What do we mean by web-based learning? A systematic review of the variability of interventions

David Allan Cook, Sarah Garside, Anthony J. Levinson, Denise M. Dupras, Victor Manuel Montori

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

112 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Medical Education 2010: 44: 765-774 Objectives Educators often speak of web-based learning (WBL) as a single entity or a cluster of similar activities with homogeneous effects. Yet a recent systematic review demonstrated large heterogeneity among results from individual studies. Our purpose is to describe the variation in configurations, instructional methods and presentation formats in WBL. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, CINAHL and other databases (last search November 2008) for studies comparing a WBL intervention with no intervention or another educational activity. From eligible studies we abstracted information on course participants, topic, configuration and instructional methods. We summarised this information and then purposively selected and described several WBL interventions that illustrate specific technologies and design features. Results We identified 266 eligible studies. Nearly all courses (89%) used written text and most (55%) used multimedia. A total of 32% used online communication via e-mail, threaded discussion, chat or videoconferencing, and 9% implemented synchronous components. Overall, 24% blended web-based and non-computer-based instruction. Most web-based courses (77%) employed specific instructional methods, other than text alone, to enhance the learning process. The most common instructional methods (each used in nearly 50% of courses) were patient cases, self-assessment questions and feedback. We describe several studies to illustrate the range of instructional designs. Conclusions Educators and researchers cannot treat WBL as a single entity. Many different configurations and instructional methods are available for WBL instructors. Researchers should study when to use specific WBL designs and how to use them effectively.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)765-774
Number of pages10
JournalMedical Education
Volume44
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2010

Fingerprint

Learning
learning
educator
Research Personnel
Videoconferencing
educational activities
chat
Multimedia
self-assessment
e-mail
Postal Service
Medical Education
multimedia
learning process
MEDLINE
instructor
instruction
Communication
Databases
Technology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Education

Cite this

What do we mean by web-based learning? A systematic review of the variability of interventions. / Cook, David Allan; Garside, Sarah; Levinson, Anthony J.; Dupras, Denise M.; Montori, Victor Manuel.

In: Medical Education, Vol. 44, No. 8, 08.2010, p. 765-774.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cook, David Allan ; Garside, Sarah ; Levinson, Anthony J. ; Dupras, Denise M. ; Montori, Victor Manuel. / What do we mean by web-based learning? A systematic review of the variability of interventions. In: Medical Education. 2010 ; Vol. 44, No. 8. pp. 765-774.
@article{60e9d33d13f54097b78ebb23554b3b66,
title = "What do we mean by web-based learning? A systematic review of the variability of interventions",
abstract = "Medical Education 2010: 44: 765-774 Objectives Educators often speak of web-based learning (WBL) as a single entity or a cluster of similar activities with homogeneous effects. Yet a recent systematic review demonstrated large heterogeneity among results from individual studies. Our purpose is to describe the variation in configurations, instructional methods and presentation formats in WBL. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, CINAHL and other databases (last search November 2008) for studies comparing a WBL intervention with no intervention or another educational activity. From eligible studies we abstracted information on course participants, topic, configuration and instructional methods. We summarised this information and then purposively selected and described several WBL interventions that illustrate specific technologies and design features. Results We identified 266 eligible studies. Nearly all courses (89{\%}) used written text and most (55{\%}) used multimedia. A total of 32{\%} used online communication via e-mail, threaded discussion, chat or videoconferencing, and 9{\%} implemented synchronous components. Overall, 24{\%} blended web-based and non-computer-based instruction. Most web-based courses (77{\%}) employed specific instructional methods, other than text alone, to enhance the learning process. The most common instructional methods (each used in nearly 50{\%} of courses) were patient cases, self-assessment questions and feedback. We describe several studies to illustrate the range of instructional designs. Conclusions Educators and researchers cannot treat WBL as a single entity. Many different configurations and instructional methods are available for WBL instructors. Researchers should study when to use specific WBL designs and how to use them effectively.",
author = "Cook, {David Allan} and Sarah Garside and Levinson, {Anthony J.} and Dupras, {Denise M.} and Montori, {Victor Manuel}",
year = "2010",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03723.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "44",
pages = "765--774",
journal = "Medical Education",
issn = "0308-0110",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - What do we mean by web-based learning? A systematic review of the variability of interventions

AU - Cook, David Allan

AU - Garside, Sarah

AU - Levinson, Anthony J.

AU - Dupras, Denise M.

AU - Montori, Victor Manuel

PY - 2010/8

Y1 - 2010/8

N2 - Medical Education 2010: 44: 765-774 Objectives Educators often speak of web-based learning (WBL) as a single entity or a cluster of similar activities with homogeneous effects. Yet a recent systematic review demonstrated large heterogeneity among results from individual studies. Our purpose is to describe the variation in configurations, instructional methods and presentation formats in WBL. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, CINAHL and other databases (last search November 2008) for studies comparing a WBL intervention with no intervention or another educational activity. From eligible studies we abstracted information on course participants, topic, configuration and instructional methods. We summarised this information and then purposively selected and described several WBL interventions that illustrate specific technologies and design features. Results We identified 266 eligible studies. Nearly all courses (89%) used written text and most (55%) used multimedia. A total of 32% used online communication via e-mail, threaded discussion, chat or videoconferencing, and 9% implemented synchronous components. Overall, 24% blended web-based and non-computer-based instruction. Most web-based courses (77%) employed specific instructional methods, other than text alone, to enhance the learning process. The most common instructional methods (each used in nearly 50% of courses) were patient cases, self-assessment questions and feedback. We describe several studies to illustrate the range of instructional designs. Conclusions Educators and researchers cannot treat WBL as a single entity. Many different configurations and instructional methods are available for WBL instructors. Researchers should study when to use specific WBL designs and how to use them effectively.

AB - Medical Education 2010: 44: 765-774 Objectives Educators often speak of web-based learning (WBL) as a single entity or a cluster of similar activities with homogeneous effects. Yet a recent systematic review demonstrated large heterogeneity among results from individual studies. Our purpose is to describe the variation in configurations, instructional methods and presentation formats in WBL. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, CINAHL and other databases (last search November 2008) for studies comparing a WBL intervention with no intervention or another educational activity. From eligible studies we abstracted information on course participants, topic, configuration and instructional methods. We summarised this information and then purposively selected and described several WBL interventions that illustrate specific technologies and design features. Results We identified 266 eligible studies. Nearly all courses (89%) used written text and most (55%) used multimedia. A total of 32% used online communication via e-mail, threaded discussion, chat or videoconferencing, and 9% implemented synchronous components. Overall, 24% blended web-based and non-computer-based instruction. Most web-based courses (77%) employed specific instructional methods, other than text alone, to enhance the learning process. The most common instructional methods (each used in nearly 50% of courses) were patient cases, self-assessment questions and feedback. We describe several studies to illustrate the range of instructional designs. Conclusions Educators and researchers cannot treat WBL as a single entity. Many different configurations and instructional methods are available for WBL instructors. Researchers should study when to use specific WBL designs and how to use them effectively.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77954718089&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77954718089&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03723.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03723.x

M3 - Article

VL - 44

SP - 765

EP - 774

JO - Medical Education

JF - Medical Education

SN - 0308-0110

IS - 8

ER -