case study as a teaching method pdf

• Columbia University in the City of New York
• Office of Teaching, Learning, and Innovation
• University Policies
• Columbia Online
• Academic Calendar
• Resources and Technology
• Resources and Guides

Case Method Teaching and Learning

What is the case method? How can the case method be used to engage learners? What are some strategies for getting started? This guide helps instructors answer these questions by providing an overview of the case method while highlighting learner-centered and digitally-enhanced approaches to teaching with the case method. The guide also offers tips to instructors as they get started with the case method and additional references and resources.

On this page:

What is case method teaching.

• Case Method at Columbia

Why use the Case Method?

Case method teaching approaches, how do i get started.

• Additional Resources

The CTL is here to help!

For support with implementing a case method approach in your course, email [email protected] to schedule your 1-1 consultation .

Cite this resource: Columbia Center for Teaching and Learning (2019). Case Method Teaching and Learning. Columbia University. Retrieved from [today’s date] from https://ctl.columbia.edu/resources-and-technology/resources/case-method/  

Case method 1 teaching is an active form of instruction that focuses on a case and involves students learning by doing 2 3 . Cases are real or invented stories 4  that include “an educational message” or recount events, problems, dilemmas, theoretical or conceptual issue that requires analysis and/or decision-making.

Case-based teaching simulates real world situations and asks students to actively grapple with complex problems 5 6 This method of instruction is used across disciplines to promote learning, and is common in law, business, medicine, among other fields. See Table 1 below for a few types of cases and the learning they promote.

Table 1: Types of cases and the learning they promote.

For a more complete list, see Case Types & Teaching Methods: A Classification Scheme from the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science.

Back to Top

Case Method Teaching and Learning at Columbia

The case method is actively used in classrooms across Columbia, at the Morningside campus in the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), the School of Business, Arts and Sciences, among others, and at Columbia University Irving Medical campus.

Faculty Spotlight:

Professor Mary Ann Price on Using Case Study Method to Place Pre-Med Students in Real-Life Scenarios

Read more  

Professor De Pinho on Using the Case Method in the Mailman Core

Case method teaching has been found to improve student learning, to increase students’ perception of learning gains, and to meet learning objectives 8 9 . Faculty have noted the instructional benefits of cases including greater student engagement in their learning 10 , deeper student understanding of concepts, stronger critical thinking skills, and an ability to make connections across content areas and view an issue from multiple perspectives 11 . 

Through case-based learning, students are the ones asking questions about the case, doing the problem-solving, interacting with and learning from their peers, “unpacking” the case, analyzing the case, and summarizing the case. They learn how to work with limited information and ambiguity, think in professional or disciplinary ways, and ask themselves “what would I do if I were in this specific situation?”

The case method bridges theory to practice, and promotes the development of skills including: communication, active listening, critical thinking, decision-making, and metacognitive skills 12 , as students apply course content knowledge, reflect on what they know and their approach to analyzing, and make sense of a case. 

Though the case method has historical roots as an instructor-centered approach that uses the Socratic dialogue and cold-calling, it is possible to take a more learner-centered approach in which students take on roles and tasks traditionally left to the instructor. 

Cases are often used as “vehicles for classroom discussion” 13 . Students should be encouraged to take ownership of their learning from a case. Discussion-based approaches engage students in thinking and communicating about a case. Instructors can set up a case activity in which students are the ones doing the work of “asking questions, summarizing content, generating hypotheses, proposing theories, or offering critical analyses” 14 . 

The role of the instructor is to share a case or ask students to share or create a case to use in class, set expectations, provide instructions, and assign students roles in the discussion. Student roles in a case discussion can include: 

• discussion “starters” get the conversation started with a question or posing the questions that their peers came up with; 
• facilitators listen actively, validate the contributions of peers, ask follow-up questions, draw connections, refocus the conversation as needed; 
• recorders take-notes of the main points of the discussion, record on the board, upload to CourseWorks, or type and project on the screen; and 
• discussion “wrappers” lead a summary of the main points of the discussion. 

Prior to the case discussion, instructors can model case analysis and the types of questions students should ask, co-create discussion guidelines with students, and ask for students to submit discussion questions. During the discussion, the instructor can keep time, intervene as necessary (however the students should be doing the talking), and pause the discussion for a debrief and to ask students to reflect on what and how they learned from the case activity. 

Note: case discussions can be enhanced using technology. Live discussions can occur via video-conferencing (e.g., using Zoom ) or asynchronous discussions can occur using the Discussions tool in CourseWorks (Canvas) .

Table 2 includes a few interactive case method approaches. Regardless of the approach selected, it is important to create a learning environment in which students feel comfortable participating in a case activity and learning from one another. See below for tips on supporting student in how to learn from a case in the “getting started” section and how to create a supportive learning environment in the Guide for Inclusive Teaching at Columbia . 

Table 2. Strategies for Engaging Students in Case-Based Learning

Approaches to case teaching should be informed by course learning objectives, and can be adapted for small, large, hybrid, and online classes. Instructional technology can be used in various ways to deliver, facilitate, and assess the case method. For instance, an online module can be created in CourseWorks (Canvas) to structure the delivery of the case, allow students to work at their own pace, engage all learners, even those reluctant to speak up in class, and assess understanding of a case and student learning. Modules can include text, embedded media (e.g., using Panopto or Mediathread ) curated by the instructor, online discussion, and assessments. Students can be asked to read a case and/or watch a short video, respond to quiz questions and receive immediate feedback, post questions to a discussion, and share resources. 

For more information about options for incorporating educational technology to your course, please contact your Learning Designer .

To ensure that students are learning from the case approach, ask them to pause and reflect on what and how they learned from the case. Time to reflect  builds your students’ metacognition, and when these reflections are collected they provides you with insights about the effectiveness of your approach in promoting student learning.

Well designed case-based learning experiences: 1) motivate student involvement, 2) have students doing the work, 3) help students develop knowledge and skills, and 4) have students learning from each other.  

Designing a case-based learning experience should center around the learning objectives for a course. The following points focus on intentional design. 

Identify learning objectives, determine scope, and anticipate challenges. 

• Why use the case method in your course? How will it promote student learning differently than other approaches? 
• What are the learning objectives that need to be met by the case method? What knowledge should students apply and skills should they practice? 
• What is the scope of the case? (a brief activity in a single class session to a semester-long case-based course; if new to case method, start small with a single case). 
• What challenges do you anticipate (e.g., student preparation and prior experiences with case learning, discomfort with discussion, peer-to-peer learning, managing discussion) and how will you plan for these in your design? 
• If you are asking students to use transferable skills for the case method (e.g., teamwork, digital literacy) make them explicit. 

Determine how you will know if the learning objectives were met and develop a plan for evaluating the effectiveness of the case method to inform future case teaching. 

• What assessments and criteria will you use to evaluate student work or participation in case discussion? 
• How will you evaluate the effectiveness of the case method? What feedback will you collect from students? 
• How might you leverage technology for assessment purposes? For example, could you quiz students about the case online before class, accept assignment submissions online, use audience response systems (e.g., PollEverywhere) for formative assessment during class? 

Select an existing case, create your own, or encourage students to bring course-relevant cases, and prepare for its delivery

• Where will the case method fit into the course learning sequence? 
• Is the case at the appropriate level of complexity? Is it inclusive, culturally relevant, and relatable to students? 
• What materials and preparation will be needed to present the case to students? (e.g., readings, audiovisual materials, set up a module in CourseWorks). 

Plan for the case discussion and an active role for students

• What will your role be in facilitating case-based learning? How will you model case analysis for your students? (e.g., present a short case and demo your approach and the process of case learning) (Davis, 2009). 
• What discussion guidelines will you use that include your students’ input? 
• How will you encourage students to ask and answer questions, summarize their work, take notes, and debrief the case? 
• If students will be working in groups, how will groups form? What size will the groups be? What instructions will they be given? How will you ensure that everyone participates? What will they need to submit? Can technology be leveraged for any of these areas? 
• Have you considered students of varied cognitive and physical abilities and how they might participate in the activities/discussions, including those that involve technology? 

Student preparation and expectations

• How will you communicate about the case method approach to your students? When will you articulate the purpose of case-based learning and expectations of student engagement? What information about case-based learning and expectations will be included in the syllabus?
• What preparation and/or assignment(s) will students complete in order to learn from the case? (e.g., read the case prior to class, watch a case video prior to class, post to a CourseWorks discussion, submit a brief memo, complete a short writing assignment to check students’ understanding of a case, take on a specific role, prepare to present a critique during in-class discussion).

Andersen, E. and Schiano, B. (2014). Teaching with Cases: A Practical Guide . Harvard Business Press. 

Bonney, K. M. (2015). Case Study Teaching Method Improves Student Performance and Perceptions of Learning Gains†. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education , 16 (1), 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v16i1.846

Davis, B.G. (2009). Chapter 24: Case Studies. In Tools for Teaching. Second Edition. Jossey-Bass. 

Garvin, D.A. (2003). Making the Case: Professional Education for the world of practice. Harvard Magazine. September-October 2003, Volume 106, Number 1, 56-107.

Golich, V.L. (2000). The ABCs of Case Teaching. International Studies Perspectives. 1, 11-29. 

Golich, V.L.; Boyer, M; Franko, P.; and Lamy, S. (2000). The ABCs of Case Teaching. Pew Case Studies in International Affairs. Institute for the Study of Diplomacy. 

Heath, J. (2015). Teaching & Writing Cases: A Practical Guide. The Case Center, UK. 

Herreid, C.F. (2011). Case Study Teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. No. 128, Winder 2011, 31 – 40. 

Herreid, C.F. (2007). Start with a Story: The Case Study Method of Teaching College Science . National Science Teachers Association. Available as an ebook through Columbia Libraries. 

Herreid, C.F. (2006). “Clicker” Cases: Introducing Case Study Teaching Into Large Classrooms. Journal of College Science Teaching. Oct 2006, 36(2). https://search.proquest.com/docview/200323718?pq-origsite=gscholar  

Krain, M. (2016). Putting the Learning in Case Learning? The Effects of Case-Based Approaches on Student Knowledge, Attitudes, and Engagement. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching. 27(2), 131-153. 

Lundberg, K.O. (Ed.). (2011). Our Digital Future: Boardrooms and Newsrooms. Knight Case Studies Initiative. 

Popil, I. (2011). Promotion of critical thinking by using case studies as teaching method. Nurse Education Today, 31(2), 204–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2010.06.002

Schiano, B. and Andersen, E. (2017). Teaching with Cases Online . Harvard Business Publishing. 

Thistlethwaite, JE; Davies, D.; Ekeocha, S.; Kidd, J.M.; MacDougall, C.; Matthews, P.; Purkis, J.; Clay D. (2012). The effectiveness of case-based learning in health professional education: A BEME systematic review . Medical Teacher. 2012; 34(6): e421-44. 

Yadav, A.; Lundeberg, M.; DeSchryver, M.; Dirkin, K.; Schiller, N.A.; Maier, K. and Herreid, C.F. (2007). Teaching Science with Case Studies: A National Survey of Faculty Perceptions of the Benefits and Challenges of Using Cases. Journal of College Science Teaching; Sept/Oct 2007; 37(1). 

Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. Second Edition. Jossey-Bass.

Additional resources 

Teaching with Cases , Harvard Kennedy School of Government. 

Features “what is a teaching case?” video that defines a teaching case, and provides documents to help students prepare for case learning, Common case teaching challenges and solutions, tips for teaching with cases. 

Promoting excellence and innovation in case method teaching: Teaching by the Case Method , Christensen Center for Teaching & Learning. Harvard Business School. 

National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science . University of Buffalo. 

A collection of peer-reviewed STEM cases to teach scientific concepts and content, promote process skills and critical thinking. The Center welcomes case submissions. Case classification scheme of case types and teaching methods:

• Different types of cases: analysis case, dilemma/decision case, directed case, interrupted case, clicker case, a flipped case, a laboratory case. 
• Different types of teaching methods: problem-based learning, discussion, debate, intimate debate, public hearing, trial, jigsaw, role-play. 

Columbia Resources

Resources available to support your use of case method: The University hosts a number of case collections including: the Case Consortium (a collection of free cases in the fields of journalism, public policy, public health, and other disciplines that include teaching and learning resources; SIPA’s Picker Case Collection (audiovisual case studies on public sector innovation, filmed around the world and involving SIPA student teams in producing the cases); and Columbia Business School CaseWorks , which develops teaching cases and materials for use in Columbia Business School classrooms.

Center for Teaching and Learning

The Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) offers a variety of programs and services for instructors at Columbia. The CTL can provide customized support as you plan to use the case method approach through implementation. Schedule a one-on-one consultation. 

Office of the Provost

The Hybrid Learning Course Redesign grant program from the Office of the Provost provides support for faculty who are developing innovative and technology-enhanced pedagogy and learning strategies in the classroom. In addition to funding, faculty awardees receive support from CTL staff as they redesign, deliver, and evaluate their hybrid courses.

The Start Small! Mini-Grant provides support to faculty who are interested in experimenting with one new pedagogical strategy or tool. Faculty awardees receive funds and CTL support for a one-semester period.

Explore our teaching resources.

• Blended Learning
• Contemplative Pedagogy
• Inclusive Teaching Guide
• FAQ for Teaching Assistants
• Metacognition

CTL resources and technology for you.

• Overview of all CTL Resources and Technology
• The origins of this method can be traced to Harvard University where in 1870 the Law School began using cases to teach students how to think like lawyers using real court decisions. This was followed by the Business School in 1920 (Garvin, 2003). These professional schools recognized that lecture mode of instruction was insufficient to teach critical professional skills, and that active learning would better prepare learners for their professional lives. ↩
• Golich, V.L. (2000). The ABCs of Case Teaching. International Studies Perspectives. 1, 11-29. ↩
• Herreid, C.F. (2007). Start with a Story: The Case Study Method of Teaching College Science . National Science Teachers Association. Available as an ebook through Columbia Libraries. ↩
• Davis, B.G. (2009). Chapter 24: Case Studies. In Tools for Teaching. Second Edition. Jossey-Bass. ↩
• Andersen, E. and Schiano, B. (2014). Teaching with Cases: A Practical Guide . Harvard Business Press. ↩
• Lundberg, K.O. (Ed.). (2011). Our Digital Future: Boardrooms and Newsrooms. Knight Case Studies Initiative. ↩
• Heath, J. (2015). Teaching & Writing Cases: A Practical Guide. The Case Center, UK. ↩
• Bonney, K. M. (2015). Case Study Teaching Method Improves Student Performance and Perceptions of Learning Gains†. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education , 16 (1), 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v16i1.846 ↩
• Krain, M. (2016). Putting the Learning in Case Learning? The Effects of Case-Based Approaches on Student Knowledge, Attitudes, and Engagement. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching. 27(2), 131-153. ↩
• Thistlethwaite, JE; Davies, D.; Ekeocha, S.; Kidd, J.M.; MacDougall, C.; Matthews, P.; Purkis, J.; Clay D. (2012). The effectiveness of case-based learning in health professional education: A BEME systematic review . Medical Teacher. 2012; 34(6): e421-44. ↩
• Yadav, A.; Lundeberg, M.; DeSchryver, M.; Dirkin, K.; Schiller, N.A.; Maier, K. and Herreid, C.F. (2007). Teaching Science with Case Studies: A National Survey of Faculty Perceptions of the Benefits and Challenges of Using Cases. Journal of College Science Teaching; Sept/Oct 2007; 37(1). ↩
• Popil, I. (2011). Promotion of critical thinking by using case studies as teaching method. Nurse Education Today, 31(2), 204–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2010.06.002 ↩
• Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. Second Edition. Jossey-Bass. ↩
• Herreid, C.F. (2006). “Clicker” Cases: Introducing Case Study Teaching Into Large Classrooms. Journal of College Science Teaching. Oct 2006, 36(2). https://search.proquest.com/docview/200323718?pq-origsite=gscholar ↩

This website uses cookies to identify users, improve the user experience and requires cookies to work. By continuing to use this website, you consent to Columbia University's use of cookies and similar technologies, in accordance with the Columbia University Website Cookie Notice .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Microbiol Biol Educ
• v.16(1); 2015 May

Case Study Teaching Method Improves Student Performance and Perceptions of Learning Gains †

Associated data.

• Appendix 1: Example assessment questions used to assess the effectiveness of case studies at promoting learning
• Appendix 2: Student learning gains were assessed using a modified version of the SALG course evaluation tool

Following years of widespread use in business and medical education, the case study teaching method is becoming an increasingly common teaching strategy in science education. However, the current body of research provides limited evidence that the use of published case studies effectively promotes the fulfillment of specific learning objectives integral to many biology courses. This study tested the hypothesis that case studies are more effective than classroom discussions and textbook reading at promoting learning of key biological concepts, development of written and oral communication skills, and comprehension of the relevance of biological concepts to everyday life. This study also tested the hypothesis that case studies produced by the instructor of a course are more effective at promoting learning than those produced by unaffiliated instructors. Additionally, performance on quantitative learning assessments and student perceptions of learning gains were analyzed to determine whether reported perceptions of learning gains accurately reflect academic performance. The results reported here suggest that case studies, regardless of the source, are significantly more effective than other methods of content delivery at increasing performance on examination questions related to chemical bonds, osmosis and diffusion, mitosis and meiosis, and DNA structure and replication. This finding was positively correlated to increased student perceptions of learning gains associated with oral and written communication skills and the ability to recognize connections between biological concepts and other aspects of life. Based on these findings, case studies should be considered as a preferred method for teaching about a variety of concepts in science courses.

INTRODUCTION

The case study teaching method is a highly adaptable style of teaching that involves problem-based learning and promotes the development of analytical skills ( 8 ). By presenting content in the format of a narrative accompanied by questions and activities that promote group discussion and solving of complex problems, case studies facilitate development of the higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning; moving beyond recall of knowledge to analysis, evaluation, and application ( 1 , 9 ). Similarly, case studies facilitate interdisciplinary learning and can be used to highlight connections between specific academic topics and real-world societal issues and applications ( 3 , 9 ). This has been reported to increase student motivation to participate in class activities, which promotes learning and increases performance on assessments ( 7 , 16 , 19 , 23 ). For these reasons, case-based teaching has been widely used in business and medical education for many years ( 4 , 11 , 12 , 14 ). Although case studies were considered a novel method of science education just 20 years ago, the case study teaching method has gained popularity in recent years among an array of scientific disciplines such as biology, chemistry, nursing, and psychology ( 5 – 7 , 9 , 11 , 13 , 15 – 17 , 21 , 22 , 24 ).

Although there is now a substantive and growing body of literature describing how to develop and use case studies in science teaching, current research on the effectiveness of case study teaching at meeting specific learning objectives is of limited scope and depth. Studies have shown that working in groups during completion of case studies significantly improves student perceptions of learning and may increase performance on assessment questions, and that the use of clickers can increase student engagement in case study activities, particularly among non-science majors, women, and freshmen ( 7 , 21 , 22 ). Case study teaching has been shown to improve exam performance in an anatomy and physiology course, increasing the mean score across all exams given in a two-semester sequence from 66% to 73% ( 5 ). Use of case studies was also shown to improve students’ ability to synthesize complex analytical questions about the real-world issues associated with a scientific topic ( 6 ). In a high school chemistry course, it was demonstrated that the case study teaching method produces significant increases in self-reported control of learning, task value, and self-efficacy for learning and performance ( 24 ). This effect on student motivation is important because enhanced motivation for learning activities has been shown to promote student engagement and academic performance ( 19 , 24 ). Additionally, faculty from a number of institutions have reported that using case studies promotes critical thinking, learning, and participation among students, especially in terms of the ability to view an issue from multiple perspectives and to grasp the practical application of core course concepts ( 23 ).

Despite what is known about the effectiveness of case studies in science education, questions remain about the functionality of the case study teaching method at promoting specific learning objectives that are important to many undergraduate biology courses. A recent survey of teachers who use case studies found that the topics most often covered in general biology courses included genetics and heredity, cell structure, cells and energy, chemistry of life, and cell cycle and cancer, suggesting that these topics should be of particular interest in studies that examine the effectiveness of the case study teaching method ( 8 ). However, the existing body of literature lacks direct evidence that the case study method is an effective tool for teaching about this collection of important topics in biology courses. Further, the extent to which case study teaching promotes development of science communication skills and the ability to understand the connections between biological concepts and everyday life has not been examined, yet these are core learning objectives shared by a variety of science courses. Although many instructors have produced case studies for use in their own classrooms, the production of novel case studies is time-consuming and requires skills that not all instructors have perfected. It is therefore important to determine whether case studies published by instructors who are unaffiliated with a particular course can be used effectively and obviate the need for each instructor to develop new case studies for their own courses. The results reported herein indicate that teaching with case studies results in significantly higher performance on examination questions about chemical bonds, osmosis and diffusion, mitosis and meiosis, and DNA structure and replication than that achieved by class discussions and textbook reading for topics of similar complexity. Case studies also increased overall student perceptions of learning gains and perceptions of learning gains specifically related to written and oral communication skills and the ability to grasp connections between scientific topics and their real-world applications. The effectiveness of the case study teaching method at increasing academic performance was not correlated to whether the case study used was authored by the instructor of the course or by an unaffiliated instructor. These findings support increased use of published case studies in the teaching of a variety of biological concepts and learning objectives.

Student population

This study was conducted at Kingsborough Community College, which is part of the City University of New York system, located in Brooklyn, New York. Kingsborough Community College has a diverse population of approximately 19,000 undergraduate students. The student population included in this study was enrolled in the first semester of a two-semester sequence of general (introductory) biology for biology majors during the spring, winter, or summer semester of 2014. A total of 63 students completed the course during this time period; 56 students consented to the inclusion of their data in the study. Of the students included in the study, 23 (41%) were male and 33 (59%) were female; 40 (71%) were registered as college freshmen and 16 (29%) were registered as college sophomores. To normalize participant groups, the same student population pooled from three classes taught by the same instructor was used to assess both experimental and control teaching methods.

Course material

The four biological concepts assessed during this study (chemical bonds, osmosis and diffusion, mitosis and meiosis, and DNA structure and replication) were selected as topics for studying the effectiveness of case study teaching because they were the key concepts addressed by this particular course that were most likely to be taught in a number of other courses, including biology courses for both majors and nonmajors at outside institutions. At the start of this study, relevant existing case studies were freely available from the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science (NCCSTS) to address mitosis and meiosis and DNA structure and replication, but published case studies that appropriately addressed chemical bonds and osmosis and diffusion were not available. Therefore, original case studies that addressed the latter two topics were produced as part of this study, and case studies produced by unaffiliated instructors and published by the NCCSTS were used to address the former two topics. By the conclusion of this study, all four case studies had been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication by the NCCSTS ( http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/ ). Four of the remaining core topics covered in this course (macromolecules, photosynthesis, genetic inheritance, and translation) were selected as control lessons to provide control assessment data.

To minimize extraneous variation, control topics and assessments were carefully matched in complexity, format, and number with case studies, and an equal amount of class time was allocated for each case study and the corresponding control lesson. Instruction related to control lessons was delivered using minimal slide-based lectures, with emphasis on textbook reading assignments accompanied by worksheets completed by students in and out of the classroom, and small and large group discussion of key points. Completion of activities and discussion related to all case studies and control topics that were analyzed was conducted in the classroom, with the exception of the take-home portion of the osmosis and diffusion case study.

Data collection and analysis

This study was performed in accordance with a protocol approved by the Kingsborough Community College Human Research Protection Program and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the City University of New York (CUNY IRB reference 539938-1; KCC IRB application #: KCC 13-12-126-0138). Assessment scores were collected from regularly scheduled course examinations. For each case study, control questions were included on the same examination that were similar in number, format, point value, and difficulty level, but related to a different topic covered in the course that was of similar complexity. Complexity and difficulty of both case study and control questions were evaluated using experiential data from previous iterations of the course; the Bloom’s taxonomy designation and amount of material covered by each question, as well as the average score on similar questions achieved by students in previous iterations of the course was considered in determining appropriate controls. All assessment questions were scored using a standardized, pre-determined rubric. Student perceptions of learning gains were assessed using a modified version of the Student Assessment of Learning Gains (SALG) course evaluation tool ( http://www.salgsite.org ), distributed in hardcopy and completed anonymously during the last week of the course. Students were presented with a consent form to opt-in to having their data included in the data analysis. After the course had concluded and final course grades had been posted, data from consenting students were pooled in a database and identifying information was removed prior to analysis. Statistical analysis of data was conducted using the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance and calculation of the R 2 coefficient of determination.

Teaching with case studies improves performance on learning assessments, independent of case study origin

To evaluate the effectiveness of the case study teaching method at promoting learning, student performance on examination questions related to material covered by case studies was compared with performance on questions that covered material addressed through classroom discussions and textbook reading. The latter questions served as control items; assessment items for each case study were compared with control items that were of similar format, difficulty, and point value ( Appendix 1 ). Each of the four case studies resulted in an increase in examination performance compared with control questions that was statistically significant, with an average difference of 18% ( Fig. 1 ). The mean score on case study-related questions was 73% for the chemical bonds case study, 79% for osmosis and diffusion, 76% for mitosis and meiosis, and 70% for DNA structure and replication ( Fig. 1 ). The mean score for non-case study-related control questions was 60%, 54%, 60%, and 52%, respectively ( Fig. 1 ). In terms of examination performance, no significant difference between case studies produced by the instructor of the course (chemical bonds and osmosis and diffusion) and those produced by unaffiliated instructors (mitosis and meiosis and DNA structure and replication) was indicated by the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance. However, the 25% difference between the mean score on questions related to the osmosis and diffusion case study and the mean score on the paired control questions was notably higher than the 13–18% differences observed for the other case studies ( Fig. 1 ).

Case study teaching method increases student performance on examination questions. Mean score on a set of examination questions related to lessons covered by case studies (black bars) and paired control questions of similar format and difficulty about an unrelated topic (white bars). Chemical bonds, n = 54; Osmosis and diffusion, n = 54; Mitosis and meiosis, n = 51; DNA structure and replication, n = 50. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean (SEM). Asterisk indicates p < 0.05.

Case study teaching increases student perception of learning gains related to core course objectives

Student learning gains were assessed using a modified version of the SALG course evaluation tool ( Appendix 2 ). To determine whether completing case studies was more effective at increasing student perceptions of learning gains than completing textbook readings or participating in class discussions, perceptions of student learning gains for each were compared. In response to the question “Overall, how much did each of the following aspects of the class help your learning?” 82% of students responded that case studies helped a “good” or “great” amount, compared with 70% for participating in class discussions and 58% for completing textbook reading; only 4% of students responded that case studies helped a “small amount” or “provided no help,” compared with 2% for class discussions and 22% for textbook reading ( Fig. 2A ). The differences in reported learning gains derived from the use of case studies compared with class discussion and textbook readings were statistically significant, while the difference in learning gains associated with class discussion compared with textbook reading was not statistically significant by a narrow margin ( p = 0.051).

The case study teaching method increases student perceptions of learning gains. Student perceptions of learning gains are indicated by plotting responses to the question “How much did each of the following activities: (A) Help your learning overall? (B) Improve your ability to communicate your knowledge of scientific concepts in writing? (C) Improve your ability to communicate your knowledge of scientific concepts orally? (D) Help you understand the connections between scientific concepts and other aspects of your everyday life?” Reponses are represented as follows: Helped a great amount (black bars); Helped a good amount (dark gray bars); Helped a moderate amount (medium gray bars); Helped a small amount (light gray bars); Provided no help (white bars). Asterisk indicates p < 0.05.

To elucidate the effectiveness of case studies at promoting learning gains related to specific course learning objectives compared with class discussions and textbook reading, students were asked how much each of these methods of content delivery specifically helped improve skills that were integral to fulfilling three main course objectives. When students were asked how much each of the methods helped “improve your ability to communicate knowledge of scientific concepts in writing,” 81% of students responded that case studies help a “good” or “great” amount, compared with 63% for class discussions and 59% for textbook reading; only 6% of students responded that case studies helped a “small amount” or “provided no help,” compared with 8% for class discussions and 21% for textbook reading ( Fig. 2B ). When the same question was posed about the ability to communicate orally, 81% of students responded that case studies help a “good” or “great” amount, compared with 68% for class discussions and 50% for textbook reading, while the respective response rates for helped a “small amount” or “provided no help,” were 4%, 6%, and 25% ( Fig. 2C ). The differences in learning gains associated with both written and oral communication were statistically significant when completion of case studies was compared with either participation in class discussion or completion of textbook readings. Compared with textbook reading, class discussions led to a statistically significant increase in oral but not written communication skills.

Students were then asked how much each of the methods helped them “understand the connections between scientific concepts and other aspects of your everyday life.” A total of 79% of respondents declared that case studies help a “good” or “great” amount, compared with 70% for class discussions and 57% for textbook reading ( Fig. 2D ). Only 4% stated that case studies and class discussions helped a “small amount” or “provided no help,” compared with 21% for textbook reading ( Fig. 2D ). Similar to overall learning gains, the use of case studies significantly increased the ability to understand the relevance of science to everyday life compared with class discussion and textbook readings, while the difference in learning gains associated with participation in class discussion compared with textbook reading was not statistically significant ( p = 0.054).

Student perceptions of learning gains resulting from case study teaching are positively correlated to increased performance on examinations, but independent of case study author

To test the hypothesis that case studies produced specifically for this course by the instructor were more effective at promoting learning gains than topically relevant case studies published by authors not associated with this course, perceptions of learning gains were compared for each of the case studies. For both of the case studies produced by the instructor of the course, 87% of students indicated that the case study provided a “good” or “great” amount of help to their learning, and 2% indicated that the case studies provided “little” or “no” help ( Table 1 ). In comparison, an average of 85% of students indicated that the case studies produced by an unaffiliated instructor provided a “good” or “great” amount of help to their learning, and 4% indicated that the case studies provided “little” or “no” help ( Table 1 ). The instructor-produced case studies yielded both the highest and lowest percentage of students reporting the highest level of learning gains (a “great” amount), while case studies produced by unaffiliated instructors yielded intermediate values. Therefore, it can be concluded that the effectiveness of case studies at promoting learning gains is not significantly affected by whether or not the course instructor authored the case study.

Case studies positively affect student perceptions of learning gains about various biological topics.

Finally, to determine whether performance on examination questions accurately predicts student perceptions of learning gains, mean scores on examination questions related to case studies were compared with reported perceptions of learning gains for those case studies ( Fig. 3 ). The coefficient of determination (R 2 value) was 0.81, indicating a strong, but not definitive, positive correlation between perceptions of learning gains and performance on examinations, suggesting that student perception of learning gains is a valid tool for assessing the effectiveness of case studies ( Fig. 3 ). This correlation was independent of case study author.

Perception of learning gains but not author of case study is positively correlated to score on related examination questions. Percentage of students reporting that each specific case study provided “a great amount of help” to their learning was plotted against the point difference between mean score on examination questions related to that case study and mean score on paired control questions. Positive point differences indicate how much higher the mean scores on case study-related questions were than the mean scores on paired control questions. Black squares represent case studies produced by the instructor of the course; white squares represent case studies produced by unaffiliated instructors. R 2 value indicates the coefficient of determination.

The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that teaching with case studies produced by the instructor of a course is more effective at promoting learning gains than using case studies produced by unaffiliated instructors. This study also tested the hypothesis that the case study teaching method is more effective than class discussions and textbook reading at promoting learning gains associated with four of the most commonly taught topics in undergraduate general biology courses: chemical bonds, osmosis and diffusion, mitosis and meiosis, and DNA structure and replication. In addition to assessing content-based learning gains, development of written and oral communication skills and the ability to connect scientific topics with real-world applications was also assessed, because these skills were overarching learning objectives of this course, and classroom activities related to both case studies and control lessons were designed to provide opportunities for students to develop these skills. Finally, data were analyzed to determine whether performance on examination questions is positively correlated to student perceptions of learning gains resulting from case study teaching.

Compared with equivalent control questions about topics of similar complexity taught using class discussions and textbook readings, all four case studies produced statistically significant increases in the mean score on examination questions ( Fig. 1 ). This indicates that case studies are more effective than more commonly used, traditional methods of content delivery at promoting learning of a variety of core concepts covered in general biology courses. The average increase in score on each test item was equivalent to nearly two letter grades, which is substantial enough to elevate the average student performance on test items from the unsatisfactory/failing range to the satisfactory/passing range. The finding that there was no statistical difference between case studies in terms of performance on examination questions suggests that case studies are equally effective at promoting learning of disparate topics in biology. The observations that students did not perform significantly less well on the first case study presented (chemical bonds) compared with the other case studies and that performance on examination questions did not progressively increase with each successive case study suggests that the effectiveness of case studies is not directly related to the amount of experience students have using case studies. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence from previous semesters of this course suggests that, of the four topics addressed by cases in this study, DNA structure and function and osmosis and diffusion are the first and second most difficult for students to grasp. The lack of a statistical difference between case studies therefore suggests that the effectiveness of a case study at promoting learning gains is not directly proportional to the difficulty of the concept covered. However, the finding that use of the osmosis and diffusion case study resulted in the greatest increase in examination performance compared with control questions and also produced the highest student perceptions of learning gains is noteworthy and could be attributed to the fact that it was the only case study evaluated that included a hands-on experiment. Because the inclusion of a hands-on kinetic activity may synergistically enhance student engagement and learning and result in an even greater increase in learning gains than case studies that lack this type of activity, it is recommended that case studies that incorporate this type of activity be preferentially utilized.

Student perceptions of learning gains are strongly motivating factors for engagement in the classroom and academic performance, so it is important to assess the effect of any teaching method in this context ( 19 , 24 ). A modified version of the SALG course evaluation tool was used to assess student perceptions of learning gains because it has been previously validated as an efficacious tool ( Appendix 2 ) ( 20 ). Using the SALG tool, case study teaching was demonstrated to significantly increase student perceptions of overall learning gains compared with class discussions and textbook reading ( Fig. 2A ). Case studies were shown to be particularly useful for promoting perceived development of written and oral communication skills and for demonstrating connections between scientific topics and real-world issues and applications ( Figs. 2B–2D ). Further, student perceptions of “great” learning gains positively correlated with increased performance on examination questions, indicating that assessment of learning gains using the SALG tool is both valid and useful in this course setting ( Fig. 3 ). These findings also suggest that case study teaching could be used to increase student motivation and engagement in classroom activities and thus promote learning and performance on assessments. The finding that textbook reading yielded the lowest student perceptions of learning gains was not unexpected, since reading facilitates passive learning while the class discussions and case studies were both designed to promote active learning.

Importantly, there was no statistical difference in student performance on examinations attributed to the two case studies produced by the instructor of the course compared with the two case studies produced by unaffiliated instructors. The average difference between the two instructor-produced case studies and the two case studies published by unaffiliated instructors was only 3% in terms of both the average score on examination questions (76% compared with 73%) and the average increase in score compared with paired control items (14% compared with 17%) ( Fig. 1 ). Even when considering the inherent qualitative differences of course grades, these differences are negligible. Similarly, the effectiveness of case studies at promoting learning gains was not significantly affected by the origin of the case study, as evidenced by similar percentages of students reporting “good” and “great” learning gains regardless of whether the case study was produced by the course instructor or an unaffiliated instructor ( Table 1 ).

The observation that case studies published by unaffiliated instructors are just as effective as those produced by the instructor of a course suggests that instructors can reasonably rely on the use of pre-published case studies relevant to their class rather than investing the considerable time and effort required to produce a novel case study. Case studies covering a wide range of topics in the sciences are available from a number of sources, and many of them are free access. The National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science (NCCSTS) database ( http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/ ) contains over 500 case studies that are freely available to instructors, and are accompanied by teaching notes that provide logistical advice and additional resources for implementing the case study, as well as a set of assessment questions with a password-protected answer key. Case study repositories are also maintained by BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium ( http://www.bioquest.org/icbl/cases.php ) and the Science Case Network ( http://sciencecasenet.org ); both are available for use by instructors from outside institutions.

It should be noted that all case studies used in this study were rigorously peer-reviewed and accepted for publication by the NCCSTS prior to the completion of this study ( 2 , 10 , 18 , 25 ); the conclusions of this study may not apply to case studies that were not developed in accordance with similar standards. Because case study teaching involves skills such as creative writing and management of dynamic group discussion in a way that is not commonly integrated into many other teaching methods, it is recommended that novice case study teachers seek training or guidance before writing their first case study or implementing the method. The lack of a difference observed in the use of case studies from different sources should be interpreted with some degree of caution since only two sources were represented in this study, and each by only two cases. Furthermore, in an educational setting, quantitative differences in test scores might produce meaningful qualitative differences in course grades even in the absence of a p value that is statistically significant. For example, there is a meaningful qualitative difference between test scores that result in an average grade of C− and test scores that result in an average grade of C+, even if there is no statistically significant difference between the two sets of scores.

In the future, it could be informative to confirm these findings using a larger cohort, by repeating the study at different institutions with different instructors, by evaluating different case studies, and by directly comparing the effectiveness of the case studying teaching method with additional forms of instruction, such as traditional chalkboard and slide-based lecturing, and laboratory-based activities. It may also be informative to examine whether demographic factors such as student age and gender modulate the effectiveness of the case study teaching method, and whether case studies work equally well for non-science majors taking a science course compared with those majoring in the subject. Since the topical material used in this study is often included in other classes in both high school and undergraduate education, such as cell biology, genetics, and chemistry, the conclusions of this study are directly applicable to a broad range of courses. Presently, it is recommended that the use of case studies in teaching undergraduate general biology and other science courses be expanded, especially for the teaching of capacious issues with real-world applications and in classes where development of written and oral communication skills are key objectives. The use of case studies that involve hands-on activities should be emphasized to maximize the benefit of this teaching method. Importantly, instructors can be confident in the use of pre-published case studies to promote learning, as there is no indication that the effectiveness of the case study teaching method is reliant on the production of novel, customized case studies for each course.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS

Acknowledgments.

This article benefitted from a President’s Faculty Innovation Grant, Kingsborough Community College. The author declares that there are no conflicts of interest.

† Supplemental materials available at http://jmbe.asm.org

• Harvard Business School →
• Christensen Center →

Teaching by the Case Method

• Preparing to Teach
• Leading in the Classroom
• Providing Assessment & Feedback
• Sample Class

Case Method in Practice

Chris Christensen described case method teaching as "the art of managing uncertainty"—a process in which the instructor serves as "planner, host, moderator, devil's advocate, fellow-student, and judge," all in search of solutions to real-world problems and challenges.

Unlike lectures, case method classes unfold without a detailed script. Successful instructors simultaneously manage content and process, and they must prepare rigorously for both. Case method teachers learn to balance planning and spontaneity. In practice, they pursue opportunities and "teachable moments" that emerge throughout the discussion, and deftly guide students toward discovery and learning on multiple levels. The principles and techniques are developed, Christensen says, "through collaboration and cooperation with friends and colleagues, and through self-observation and reflection."

This section of the Christensen Center website explores the Case Method in Practice along the following dimensions:

• Providing Assessment and Feedback

Each subsection provides perspectives and guidance through a written overview, supplemented by video commentary from experienced case method instructors. Where relevant, links are included to downloadable documents produced by the Christensen Center or Harvard Business School Publishing. References for further reading are provided as well.

An additional subsection, entitled Resources, appears at the end. It combines references from throughout the Case Method in Practice section with additional information on published materials and websites that may be of interest to prospective, new, and experienced case method instructors.

Note: We would like to thank Harvard Business School Publishing for permission to incorporate the video clips that appear in the Case Method in Practice section of our website. The clips are drawn from video excerpts included in Participant-Centered Learning and the Case Method: A DVD Case Teaching Tool (HBSP, 2003).

Christensen Center Tip Sheets

• Characteristics of Effective Case Method Teaching
• Elements of Effective Class Preparation
• Guidelines for Effective Observation of Case Instructors
• In-Class Assessment of Discussion-Based Teaching
• Questions for Class Discussions
• Teaching Quantitative Material
• Strategies and Tactics for Sensitive Topics

Curriculum Innovation

The case method has evolved so students may act as decision-makers in new engaging formats:

Game Simulations

Multimedia cases, ideo: human-centered service design.

• Case Teaching Resources

Teaching With Cases

Included here are resources to learn more about case method and teaching with cases.

What Is A Teaching Case?

This video explores the definition of a teaching case and introduces the rationale for using case method.

Narrated by Carolyn Wood, former director of the HKS Case Program

Learning by the Case Method

Questions for class discussion, common case teaching challenges and possible solutions, teaching with cases tip sheet, teaching ethics by the case method.

The case method is an effective way to increase student engagement and challenge students to integrate and apply skills to real-world problems. In these videos,  Using the Case Method to Teach Public Policy , you'll find invaluable insights into the art of case teaching from one of HKS’s most respected professors, Jose A. Gomez-Ibanez.

Chapter 1: Preparing for Class (2:29)

Chapter 2: How to begin the class and structure the discussion blocks (1:37)

Chapter 3: How to launch the discussion (1:36)

Chapter 4: Tools to manage the class discussion (2:23)

Chapter 5: Encouraging participation and acknowledging students' comments (1:52)

Chapter 6: Transitioning from one block to the next / Importance of body (2:05)

Chapter 7: Using the board plan to feed the discussion (3:33)

Chapter 8: Exploring the richness of the case (1:42)

Chapter 9: The wrap-up. Why teach cases? (2:49)

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Case Studies and Methods in Teaching and Learning

Related Papers

Julita Lambating

Daniel Fasko

Barbara L McCombs

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Karen L Riley

Laura Reissner

Lydia Fernandes

Clare Kilbane

Ana GilGarcia

Nancy Patterson

J. Alouf , Michael Bentley

Gretchen Butera

Rhonda Black

Ayfer Budak

Michele de Courcy

Pedro Portes

Robert Shumer

Leonard Baca

Ann Marie Ryan

Michael Bentley , J. Alouf

Laura Turchi

Valerie Talsma

Pamela Kulinna

Donetta Cothran

Linda Chiang

Khaled Hamza

Learning Disabilities Research and Practice

Naomi Zigmond

Troy Sadler

penny hammrich

Janet Richards

Todd Dinkelman

Journal article by Penny L. Hammrich; Journal of …

Rosanne Fortner

Manel Lacorte

Samson Nashon

Nancy Noonan

Frederick Brigham

Diane Rodriguez

Theodore Creighton

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Open access
• Published: 19 July 2024

Reform of teaching and practice of the integrated teaching method BOPPPS-PBL in the course “clinical haematological test technique”

• Xinrui Feng 1 ,
• Weiru Wu 1 &
• Qinghua Bi 1  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  773 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

In order to meet the demand for laboratory talents in the clinical laboratory industry and address the current curriculum characteristics and shortcomings of the teaching mode of “Clinical Hematology Laboratory Technology”, we investigated the effectiveness of the bridge-in, objective, pre-assessment, participatory learning, post-assessment, and summary model combined with problem-based learning (BOPPPS-PBL) in undergraduate teaching of this course.

Seventy students majoring in Medical Laboratory Technology from the Army Medical University in the past 5 years have been selected and divided into two groups with the same teaching content and time. The control group (2015 and 2016 grades) used traditional teaching methods, while the experimental group (2017, 2018 and 2019 grades) used the BOPPPS-PBL model. After class, diverse evaluation methods were used to analyze the formative and summative exam scores of the two groups of students.

After the reform, students performed significantly better in exams than before. In addition, the new teaching methods have had a positive impact, with students demonstrating high motivation for self-directed learning and problem-solving abilities.

Compared to traditional teaching methods. The BOPPPS-PBL integrated case study education model is a relatively effective teaching method to improve students’ problem-solving ability and comprehensive practical ability.

Peer Review reports

Clinical hematology testing technology is a profound and comprehensive clinical discipline that emphasizes blood diseases as the research subject, rooted in theoretical knowledge of hematology, and employs physical, chemical, and immune testing experimental techniques as the tools [ 1 ]. This course is a pivotal course within laboratory medicine, primarily educating the morphology of blood cells in the form of tangible components in blood and bone marrow, prevalent red blood cell diseases, white blood cell diseases, hemorrhagic and thrombotic diseases, classification (typing), clinical manifestations, and laboratory examination methods [ 2 ]. Clinical hematology testing techniques emphasize the combination of theory and practice. It is a discipline closely integrated with clinical practice, which is helpful for the diagnosis, efficacy observation, and pre-monitoring of clinical hematological diseases [ 2 ].

With the advancement of China’s healthcare reform, the healthcare sector is transforming presently. In this milieu, the teaching plan and curriculum system of the main medical laboratory’s major also necessitate corresponding transformations, requiring students to uphold the fusion of “training objectives” and “employment needs”, focus on technical attributes, and actualize the amalgamation of educational training and clinical practical needs [ 3 ]. However, the conventional method of teaching presents several shortcomings. For instance, concurrent with the dynamic advancement of fundamental medical disciplines, testing methodologies and technologies have consistently innovated [ 4 ]. The diagnosis and management of blood diseases have undertaken substantial modifications, characterized by information, intelligence, and network integration [ 5 , 6 ]. Novel clinical testing methods and instrumentation, such as flow cytometry, capillary electrophoresis, genetics and molecular biology, contribute significantly to the precise treatment, efficacy assessment, and prognosis insight into hematological disorders through uncomplicated, swift, and precise testing and analysis techniques [ 7 , 8 ]. Nevertheless, the pertinent content within the instruction of traditional hematological testing techniques courses may be outdated or infrequently discussed. Meanwhile, experimental teaching is detached from clinical practice, and the procurement of some specialized specimens is challenging due to factors such as limited numbers of personnel and location, culminating in suboptimal teaching outcomes. The conventional method of education may no longer adequately address the training requirements of medical laboratory experts [ 9 , 10 ]. Consequently, reform of the mode of education is imperative.

Innovative teaching methods can effectively improve the teaching quality of medical laboratory science and are an indispensable choice for improving clinical hematology laboratory technology courses [ 11 ]. The BOPPPS teaching model was suggested by the Canadian Instructional Skills Workshop (ISW) during the 1970s [ 12 ], which includes six stages: course introduction (B-Bridge in), learning objectives or outcomes (O-Objective or Outcome), pre assessment (P-Pre assessment), participatory learning (P-Participant Learning), post assessment (P-Post assessment), and summary (S-Summary). This model not only prioritizes student participation, but also improves the teaching ability and efficiency of teachers [ 13 ].

The Problem Based Learning (PBL) model, also known as Problem Based Teaching, originated in the 1950s. PBL has been described as an effective and efficient educational approach in the field of medical education [ 14 , 15 ]. Medical courses aim to help students connect clinical knowledge with basic medical knowledge. However, traditional passive learning techniques are difficult to achieve. PBL focuses on problem-triggered and student-centered active learning strategies, which can improve students’ self-directed learning, interdisciplinary knowledge application, critical thinking, communication and collaboration abilities, as well as clinical thinking abilities [ 3 , 16 , 17 ]. Consequently, the harmonious fusion of case-based and PBL-based pedagogy, utilizing typical cases as teaching tools, assists students in comprehending and retaining the typical characteristics of diseases through reflection and analysis of typical cases, and also fosters student evidence-based reasoning [ 17 ].

The BOPPPS model has been applied to practical teaching in many disciplines, including biopharmaceutical engineering [ 18 ], thoracic surgery education [ 19 ], physiology education [ 20 ], and basic nursing education [ 21 ]. However, there are currently no reports on the application of BOPPPS and PBL models in clinical hematology laboratory technology teaching, both domestically and internationally. Although the BOPPPS and PBL models have been proven to be efficient and successful in improving students’ academic knowledge level, it is still unclear whether the BOPPPS-PBL model can play a good role in clinical hematology laboratory technology teaching in China. The integration of BOPPPS-PBL teaching technology aims to enhance students’ ability to analyze and solve problems, solving a crucial field in the learning and development of medical laboratory technology professionals.

Ethical approval

This study was performed in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration. The informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Participants

The research is a non-randomized controlled trial. Due to the unique nature of military academies, the number of students admitted per session is relatively small. The participants comprised all 70 undergraduates from the Army Medical University who studied clinical hematology testing technology courses from August 2018 to December 2022 in four-year medical laboratory technology majors. All undergraduates studied clinical hematology testing techniques in the seventh semester. Nineteen undergraduates in 2015 and 2016 were included in the traditional teaching method group (control group), while 51 undergraduates in 2017, 2018, and 2019 were included in the BOPPPS-PBL group (BOPPPS-PBL group) (Table 3).

Introducing clinical teaching guided by job competence

Our team has prioritized cultivating professional applied talents that are intimately connected with clinical practice in the realm of teaching design and reform. We utilized a collaborative clinical teaching model with clinical laboratories, enabling students to comprehend the application parameters and operational essentials of contemporary laboratory and diagnosis and treatment technology, and guiding them to further develop proficiency and mastery through practical operations. For instance, in the subject of hemorrhagic diseases and thrombotic diseases, in addition to imparting students with an understanding of the principles, methods, and significance of thrombus and hemostasis screening tests, it was also crucial to adeptly master modern testing techniques such as semi-automatic blood clotting instruments, thromboelastometers, and blood rheometers. Integrating advanced theory with industrial practice aims to foster medical laboratory technology professionals with core competitiveness in their roles.

Teaching reform by introducing BOPPPS and case integration teaching model

In light of the unique attributes of the course “Clinical Hematology Testing Technology” and the practical teaching scenario, we have chosen to use the BOPPPS model for refinement and exploration, transforming the traditional cramming teaching mainly based on teacher lectures into student-centered active participatory learning [ 22 , 23 ]. The incorporation of the BOPPPS model not only amplifies the cognitive capacity of students, invigorates their enthusiasm, but also enhances their understanding of abstract basic professional knowledge [ 24 , 25 ].

According to the BOPPPS model, the teaching design and process of “iron deficiency anemia” in the course are divided into 6 modules (Fig.  1 ; Table  1 ) [ 26 ].

Design flowchart of BOPPPS model

Bridge-in (B) Using a case-based teaching approach at the beginning of this lesson, the educational material is elucidated through clinical examples to kindle students’ curiosity, catalyzed learning enthusiasm, and quickly integrated students’ cognition into clinical scenarios.

Objectives (O) In the class, the teacher elaborated on the learning objectives and salient features of this lesson, and learners had an initial understanding of the theoretical framework of this module.

Pre-assessment (P) Pre-assessment was conducted to understand students’ mastery of overview knowledge and preview of new content, and subsequent teaching strategies were adjusted based on feedback data.

Participatory Learning (P) Participatory learning is the core of teaching activities. Through questioning, heuristic teaching, teacher-student interaction, and group discussions, the subjective initiative of students was fully mobilized, leading to positive thinking and discussion, and providing constructive feedback on their level of participation.

Post-assessment (P) Post-testing serves as an essential means of measuring student learning effectiveness and verifying curriculum objectives. Utilizing post-test outcomes, educators refined instructional methodology, while learners can understood their mastery of knowledge, thereby enhanced pedagogical effectiveness.

Summary (S) Finally, the teacher’s summary is a reflection on the teaching process, refining the course content, and further enhancing the instructional design. Through summarization, students constructed a knowledge framework, analyzed and summarized the internalization of knowledge, and enhanced learning effectiveness.

Teaching reform by introducing PBL and case integration teaching model

Clinical hematology testing technology is a course closely related to clinical practice. In addition to emphasizing students’ mastery of professional theoretical knowledge of clinical hematological diseases and the principles of laboratory diagnostic methods, it also emphasizes the training of basic test skills, especially the knowledge of bone marrow cell morphology and the application of hematological disease test analysis in diagnosis, emphasizing the integration of theory with practice, Cultivate high-quality laboratory talents with dual abilities of “blood disease test skills” and “clinical blood disease diagnosis”. Therefore, having the ability to apply clinical practice is the main goal of this course teaching. To accomplish this, we focus on professional requirements, reflect on teaching methods, highlight teaching priorities, organically integrate problem-based (PBL) models with case-based teaching, and actively carry out teaching reforms.

Integrating PBL and case-based teaching in practical settings by developing a problem chain around real-world clinical hematological disease cases, with students as the main body and center of teaching activities, fully stimulating students’ thirst for knowledge. Case analysis seeks to align theory with practice, fostering students’ critical thinking, disease analysis, and problem-solving skills [ 27 , 28 ].

Taking “Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML)” as an example, this article introduces the design and implementation of PBL concept and case fusion teaching in this course. First, the true story of the protagonist prototype in the film “I’m Not the God of Medicine” is narrated to stimulate students’ interest in disease. Subsequently, using case studies as a guide, questions and guides students to think and solve problems from a clinical diagnosis and treatment perspective. For instance, what additional laboratory tests do you think are needed? What diseases do you consider possible based on current information? Through a series of questions, students are encouraged to follow the initial diagnosis of chronic myeloid leukemia patients, morphological characteristics of bone marrow imaging at different stages as the disease progresses, diagnostic techniques and key points, and outcome analysis and discussion, including the overall diagnostic process and strategic ideas for the final diagnosis. They are encouraged to understand the role of their knowledge in the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of hematological diseases in clinical practice, and to clarify their professional positioning, realizing the connection between theory and practice will enable students to have a more comprehensive and profound understanding of professional theoretical knowledge and testing techniques.

The PBL concept coupled with case fusion educational techniques strongly engages students in applying professional theoretical knowledge to practical clinical dilemmas, fostering their evidence-based thinking and problem-solving prowess [ 29 , 30 ].

Assessment methods and effectiveness evaluation

Effectiveness assessment.

Evaluation is the main way to evaluate students’ learning effectiveness, and it is also an important basis for testing the quality of teaching [ 31 ]. The traditional assessment method consists of two parts: theoretical assessment and experimental assessment, with a single and one-sided assessment method [ 32 ]. Students focus only on the final assessment, resulting in low participation in the teaching process, resulting in low learning ability and overall quality.

Based on the characteristics of the course “Clinical Hematology Testing Technology”, a diversified assessment system combining formative assessment and summative assessment is adopted. After the reform of assessment methods, formative assessment is a diversified evaluation method that emphasizes the organic combination of assessment process and assessment indicators. The diversified assessment process can flexibly adopt different assessment methods based on students’ personalities and needs, continuously improve in the process, achieve the full process and integration of course assessment, and leverage the assessment, guidance, education, and encouragement functions of evaluation methods [ 33 , 34 ]. The diverse assessment indicators encompass three primary components: homework, experimental operation, and final exam. The aim is to avoid the drawbacks of the traditional single assessment form of “examination instead of evaluation”, and to prevent student contingency and one-sided performance.

This course adopts a comprehensive, multi-level and multi-dimensional assessment method by considering the teaching hours and content composition comprehensively. The usual assignments in formative assessment are designed around the learning objectives of the course, such as: assessment of students’ understanding of the morphology of peripheral blood and bone marrow cells, self-made forms and flow charts inductive reasoning of basic theoretical knowledge of various diseases, and knowledge internalization understanding; The experimental operations include self-designed experiments, bone marrow cell morphology recognition and case analysis, bone marrow smear analysis and diagnosis, providing case information and supporting bone marrow smear, completing the reading and writing of bone marrow test reports, including diagnostic opinions and differential diagnosis, mainly examining students’ mastery of basic methods and skills such as morphological recognition, and judging their clinical diagnostic thinking and other abilities based on case analysis, diagnosis, and other content; The summative assessment mainly assesses students’ mastery of basic theoretical knowledge, laboratory examinations, and other basic methods and skills. From the perspective of clinical diagnosis and treatment, it examines students’ choice of test methods, diagnostic logic, and result analysis, breaking the tradition of memorization, emphasizing understanding over memory, requiring students to grasp basic concepts and operating procedures, and proficiently using specific methods to solve diagnostic problems related to clinical blood diseases and other related cases. Before and after the reform, the daily performance is shown in Table 3 and Fig.  2 . The evaluation method for daily performance prior to the reform was subjective and limited, with a low degree of differentiation. After the reform, the adoption of a diversified formative assessment method significantly improved the differentiation of grades. In the standardized formative assessment, students’ overall performance in the curriculum is assessed more objectively and comprehensively (Table  2 ).

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS 22.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL). Measurement data are expressed as the means ± SD and analyzed by t-test. Categorical data were analyzed by the chi-square test. Statistical significance was defined as p  < 0.05.

The general characteristics of the two groups are shown in Table  3 . The four-year undergraduate medical laboratory technology students in 2015 and 2016 (the control group) comprised 19 individuals, including 4 males and 15 females. The mean age of the control group was 20.25 years. The four-year Medical Laboratory Technology undergraduate group in 2016, 2017 and 2018 (the BOPPPS-PBL group) comprised 51 individuals, 34 of whom were male and 17 were female. The mean age of the BOPPPS-PBL group was 20.32 years. No significant differences in general characteristics, including sex and age, were found between the two groups ( p  > 0.05).

The formative and standardized assessment and evaluation methods are shown in Table  2 . The results before and after the formative assessment score reform are shown in Table  4 ; Fig.  2 . The control group’s evaluation method for daily performance was subjective and limited, with a low degree of differentiation. There was no statistically significant difference in formative evaluation scores between grades 2015 and 2016 ( p  > 0.05). Yet, the BOPPPS-PBL group’s subsequent adoption of diverse formative assessment methods, and the difference in formative assessment scores between the three groups from 2017 to 2019 was statistically significant ( p  < 0.05), which significantly improved their grade discrimination. This shift towards standardized formative assessment provided an objective and comprehensive account of student performance.

Comparison of students’ daily scores and formative assessment scores BOPPPS-PBL group and control group

Post-teaching reform, the BOPPPS-PBL group achieved higher summary evaluation scores than the control group ( p  < 0.01), with a statistically significant difference ( p  < 0.05). Additionally, the proportion of high scoring students in the final evaluation significantly increased (Fig.  3 ), and the difference was statistically significant ( p  < 0.05) (Fig.  4 ).Evidently, the integration of BOPPPS-PBL teaching philosophy and case-based methodologies has yielded positive outcomes among these students. However, this study does have certain constraints. As a minor major in medical laboratory technology, the student sample size is insufficient, comprising only 70 students.

Comparison of score ranges for students’ final assessment BOPPPS-PBL group and control group

Comparison of average scores of students in final assessment BOPPPS-PBL group and control group

Clinical hematology testing technology is a course with professional characteristics. In recent years, medical education has shifted from teacher-centered to learner-centered, and the apprenticeship model has shifted to a new type of education model that focuses on skill development [ 35 ]. Medical laboratory technology belongs to niche majors, where students mainly learn basic theoretical knowledge in basic medicine and medical laboratory, and receive systematic training in medical laboratory operation skills [ 36 ]. Many innovative educational models have been developed both domestically and internationally in terms of course content, teaching design, and teaching methods related to medical laboratory technology, in order to strengthen the teaching of medical laboratory technology [ 37 , 38 ]. However, in the process of teaching mode transformation, there are still many problems in medical laboratory technology education.

In China, clinical hematology testing technology is a branch of laboratory medicine. This course is a professional course in the four-year undergraduate medical laboratory technology teaching of the Department of Pharmacy and Laboratory Medicine at the Army Medical University. Traditional teaching methods mainly have the following characteristics: (1) As students need to work in clinical laboratory positions in the future, limited experimental teaching can only provide students with a preliminary understanding of normal and pathological bone marrow and blood morphology, making it difficult to lay a solid foundation for future work. In addition, the experimental teaching content is limited by outdated instruments and equipment, and the understanding of new and high-throughput testing methods and technologies in clinical practice is limited to the basic theoretical level, making it difficult to cultivate high-quality talents who are closely connected with clinical practice. (2) Current teaching methodologies are limited and heuristic instruction is insufficient. Typically, teachers first teach theoretical knowledge and then explain experimental operations. This cramming teaching methodology limits students’ subjectivity, contributes to subpar participation and diminished motivation [ 39 ]. Concurrently, this passive study approach often prevents students from fully comprehending experimental principles and operations, and from effectively applying fundamental theoretical knowledge to practical applications [ 40 ]. (3) It is difficult to comprehensively evaluate students’ learning outcomes through assessment methods that focus primarily on theoretical assessment and experimental assessment results. Therefore, traditional teaching methods can no longer meet the needs of medical students, and new teaching methods are constantly being developed and improved by educators.

This study applies the BOPPPS-PBL model to the teaching of clinical hematological testing techniques. Compared with traditional teaching methods, the BOPPPS-PBL model, based on the two single teaching modes of BOPPPS and PBL, has the following advantages. Firstly, based on basic professional knowledge, closely adhering to professional needs, combined with the characteristics of the laboratory profession, highlighting the combination of “theory testing disease”. Based on typical clinical cases, stimulate students’ interest, improve learning effectiveness, and reinforce students’ mastery of basic theories and comprehensive practical abilities in this discipline [ 41 ].

Secondly, the BOPPPS-PBL model has changed the traditional teaching relationship. Classroom teaching is student-centered, and more emphasis is placed on teacher-student interaction. In participatory learning, students purposefully acquire knowledge and combine theory with practice through analysis of practical cases. [ 42 ].

Finally, this study carefully examined quantitative data and found that the BOPPPS-PBL group had significantly higher summary evaluation scores than the control group (Table  5 ). Meanwhile, the comparison of the score range between the BOPPPS-PBL group and the control group in the summative assessment showed a significant increase in the proportion of BOPPPS-PBL in the high score range of 80–89, and the 2019 grade students were in the good and excellent score range (Fig.  3 ), proving that this method significantly improved students’ understanding and practical ability of theoretical principles. In addition, compared with the control group, the average grades of students using the BOPPPS-PBL method also improved significantly, which proves the effectiveness of the BOPPPS-PBL method. Firstly, the BOPPPS model is based on constructivist and humanistic learning theories [ 43 ], while PBL is mainly based on constructivist cognitive theory and social constructivist [ 44 ]. BOPPPS-PBL, as an innovative medical teaching method, promotes students to transform from passive external stimulus recipients and indoctrination recipients into active information processors and meaning constructors. This transformation process encourages mastery, internalization, and absorption of knowledge [ 45 ]. Furthermore, in the BOPPPS-PBL model, BOPPPS divides the learning process into multiple modules, each of which can attract and motivate students. Simultaneously combine the benefits of the PBL learning process based on real cases. Our research findings indicate that the BOPPPS-PBL model promotes the cultivation of clinical practice skills and the learning of core competencies, ultimately benefiting students.

Limitations

This study evaluated the effectiveness of comparing the control group and the BOPPPS-PBL group through quantitative research design. The results of this study demonstrate that it was successful and beneficial. Nevertheless, the study presents certain constraints. Firstly, the sample size was small. Research with additional samples are needed to validate the effect of the BOPPPS-PBL model. Secondly, the comparison between BOPPPS and PBL models was not distinctively examined in this study. This deficiency can be rectified in subsequent research. Thirdly, this study focused exclusively on the effect within one course, future validation studies could encompass diverse courses.

Conclusions

In the context of upgrading precision medicine to a “national strategy”, medical lab technology – the “eye of medicine” - experiences extensive advancement. Clinical hematology laboratory technology has become an indispensable and important means for clinical diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis judgment of blood diseases. Therefore, it is necessary to systematically teach hematological testing knowledge to undergraduate medical laboratory students.

In summary, by combining the integrated teaching concept of BOPPPS-PBL with case-based teaching methods in the exploration and practice of teaching reform of “clinical hematology test technology”, and expanding the evaluation system, the comprehensive evaluation of students is carried out from multiple dimensions of “knowledge, ability, and quality”. In the practice of education and teaching, the author’s team has achieved some gains and results, achieving students’ dominant position in talent cultivation, combining the academic nature of knowledge with the fun of learning, and enhancing students’ ability to learn independently, think, analyze, and solve problems. However, in the teaching summary, it was found that it is necessary to adapt flexibly to teaching activities based on student formative assessment and experimental performance, and further improve it, in order to cultivate high-quality medical laboratory professionals who can connect with clinical practice and application.

Data availability

Data is provided within the related files.

Sueoka E. Clinical hematology for specialists of clinical Laboratory Medicine. Rinsho Byori. 2016;64(8):965–71.

Google Scholar  

Hayward CP. Improving blood disorder diagnosis: reflections on the challenges. INT J LAB HEMATOL. 2013;35(3):244–53.

Article   Google Scholar  

Stentoft D. Problem-based projects in medical education: extending PBL practices and broadening learning perspectives. ADV HEALTH SCI EDUC. 2019;24(5):959–69.

Fu Y, Zhang Y, Khoo BL. Liquid biopsy technologies for hematological diseases. MED RES REV. 2021;41(1):246–74.

Zini G. Artificial intelligence in hematology. HEMATOLOGY. 2005;10(5):393–400.

Mintz Y, Brodie R. Introduction to artificial intelligence in medicine. MINIM INVASIV THER. 2019;28(2):73–81.

Vinholt PJ. The role of platelets in bleeding in patients with thrombocytopenia and hematological disease. CLIN CHEM LAB MED. 2019;57(12):1808–17.

Lin M, Meng Y, Wang Y, Zheng H, Liang S, Zhao Q, Zhong L, Yan S. Early screening of thalassemia in pregnant women in northern China by capillary electrophoresis for the determination of hemoglobin electrophoresis. CELL MOL BIOL. 2023;69(10):174–8.

Gao J, Yang L, Zou J, Fan X. Comparison of the influence of massive open online courses and traditional teaching methods in medical education in China: a meta-analysis. BIOCHEM MOL BIOL EDU. 2021;49(4):639–51.

Dickinson BL, Lackey W, Sheakley M, Miller L, Jevert S, Shattuck B. Involving a real patient in the design and implementation of case-based learning to engage learners. ADV PHYSIOL EDUC. 2018;42(1):118–22.

Samuelson DB, Divaris K, De Kok IJ. Benefits of case-based versus traditional lecture-based instruction in a Preclinical Removable Prosthodontics Course. J DENT EDUC. 2017;81(4):387–94.

Pierangeli L. Developing a clinical teaching handbook and reference manual for part-time clinical faculty. NURS EDUC. 2006;31(4):183–5.

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.

Neve H, Bull S, Lloyd H, Gilbert K, Mattick K. Evaluation of an innovative, evidence-guided, PBL approach. CLIN TEACH. 2018;15(2):156–62.

Yew EHJ, Goh K. Problem-based learning: an overview of its process and impact on learning. Health Professions Educ. 2016;2(2):75–9.

Song P, Shen X. Application of PBL combined with traditional teaching in the Immunochemistry course. BMC MED EDUC. 2023;23(1):690.

Zhou F, Sang A, Zhou Q, Wang QQ, Fan Y, Ma S. The impact of an integrated PBL curriculum on clinical thinking in undergraduate medical students prior to clinical practice. BMC MED EDUC. 2023;23(1):460.

Sun F, Wang Y, He Q. BOPPPS teaching method-based effective online teaching strategies and practices for Biopharmaceutical Engineering. Sheng Wu Gong Cheng Xue Bao. 2022;38(12):4808–15.

Hu K, Ma RJ, Ma C, Zheng QK, Sun ZG. Comparison of the BOPPPS model and traditional instructional approaches in thoracic surgery education. BMC MED EDUC. 2022;22(1):447.

Liu XY, Lu C, Zhu H, Wang X, Jia S, Zhang Y, Wen H, Wang YF. Assessment of the effectiveness of BOPPPS-based hybrid teaching model in physiology education. BMC MED EDUC. 2022;22(1):217.

Li Y, Li X, Liu Y, Li Y. Application effect of BOPPPS teaching model on fundamentals of nursing education: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. FRONT MED-LAUSANNE. 2024;11:1319711.

Wilson JA, Pegram AH, Battise DM, Robinson AM. Traditional lecture versus jigsaw learning method for teaching medication Therapy Management (MTM) core elements. CURR PHARM TEACH LEA. 2017;9(6):1151–9.

Dehghanzadeh S, Jafaraghaee F. Comparing the effects of traditional lecture and flipped classroom on nursing students’ critical thinking disposition: a quasi-experimental study. NURS EDUC TODAY. 2018;71:151–6.

Qiu N, Qiu X. A Study on the Application Model of Blended Teaching in English Language Teaching in Colleges and Universities under the Ecological and Internet Perspectives. J ENVIRON PUBLIC HEA. 2022; 2022:4962753.

Ma X, Ma X, Li L, Luo X, Zhang H, Liu Y. Effect of blended learning with BOPPPS model on Chinese student outcomes and perceptions in an introduction course of health services management. ADV PHYSIOL EDUC. 2021;45(2):409–17.

Li P, Lan X, Ren L, Xie X, Xie H, Liu S. Research and practice of the BOPPPS teaching model based on the OBE concept in clinical basic laboratory experiment teaching. BMC MED EDUC. 2023;23(1):882.

Jimenez-Saiz R, Rosace D. Is hybrid-PBL advancing teaching in biomedicine? A systematic review. BMC MED EDUC. 2019;19(1):226.

Smith KL, Petersen DJ, Soriano R, Friedman E, Bensinger LD. Training tomorrow’s teachers today: a national medical student teaching and leadership retreat. MED TEACH. 2007;29(4):328–34.

Hendricson WD. Changes in educational methodologies in predoctoral dental education: finding the perfect intersection. J DENT EDUC. 2012;76(1):118–41.

Zhao W, He L, Deng W, Zhu J, Su A, Zhang Y. The effectiveness of the combined problem-based learning (PBL) and case-based learning (CBL) teaching method in the clinical practical teaching of thyroid disease. BMC MED EDUC. 2020;20(1):381.

Zeng HL, Chen DX, Li Q, Wang XY. Effects of seminar teaching method versus lecture-based learning in medical education: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. MED TEACH. 2020;42(12):1343–9.

Perez G, Kattan E, Collins L, Wright AC, Rybertt T, Gonzalez A, Sirhan M, Solis N, Pizarro M, Arrese M, et al. Assessment for learning: experience in an undergraduate medical theoretical course. REV MED CHILE. 2015;143(3):329–36.

Carter KP, Prevost LB. Formative assessment and student understanding of structure-function. ADV PHYSIOL EDUC. 2023;47(3):615–24.

Tormey W. Education, learning and assessment: current trends and best practice for medical educators. Ir J MED SCI. 2015;184(1):1–12.

Lee AG. Graduate medical education in ophthalmology: moving from the apprenticeship model to competency-based education. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(9):1290–1.

Kayaba H. Undergraduate teaching project on clinical laboratory medicine. Rinsho Byori. 2003;51(11):1124–31.

Phillips HL, Jator EK, Latchem SR, Catalano TA. Clinical educators’ teaching approaches and attributes in Laboratory Medicine. LAB MED. 2023;54(5):e134–40.

Wiencek JR, Chambliss AB, Bertholf RL, Cotten SW, Ellervik C, Kreuter JD, Mirza KM, Shajani-Yi Z. A paradigm shift: Engagement of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine trainees by innovative teaching methods. CLIN CHEM. 2022;68(5):619–26.

Horne A, Rosdahl J. Teaching Clinical Ophthalmology: Medical Student Feedback on Team Case-based Versus Lecture Format. J SURG EDUC. 2017;74(2):329–32.

Jia X, Zeng W, Zhang Q. Combined administration of problem- and lecture-based learning teaching models in medical education in China: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine. 2018;97(43):e11366.

Tan H, Huang E, Deng X, Ouyang S. Application of 3D printing technology combined with PBL teaching model in teaching clinical nursing in congenital heart surgery: a case-control study. Medicine. 2021;100(20):e25918.

Gao X, Wang L, Deng J, Wan C, Mu D. The effect of the problem based learning teaching model combined with mind mapping on nursing teaching: a meta-analysis. NURS EDUC TODAY. 2022;111:105306.

Succar T, Lee VA, Karmonik C, Lee AG. An Academic Ophthalmology Curriculum as a Model for Introducing Preprofessional Students to Careers in Ophthalmology. J Acad Ophthalmol. (2017) 2022; 14(1):e45-e51.

Shimizu I, Matsuyama Y, Duvivier R, van der Vleuten C. Contextual attributes to promote positive social interdependence in problem-based learning: a focus group study. BMC MED EDUC. 2021;21(1):222.

Wang Y, Chen Y, Wang L, Wang W, Kong X, Li X. Assessment of the effectiveness of the BOPPPS model combined with case-based learning on nursing residency education for newly recruited nurses in China: a mixed methods study. BMC MED EDUC. 2024;24(1):215.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to the participants in this study. We would like to thank the reviewers for providing valuable comments on this manuscript.

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Clinical Hematology, College of Pharmacy and Laboratory Medicine Science, Army Medical University, Chongqing, 400038, China

Xinrui Feng, Weiru Wu & Qinghua Bi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

FXR made significant contributions to the conceptualization or design of the work, writing the main manuscript texts and drawings, WWR and BQH conducted data collection and analysis. All authors have reviewed the manuscript and made substantial revisions.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qinghua Bi .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study was performed in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration. This study is not subject to the ethics committee of Army Medical University. The informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Consent for publication

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

Supplementary material 2, supplementary material 3, supplementary material 4, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, 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 changes were made. 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/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Feng, X., Wu, W. & Bi, Q. Reform of teaching and practice of the integrated teaching method BOPPPS-PBL in the course “clinical haematological test technique”. BMC Med Educ 24 , 773 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05765-9

Download citation

Received : 16 April 2024

Accepted : 11 July 2024

Published : 19 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05765-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Clinical hematology test technology
• Teaching reform

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]