei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Wang Mingcheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Liu Junhe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Liu Xianli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Li Enzhong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SL: made the bibliography, analyzed the literature, wrote the first drafts, and funding acquisition. KH, QL, JZ, SW, LH and YL: data curation, investigation and corrected the manuscript. FC, HG and MW: formal analysis, software, and wrote the final draft. XL, JL and EL: suggested the topic of the article, revised the manuscript, and adjusted it to be in a suitable form for publication. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Li Enzhong.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was conducted in compliance with the ethical standards of the Declaration of Helsinki and was granted exemption from ethics approval by the Ethics Review Committee at Huanghuai University. Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Siqiang, L., Kun, H., Quanlan, L. et al. Innovative integration of the “W + Flipped Classroom” and “B + BOPPPS” teaching models for enhanced learning outcomes. BMC Med Educ 24, 1050 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06034-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-06034-5

Keywords

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

Contact us