A BOPPPS-based micro-lecture teaching intervention for orthopaedic postgraduates in China

Résumé fourni par la source

Background Orthopaedics is a highly specialized discipline characterized by complex theoretical frameworks and extensive knowledge, posing challenges for postgraduate teaching. With the advancement of educational technology, micro-lectures have been increasingly adopted in medical education. However, their isolated use may be insufficient to sustain student engagement or ensure effective learning. The bridge-in, learning objective, pre-test, participatory learning, post-assessment, and summary (BOPPPS) teaching model, which emphasizes the closed-loop management of student participation and teaching feedback, may address these limitations.Objective This study aims to develop and evaluate a BOPPPS-based micro-lecture teaching system for orthopaedic postgraduates, to improve teaching quality, enhance students’ clinical competencies, and provide evidence-based insights for teaching reform.Methods Forty-eight first-year surgical postgraduates in a residency program were randomly divided into experimental and control groups (n = 24 per group). The experimental group received micro-lecture instruction integrated within the BOPPPS framework, while the control group received ordinary teaching. Both groups were assessed using the Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise and Direct Observation of Procedural Skills after clinical training. A questionnaire survey was conducted to gauge students’ satisfaction with the BOPPPS-based micro-lectures.Results The experimental group showed significantly better clinical diagnostic and treatment abilities than the control group across most domains (p < 0.007). No significant differences were identified in humanistic care (p = 0.015), providing detailed information and informed consent (p = 0.190), or communication skills with patients (p = 0.209) after Bonferroni correction. Performance in preoperative preparation reached the threshold of significance (p = 0.005). The experimental group outperformed the control group in eight other clinical practice indicators (p < 0.005).

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.