Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 257

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Open access
Cook, David A, Garside, Sarah, Levinson, Anthony J, Dupras, Denise M, Montori, Victor M·2010·Medical Education

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03723.x

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 257

Metadata

Authors
Cook, D. A., Garside, S., Levinson, A. J., Dupras, D. M., & Montori, V. M.
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-07-15
Volume
44
Issue
8
Pages
765-774
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
OpenAlex
W1584392307
Cited by
257
References
4
FWCI
2.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: What do we mean by web‐based learning? A systematic review of the variability of interventions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03723.x
The paper
Cook, D. A., Garside, S., Levinson, A. J., Dupras, D. M., & Montori, V. M. (2010). What do we mean by web‐based learning? A systematic review of the variability of interventions. Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03723.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.