Full text
Введение Effective teaching strategies are crucial for optimizing student learning outcomes. It is vital both for the students and teachers to choose the teaching model that would be efficient and convenient at the same time. Traditional instructional approaches often involve passive learning, where instructors deliver content, and students receive information with minimal interaction. In contrast, the BOPPPS model offers a comprehensive framework designed to foster active learning and student engagement. As E.A. Monastyrskaya, N.V. Deryabina [1] state, modern methods and technologies of teaching foreign languages are based on numerous methods and are implemented within the framework of carefully developed approaches that have proven their effectiveness. Among the traditional teaching models, the most effective from the point of view of the modern educational paradigm are competence-based, personality-oriented and culturological approaches. Understanding these models is crucial for educators aiming to optimize instructional strategies and enhance student learning outcomes. It is important to mention that traditional methods of teaching are the basis of any educational program and even being criticized by many educators and scientists, they remain an important part of the educational process. Bruce Joyce and Marsha Weil in their Models of Teaching [2] stated that there cannot be strong evidence to support the superiority of a single educational model but use the existing variety of different approaches as it is the most sufficient strategy which increases professional flexibility. In their book they explore such methods as role playing, synectics, etc. Since then, a number of scientists and educators worked on the problem of the pluralism of the teaching models versus choosing one and only model as a “correct” one. Обзор литературы по теме исследования Today, many researchers commonly treat traditional lecture-based model as a teacher-centered model with the main aim is a provision of explanations by an educator to the students, which is believed to be inferior compared to the desired student-centered models based on active learning techniques, according to H. Dietrich and T. Evans [3]. R.R. Hake states that limitations of the passive learning were highlighted compared to the interactive engagement [4]. However, for the traditional model of teaching lecture-based, passive learning is considered basic [5]. Educators research and develop new approaches to teaching, one of them being BOPPPS. According to K.Hu et al., the BOPPPS model encompasses Bridge-In, Objectives, Pre-Assessment, Participatory Learning, Post-Assessment, and Summary [6]. The BOPPPS model was developed in Canada during the 1970s as part of the initiative aimed at enhancing teaching effectiveness. Douglas Kerr's team at the University of British Columbia played a significant role in its development. The model was originally developed as a theoretical framework for the Instructional Skills Workshop (ISW) and was intended to improve teaching effectiveness and promote active learning, as it is stated in the work by P. Pattison, D. Russell [7]. Researchers note that the BOPPPS model provides "a clear learning process and encourages students to take initiative in their learning," during which "teachers can evaluate the effectiveness of their teaching, while students gain insight into the difficulties they encounter in learning and see their achievements", according to Y.Shen [8]. Y.Guo states that the flexible, student-centered BOPPPS model was developed to improve the effectiveness of classroom teaching and promote active learning [9]. Subsequently, the model has become widespread in the teaching of medicine in the works of Y.Shen [8], K. Hu [6], R. Chen [10], in the works on foreign languages by Y.Yang et al. [11]. Researchers, for example, A. McCloughen [12], T. Sasipraba, emphasize that the BOPPPS model is more oriented towards application in technical and applied fields, compared to humanities, due to the fact that traditionally technical specialties require more experimental, practical and technical learning [13], according to J. Wang, traditional teaching models exhibit many negative aspects: lack of communication between students and the teacher [14]; some students rarely take active part in the lesson; Students are unable to make adjustments to the lesson and are unable to provide feedback to the teacher, which leads to a decline in academic performance [12]. Current international research confirms the high effectiveness of the BOPPPS model. R. Chen et al.[10] and Hu et al. [6] showed that the model promotes student interaction and engagement, thereby improving academic performance and the quality of learning. J.Yu [15] and Z. Yang [16] note that BOPPPS stimulates student interest, motivation, and active participation in the learning process. C.J. Wang emphasizes the importance of teacher-student interaction as a critical factor influencing student motivation and engagement [17]. In the context of foreign language teaching, the BOPPPS model also demonstrates significant effectiveness. H. Cui, studying the application of the BOPPPS model in teaching oral Chinese as a foreign language, found that it enhances teaching effectiveness, mobilizes student enthusiasm, and improves their academic performance [18]. Q. Jiang notes the model's effectiveness in teaching intensive reading to students learning English as a second language (ESL), emphasizing that the strategic integration of each BOPPPS element creates an engaging and results-oriented learning environment [19]. In the Russian academic community, the BOPPPS teaching model remains underresearched, despite the fact that practicing teachers apply it in their teaching [Skillbox]. For example, researcher V.S. Mokrisheva introduces this teaching model in teaching foreign language grammar and notes its effectiveness in particularly difficult-to-learn aspects [20]. When comparing modern teaching models, including BOPPPS, researchers note that traditional approaches emphasize the transfer of information from teacher to student with a strong emphasis on academic rigor and standardized testing [21]. N.A. Sergeeva notes that traditional teaching is structured and disciplined, ensuring systematic coverage of a large amount of content and providing a clear basis for assessing student performance using standardized tests [22]. V. Plyushch and S. Sorokin point out that traditional methods often fail to actively engage students in the learning process, which can lead to a lack of interest and insufficient development of critical thinking skills [23]. In their comparative study, a group of scientists Xu, Z., Ge, L., He, W. et al. note that the BOPPPS teaching model showed a noticeable improvement in student engagement and a significant improvement in their knowledge acquisition, application skills, and problem-solving abilities, in addition, the examination results of the BOPPPS group were significantly higher than those of the traditional group [24]. M. Falasi, conducting a comprehensive analysis of traditional and modern teaching methods, concludes that a hybrid approach incorporating the best elements of both traditional and modern methods [21]. Методологическая база исследования In this article, we make an attempt to analyse both traditional teaching model and BOPPPS, consider their strong and weak sides, apply them into the educational process with the students of the engineering specialties. We compared students’ results and analyzed their feedback. However, we also were interested in the feedback of the teachers, who had to work in both models. As was mentioned above, traditional teaching, often referred to as direct instruction, is characterized by a teacher-centered approach where educators are the primary source of knowledge. Key features include, according to X.Zheng [25]: Lecture-Based Delivery: Teachers present information through lectures, with students taking on a passive role. Emphasis on Memorization: Focus is placed on rote learning and memorization of facts. Standardized Assessments: Evaluation through tests and quizzes to measure retention. Structured Environment: Classrooms are organized with a clear hierarchy, promoting discipline and order. Traditional model of teaching, though criticized by many scholars, still has advantages, which make his approach popular among teachers and students around the world. We consider the following traits of this model as the advantages: Consistency: This model provides a uniform structure, ensuring all students receive the same information – as a result, every student has an equal chance to get the necessary level of education. Efficiency: it allows the coverage of extensive material within a limited timeframe, which can be a distinguishing factor in the choice of a teaching model, especially in state educational institution of any level. Control: this model enables teachers to maintain classroom management and direct the learning process. Research indicates that traditional methods are much more effective for foundational knowledge, even though as a disadvantage, they may not give deep understanding or improve critical thinking. Thus, a study comparing traditional teaching and problem-based learning found that the latter led to a better retention and application of knowledge [26]. As a disadvantage, the negative side of the passive learning can also be mentioned as it leads to students becoming disengaged in the education due to lack of interaction. There is also a factor of the emphasis being made on memorization of the information which can hinder the development of analytical skills [27]. The BOPPPS teaching mode mainly adopts an active-learning approach, emphasizing students’ subjectivity and teaching reflection [28]. The BOPPPS model divides the learning process into six components: Bridge-In – 10% of the class time: captures students' attention and connects the lesson to prior knowledge or real-world applications. The purpose of this stage is to begin the learning process. The instructor builds motivation, emphasizes the importance of the lesson. Objectives – 10% of the class time: defines what students should achieve by the end of the lesson. In this section it is necessary for the educator or teacher to clarify and specify the goal of the lesson, what the learners are intended to know, value or do by the end of the lesson, under what conditions, and how well. It is mainly believed that understanding the goals and outcomes of the lessons support students in seeing the bigger picture of the course. Pre-Assessment – 10% of the class time: evaluates students' existing knowledge to follow instructions accordingly. The purpose of this stage is to answer the question, “What do the learners already know about the subject of the lesson?” Participatory Learning – 50% of class time: engages students into active learning process, promoting deeper understanding. It is the body of the lesson, and important participatory function is to provide students with an opportunity to use knowledge or skills that they have just been taught in the lecture. Post-Assessment – 10% of the class time: determines the extent to which learning goals have been met by the students. Summary – 10% of the class time: reflects on the key points of the lesson and connects the lesson to future learning activities. The BOPPPS model has been proven successful by many scholars and practicing teachers [29], [30]. It tends to be effective both in gaining theoretical knowledge and practical skills. Its advantages include: The participatory and active-learning nature of BOPPPS encourages students’ involvement, which can lead to increased motivation and interest. Continuous assessments allow for timely feedback, enabling students to identify and address learning gaps promptly which basically improves the outcomes of the learning process. The clear and well-structured framework aids instructors in organizing content effectively, ensuring alignment with learning objectives. The model is quite adaptable and can be applied across various disciplines and educational settings, including online and hybrid formats. Nonetheless, the BOPPPS also has some negative sides, which were identified by the educators and scientists. We can mention here time-consuming preparation for the lessons as this model demands following the strict structure which is a huge disadvantage for teachers; it requires skills in facilitating active learning which also can be difficult for teachers, especially of the comprehensive theoretical subjects; implementing some active learning processes can require additional materials, technologies. Additionally, research show that some students prefer passive learning to the active one and they psychologically resist this type of teaching. For gaining practical data we conducted an experimental study, using both teaching models in EFL lessons for students of technical specialties. Two groups of students of non-linguistic, technical specialties were selected for the experimental study: Group A – 26 students, studied according to the traditional teaching model, which included classical lectures with the introduction of new information, subsequent assignments (answers to questions, tests, memorization exercises) with final testing; Group B – 28 students, studied according to the BOPPPS model with the constant inclusion of students in language activities, the final lesson was an interactive quiz. At the end of the training cycle, students took a general control test. The experimental study lasted three weeks, when both groups of students approached the same topics: Soft skills in future career, which implied the study of specialized vocabulary, collocations, phrasal verbs, auxiliary grammar topic – Subjunctive Mood, Conditional. At the end of each week, students and teachers completed feedback questionnaires. In addition, midterm tests were also selected – tests on vocabulary, collocations and grammar aspect. These midterm tests were identical for both groups. Результаты исследования The scales of students' performance were in the focus of analysis. Diagrams demonstrate performances of both groups. Figure 1. Group A results The diagram demonstrates that Group A coped with the topic of the lessons relatively successfully, the most successful module was Collocations and phrasal verbs, which we explain by the emphasis on memorization and revision, like Vocabulary drills, typical distinctive feature of the traditional teaching model. The least successful block for Group A was the Grammar module. Figure 2. Group B results Diagram 2 demonstrates that BOPPPS model classes were less successful than the traditional format of classes. However, the students from group B mastered the Grammar module better than the students from group A. It can be explained by the fact that the BOPPPS model provides a deeper, more active study of the grammar skill, and students learn not only to memorize the structure of the conditional mood of the English language, but also to apply it in practice and understand when each type of mood should be used, depending on the situation. The lower success of the Vocabulary Collocations and Phrasal Verbs blocks compared to the traditional model can be explained by the fact that complex vocabulary, especially set phrases and idioms with the addition of metaphor in the phrase, must be learned at the first stage of study, since there is no logical basis for their use in speech. Figure 2 demonstrates the final tests of students from the two groups in the comparative diagram. Figure 2. Final test results or the groups A and B. This diagram clearly demonstrates that the overall score for mastering the topic in the groups is approximately the same. Group A demonstrated a greater number of grades 5 (A) and a smaller number of grades 3 (C), which may indicate that Group A nevertheless coped with the topic more successfully. However, to obtain an objective result on the success of both learning models, further research is needed, expanded to include other topics. In the future, we plan to conduct several similar experimental studies on other grammatical and lexical topics. Let us turn to the data obtained during the surveys of students and teachers, necessary for assessing both learning models according to the criteria of convenience, interest and complexity of mastering the material. The students were asked the following questions: How do you find the teaching model? Would you prefer more active-learning / passive-learning process? Do you find it difficult to understand the material? What do most like and dislike about the lessons? What would you change about the lessons? Figure 3. Answers to the question 1 of the groups A and B. Diagrams demonstrate that initially the students in Group A had lower expectations of the traditional model, but their attitude towards the learning process improved by the second module and remained quite positive by the third, final module. While Group B has the opposite situation – their initial satisfaction with the learning process was replaced by a more negative attitude and continued to decline by the third module. From the answers to questions 2 (Would you prefer more active-learning / passive-learning process?), 4 (What do you most like and dislike about the lessons?), 5 (What would you change about the lessons?), where a free answer was expected, it can be concluded that the students in Group B changed their attitude towards the BOPPPS model, since constant involvement in active activities during the lesson required too much effort, that led to failure in new information assimilation. Significant number of students (34%) highlighted the constant involvement in active activities and the lack of time to remember and memorize the material as disadvantages of the model (questions 4 and 5), and noted that they would like some of the classes to return to passive learning, during which they would have time to process the information received. As for the students in Group A, the majority (28%) noted that the constant passive receipt of information in class and the monotony of exercises is tiring and do not arouse interest but noted as a positive side the fact that the constant performance of exercises to repeat what was learned brought their skills to automatism. Questionnaires containing open-ended questions were also prepared for teachers who taught these groups: Do you like your teaching model? What do you like about it? What would you change in your teaching model? What is the main disadvantage (thing that you disliked) about your teaching model? To question 1, which concerned the teacher's attitude to the model they were working with, both teachers answered affirmatively and noted as the most positive moment the ability to calmly and measuredly conduct the lesson, controlling the entire process (teacher of group A); constant change of activities in the lesson, which keeps the audience involved in the process (teacher of group B). To the second question, the teachers answered approximately the same: they would prefer to alternate their models, rather than conduct only one constantly. In the third question, the teacher of group A highlighted the fact that constant lecturing and explanation of the material may not be interesting for students, which leads to a lack of enthusiasm in the class, and that it puts a significant burden on the teacher. The teacher of group B noted that constant active activity in the class tires not only the students, but also him as a teacher, and emphasized the fact that he spends twice as much time preparing for classes in this format as for classes in the traditional format. In addition, he noted the time frame of all stages of the model as a negative factor, which is a key factor in the BOPPPS model. According to the teacher, such a frame deprives him of freedom of action, and students - the opportunity to clarify something or ask again, since there is no free time allocated for it. Заключение The results of our study prove that following only one of the teaching models can have negative consequences for the learning process. The traditional teaching model, despite all the criticism, remains in demand by both teachers and students: passive, lecture-based education is irreplaceable during training. Such a model gives students the time necessary to understand and perceive the information received. Also, an integral part of learning foreign languages is memorization, which is inherent primarily in the traditional teaching model. The popular, active-learning BOPPPS model is of great interest to researchers, teachers and students. Students like active involvement in language learning; many aspects of the language are better studied with this approach, which correlates with the communicative component of language learning. However, excessive use of this model negatively affects the academic performance of students who do not spend enough time memorizing information. Another negative factor is the commitment of this model to strict time frames, which are not suitable for all topics and areas of study. It should also be noted that there were students who felt uncomfortable in the constant need to discuss something, participate in activities, since they themselves prefer a more calm and measured study of the material. The latter factor is a special case but given the personality-oriented approach to education that is dominant today, it cannot be ignored. In addition, this model requires greater dedication from the teacher, more time spent on class preparation. In conclusion, I would like to note that both approaches we studied have positive and negative sides, and that the most logical solution would be to combine these models and alternate them depending on the topic of the lesson, the focus of training and the personal needs of teachers and students. However, this topic is of extensive scientific interest, and in the future, we plan to expand our research by conducting a series of experimental studies based on this.