The Effectiveness Assessment and Optimization Path of BOPPPS Teaching Model in Teaching English to New Liberal Arts Majors

Applying the BOPPPS model in the pre-course preparation stage requires teachers to closely integrate the teaching key points and difficulties of the course, design the pre-course preparation content according to the different learning situations and teaching objectives of the students in the class, and send it to the students through the online learning platform. Students are guided to familiarize themselves with the content of the classroom and participate in online discussions by independently studying the important knowledge points they need to learn in this course, so as to lay a good foundation for offline classroom activities.

First, the use of the context-creation teaching method can enhance students’ learning effect and deepen their understanding and awareness of English knowledge. By closely combining the specific English teaching content, we can play teaching videos, audio, and animations for students to guide them in grasping the key learning points initially using the intuitive method of learning. Then, adopt a group cooperative learning method and a role-playing teaching method to realistically reproduce the characters in the teaching video to improve students’ English expression and knowledge application abilities. Secondly, the problem-driven teaching method is adopted to stimulate students’ desire to explore and prompt them to take the initiative to explore and learn. Third, adopt a task-driven teaching method to set up learning tasks and promote students’ in-depth learning. Fourth, conduct various interesting classroom activities to enliven the classroom learning atmosphere.

By implementing the BOPPPS model, we actively innovate the form of after-school homework to expand students’ thinking and cultivate their good English core literacy. When students finish their homework, they can automatically submit it by logging into the Critique Network, and the backend system will provide suggestions for revision and scores. Teachers can also choose the way of students’ mutual evaluation, encouraging class students to evaluate and score each other’s after-school homework objectively, exchanging each other’s learning experience and ideas, and promoting learning and communication among students.

On the one hand, a pre-test assessment approach was conducted to reflect the effectiveness of students’ online independent learning. Teachers of English majors can choose to implement it after students have completed their online independent learning before class or before classroom teaching activities. In terms of content, it should focus on the content of online self-preview, the key knowledge and skills of the classroom, and can set interesting questions and answers after the online self-preview to understand the situation of students’ self-preview, and can also ask students questions before the classroom teaching activities are carried out, collect students’ question points, and clarify the gap between students’ “known” and “unknown”, so as to provide an important reference for the development of classroom teaching activities. On the other hand, a post-test assessment approach is carried out. Mainly at the end of the classroom teaching activities, part of the time is reserved to ask students questions, guide students to review the classroom teaching process, and put forward objective opinions and suggestions on the teacher’s teaching mode, teaching strategies, teaching progress and teaching content, and so on. Teachers should affirm students while selectively accepting their opinions and correcting them, which can fully reflect the student-centered teaching concept and give students enough respect. Teachers should also make use of after-school time to reflect on teaching, according to the students’ classroom learning effect, to understand the effectiveness and shortcomings of the teaching mode, through reflection and timely discovery of their own deficiencies and adjustments, in order to enhance the quality and effectiveness of teaching to lay a solid foundation.

The experiment was divided into three phases: pre-experiment, experiment and post-experiment. The test papers used in this study before the experiment to determine the subjects of the study were the students’ entry-level test papers, which were distributed by the school. The six sets of test papers used in the experiment were divided into five sets of immediate test papers and one set of delayed test papers, and all six sets of papers used the same type of questions. The immediate test papers are worth 100 marks, and the delayed test papers are worth 150 marks, of which 100 are questions that correspond to the teaching objectives presented in the experiment. Each paper is carefully screened and discussed by the tutor and the base faculty, and revised repeatedly before being used as an experimental test paper.

This paper adopts the CIPP evaluation model as the theoretical basis for constructing student and teacher satisfaction questionnaires, and constructs four level 1 indicators, namely, background evaluation, input evaluation, process evaluation and output evaluation, according to the theoretical basis of the CIPP evaluation model, with the background evaluation corresponding to the two teaching stages of introduction and target, the input evaluation corresponding to the teaching stage of pre-testing, the process evaluation corresponding to the teaching stage of participatory learning, and the output evaluation corresponding to the two teaching stages of post-testing and summarizing. The output evaluation corresponds to the post-test and summary stages. The questionnaire was scored using a five-point Likert scale.

Because the number of indicators in the English teaching effectiveness evaluation index system based on BOPPPS is relatively large, there is a certain logical correlation and connectivity. Therefore, the G1 method is adopted to rank the importance of indicators affecting the evaluation results through expert evaluation, to distinguish the importance of indicators and determine the weights, and the main steps are as follows: 1)

Determine the order relationship

For m indicator set {x1,x2,…,xm}$$\left\{ {{x_1},{x_2}, \ldots ,{x_m}} \right\}$$, the most important one is selected in turn from all the remaining indicators to establish an order of importance relationship of x₁ > x₂ > … > x_m.

Then the weight of the k = m, m − 1, …, 3, 2st indicator is calculated by the formula: (2)ωk−1,n(1)*=rknωkn(1)*$$\omega _{k - 1,n}^{(1)*} = {r_{kn}}\omega _{kn}^{(1)*}$$

Where ωkn(1)*$$\omega _{kn}^{(1)*}$$ is the G1 method weight of the krd indicator determined by the nnd expert; ωk−1,n(1)*$$\omega _{k - 1,n}^{(1)*}$$ is the G1 method weight of the k − 1th indicator determined by the nth expert. 4)

After obtaining the weight value ωmn(1)*$$\omega _{mn}^{(1)*}$$ given by the nth expert, the weight vector direct averaging method (3) is used for weight averaging calculation, and finally the G1 method weight of each indicator is normalized: (3)ωn(1)=∑n=1Nωmn(1)*/N$$\omega _n^{(1)} = \mathop \sum \limits_{n = 1}^N \omega _{mn}^{(1)*}\Big /N$$

where N is the number of experts.

Since the entropy weight method can be used in any process that requires the determination of weights, it can also be used in combination with other methods. And the results depend only on the discrete nature of the data itself, which is based on the degree of variation of each indicator to determine the objective weights, and can effectively avoid the influence of human factors on the weights of indicators. Therefore, this paper will use the entropy weight method to determine the objective weights. Its main realization process is as follows: 1)

Raw data standardization. There is m assessment indicator, n sets of data, i = 1, 2, …, m, j = 1, 2, …, n. The scores of each indicator are standardized according to equation (4) to obtain matrix P: (4)Pij=xij−min(xi)max(xij)−min(xi)$${P_{ij}} = \frac{{{x_{ij}} - \min \left( {{x_i}} \right)}}{{\max \left( {{x_{ij}}} \right) - \min \left( {{x_i}} \right)}}$$

Where P_ij is the standardized value, x_ij is the original value, max(xi)$$\max \left( {{x_i}} \right)$$ is the maximum value of the ith indicator, min(xi)$$\min \left( {{x_i}} \right)$$ the minimum value of the ith indicator. 2)

Calculate the entropy value. The entropy value of the ith indicator is defined as: (5)Ei=−k∑j=1nzijlnzij$${E_i} = - k\sum\limits_{j = 1}^n {{z_{ij}}} \ln {z_{ij}}$$

where zij=pij/∑i=1npij$${z_{ij}} = {{{p_{ij}}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{{p_{ij}}} {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^n {{p_{ij}}} }}} \right.} {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^n {{p_{ij}}} }}$$, k=1/lnn$$k = 1/\ln n$$, and when z_ij = 0, let z_ij ln z_ij = 0. 3)

Calculate the entropy weight. After getting the entropy value of each indicator E_i, the entropy weight of the ith indicator is: (6)ωi(2)=1−Eim−∑i=1nEj$$\omega _i^{(2)} = \frac{{1 - {E_i}}}{{m - \sum\limits_{i = 1}^n {{E_j}} }}$$

The key to the determination of subjective and objective comprehensive weights is reflected in the allocation of subjective weights and objective weights, and the current combination of weighting methods mainly include linear weighting method and multiplication synthesis method. Linear weighting method obtains the weight result by assigning the index weight coefficient, which lacks theoretical basis in practical application. Multiplication synthesis method is to multiply the subjective and objective weights, and then get the final weights through normalization, the calculation results are more in line with the actual situation and are highly operable. This paper is based on the game theory idea of subjective and objective combination assignment, that is, from different assignment methods to find the optimal combination of weights, so that the deviation between the weight and the other weights is minimized, this method takes into account the characteristics of the G1 method and entropy weighting method, which enhances the credibility and validity of the results. The realization process is as follows: 1)

Noting that the weight vector determined by the G1 method is ω₁ and the weight vector determined by the entropy weight method is ω₂, any linear combination of these two weight vectors is: (7)W=∑j=12αjωj⊤$$W = \sum\limits_{j = 1}^2 {{\alpha _j}} \omega _j^ \top$$

Where: α_i is the linear combination coefficient and α_i > 0. 2)

Optimize the linear combination coefficients according to the idea of the game agglomeration model to minimize the deviation of W from ω_i. The objective function is: (8)min‖∑j=12αiωjT−ωk‖,k=1,2$$\min \left\| {\sum\limits_{j = 1}^2 {{\alpha _i}} \omega _j^T - {\omega _k}} \right\|,k = 1,2$$

In order to understand the satisfaction of teachers and students with the application effect of BOPPPS teaching mode, we constructed the BOPPPS satisfaction questionnaire based on the aforementioned evaluation system for the two dimensions of teachers’ teaching and students’ learning, the questionnaire was designed by using Likert’s five-point scale, and we distributed the questionnaires to the students who participated in the BOPPPS teaching mode and the relevant teachers. The survey was aimed at all students in the experimental class. A total of 48 questionnaires were distributed, 48 valid questionnaires were recovered, and the effective rate of recovering student questionnaires was 100%. Thirteen questionnaires from thirteen teachers were collected, and 13 of them were valid, with an effective recovery rate of 100%.

Data were collected based on the evaluation indicators and analyzed using the combination assignment and reverse order method. Usually, in the final result analysis study, the alert value is set at 70% of the overall score, so in this result analysis, the alert value is set at 3.5 points to analyze the results of this BOPPPS teaching evaluation. The overall score of the evaluation results of the English teaching model based on BOPPPS is 4.27, which is higher than the alert value, and the overall satisfaction is high.

The evaluation results of the three-level indicators of the English teaching model are shown in Figure 3. The scores of most of the three-level indicators are above the alert value of 3.5, and the scores of students’ learning attitude C19 and learning resources richness C13 are the highest, respectively 4.36 and 4.32, indicating that the learning resources of the English course in this teaching experiment are richer and the students’ learning attitude is better.

Figure 3.

The third level index evaluation results of English teaching mode

The evaluation results of the primary and secondary indicators of the English teaching model are shown in Figure 4.The scores of the primary indicators in the evaluation of BOPPPS teaching are all high, among which the indicator of the evaluation of the teaching process, A3, scores the highest, with a score of 4.33, which shows that teachers and students also have a high degree of acceptance of participatory teaching as a core aspect. This is followed by the evaluation of teaching results A4, with a score of 4.28. The scores of teaching background evaluation A1 and teaching predecessor evaluation A2 are 4.26 and 4.18 respectively, and the scores of the four first-level indicators are all higher than the warning value.

Figure 4.

The primary and secondary level index evaluation results of English teaching mode

The comprehensive scores of the secondary indicators are all greater than 3.5, and teachers and students have a high overall satisfaction with the teaching mode. Among them, the indicator of participatory teaching B4 scored the highest, and in participatory teaching, teachers and students participate together, and teachers can make clear the dominant position of teaching, guide students’ learning at the right time, and stimulate students’ potential for independent learning and their motivation for independent learning. Teaching background B1 scored 4.31 points, second only to participatory teaching B4. In the questionnaire, teaching background includes understanding curriculum standards, core literacy, and students’ learning situations. Teachers’ high scores in this regard indicate that these measures can help to improve the efficiency of teaching. Teaching Summary B6 and Teaching Posttest B5 scored close to each other at 4.29 and 4.27, while Teaching Objectives B2 and Teaching Pre-test B3 scored relatively low, though still above the 3.5 warning value. In summary, the overall scores of the indicators are good, and ELT teachers and students are highly satisfied with the BOPPPS teaching model.

The grades of Class A and Class B were analyzed and compiled mainly by using SPSS 27.0 data analysis software operation. The data sources of students’ performance are: two immediate scores and one delayed score. 1)

The performance of the first immediate test

At the end of the English instruction to students in BOPPPS mode, instant tests were conducted in Class A and Class B. Descriptive statistics of the English grades of the two classes were carried out using SPSS27.0. The descriptive statistics of the first instant test are shown in Figure 5. The mean total score of class A (N=73.86) was 1.55 points higher than that of class B (N=72.31). In particular, the students of class A scored slightly higher than the students of class B in single choice, complete blank, English reading, and writing.

Figure 5.

The descriptive statistics of the first instant test

In order to further illustrate whether there is a significant difference between the English scores of the two classes in the instant test, the independent samples t-test was continued to be conducted on the instant scores of the two classes using the specialized data software SPSS27.0. The first instant test independent samples t-test is shown in Table 2. In terms of the total score, the equivalence test of Levine’s variance has an F-value of 0.25 and a Sig. value of 0.76, and after checking the first row of the T-test results, it can be concluded that the Sig. value of the first column is 0.68, which is more significant than 0.05, and this result proves that the subjects of classes A and B are at the approximate level of the English achievement, and there is no significant difference. Similarly, the Sig. value (two-tailed) of the test results for Single Choice, Completion, English Reading and English Writing are all greater than 0.05 and none of them are significantly different.

Figure 6.

The descriptive statistics of the second instant test

An independent samples t-test was conducted using SPSS 27.0 on the English performance data of the second instant test of the subjects in the two classes as a way to further analyze whether there was a significant difference between the English test scores of the two classes. The independent samples t-test for the second instant test is shown in Table 3. In the second instant test, the Sig. value was read as 0.32, P>0.05, and the result indicated that the students were at the approximate level of the second instant test English performance and there was no significant difference.

Figure 7.

Descriptive statistical results of delayed test results

In order to further investigate whether there is a significant difference between the two classes’ delayed test scores, a paired-sample t-test was conducted, and the results of the independent-sample t-test for delayed scores are shown in Table 4.The F-value is 2.66, and the significance value is 0.067, which is greater than 0.05, indicating that the variances are aligned, so it is necessary to read the first row of data, and the p-value of the t-test is 0.001, which is smaller than 0.05.The summary of the analysis can be illustrated that there is already a significant difference between the scores of A class results and B class results have been significantly different. The above analysis shows that the BOPPPS teaching mode is more advantageous than the traditional teaching mode in teaching English to students in colleges and universities, and the improvement of students’ performance is faster and more significant. Therefore, to a certain extent, it shows that the BOPPPS teaching mode has a positive effect on improving students’ English performance.

Students’ degree of completion of the pre-test content varied according to their own level of proficiency. Students with poorer fundamentals may struggle to successfully complete the pre-test task, which may result in frustration and negative learning experiences. Therefore, teachers should try to meet the learning needs of the majority of students when choosing the test content, and set up tiered test questions when necessary so that they can effectively promote students’ enthusiasm and confidence in participating in the classroom and improve their learning motivation. Secondly, the connection between new and old knowledge should be fully considered to increase their confidence in reading and learning. Furthermore, set up learning groups under the classroom to guide the students with better level to peer help. Finally, the problems that students may encounter during the pre-test session should be fully considered and alternative activities should be designed so that teachers can respond flexibly.

The setting of learning activities must take into account the learning level of students and implement the principles of inspiration and gradual progression. Furthermore, teachers should design comprehensive and targeted learning activities for students, such as mind mapping and completing paragraph tasks, so that students can stimulate their thinking in the process of active exploration and personal experience of learning. Finally, independent learning and group work should be combined to enhance students’ independent and cooperative learning abilities.

Teachers should pay attention to the following two points in organizing the content of the post-test: first, the organization of the post-test content should meet the needs of students at different levels, so that all students can learn something after learning English, have a positive learning experience, and enhance their confidence in learning. Second, the organization of the post-test content should be linked to the content of the pre-test and the participatory learning session. By comparing the content of the pre-test and post-test, students can visualize the learning effect and increase their sense of achievement and confidence in learning English.