What should we do?
So, should we be using WBL? Perhaps this is not the right ques-
tion. The internet is here to stay, and in all likelihood so is WBL.
As with other instructional media (books, blackboards, televi-
sion, etc), WBL will continue to find a role in medical educa-
tion. However, this role is as-yet unclear. Perhaps instead of
asking ‘if’ we should use WBL, we should ask ‘when’ and ‘how’
to use this potentially powerful tool. ‘When?’ encompasses selec-
objectives, integration of WBL with other instructional designs,
timing of instruction, and cost-effectiveness, while ‘how?’ will
help to determine features of the technology (instructional
methods, enhancements, adaptation, etc) that will make this
tool more effective.
Existing research in medical education provides little direct
evidence to guide responses to these questions. Hopefully the
next few years will see an accumulation of empiric data to sup-
port and inform decisions. Until then, what do we do?
Regarding ‘when’, educators should avoid developing a WBL
course for the sake of having a course on the internet. Rather,
WBL should be used only when the advantages listed above out-
weigh the disadvantages. Regarding ‘how’, there is substantial
(but by no means definitive) evidence from WBL research out-
side of medical education to inform our practice.
5
Also, instruc-
tional methods that have proven effective in other media may
our practice until more definitive evidence is available, and will
also provide a starting point for future research. However, edu-
instructional materials on the internet. Rather, adapting an
existing course to a WBL format may require substantial revi-
on the potential advantages.
2,4,5
To summarise, WBL is here to stay. It offers many advantages
over traditional instructional formats, but also entails many dis-
advantages. Decisions regarding the use of WBL in a particular
course should weigh these advantages and disadvantages, and
keep in mind that there is nothing inherently better about WBL
compared to other instructional media and methods. Like black-
boards and slides, WBL is a powerful tool – but only a tool –
that if used wisely can greatly facilitate learning.
References
1 Association for Medical Education in Europe. www.amee.org
2 Cook DA, Dupras DM. A practical guide to developing effective web-
based learning. J Gen Intern Med 2004;19:698–707.
3 Merrill MD. First principles of instruction. Educ Technol Res Dev 2002;
50:43–59.
4 Clark RC, Mayer RE. E-learning and the science of instruction. San
Francisco: Pfeiffer, 2003.
5 Mayer RE. Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In: Mayer RE
(ed). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2005.
6 Cook DA, Dupras DM, Thompson WG, Pankratz VS. Web-based
learning in resident continuity clinics: a randomized, controlled trial.
Acad Med 2005;80:90–7.
7 Oz HH. Synchronous distance interactive classroom conferencing.
Teach Learn Med 2005;17:269–73.
8 Kronz JD, Silberman MA, Allsbrook WC, Epstein JI. A web-based
tutorial improves practicing pathologists’ Gleason grading of images
of prostate carcinoma specimens obtained by needle biopsy: validation
of a new medical education paradigm. Cancer 2000;89:1818–23.
9 Nola M, Morovic A, Dotlic S et al. Croatian implementation of a
computer-based teaching program from the University of Kansas,
USA. Croat Med J 2005;46:343–7.
10 Cook DA, Dupras DM. Teaching on the web: automated online
instruction and assessment of residents in an acute care clinic.
Med Teach 2004;26:599–603.
11 Fall LH, Berman NB, Smith S et al. Multi-institutional development
and utilization of a computer-assisted learning program for the
pediatrics clerkship: the CLIPP project. Acad Med 2005;80:847–55.
12 Candler CS, Andrews MD. Avoiding the great train wreck:
standardizing the architecture for online curricula. Acad Med 1999;
74:1091–5.
13 Clark D. Psychological myths in e-learning. Med Teach 2002;24:
598–604.
14 Brusilovsky P. Adaptive educational systems on the world-wide-web:
a review of available technologies. Paper presented at: Fourth
International Conference in Intelligent Tutoring Systems,
San Antonio, TX, 16–19 August 1998.
15 Chen SY, Paul RJ. Editorial: individual differences in web-based
instruction – an overview. Br J Educ Technol 2003;34:385–92.
16 Cook DA. The research we still are not doing: an agenda for the study
of computer-based learning. Acad Med 2005;80:541–8.
17 Ericsson KA. Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance
of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Acad Med
2004;79:S70–81.
18 Eklund J, Sinclair K. An empirical appraisal of the effectiveness of
adaptive interfaces for instructional systems. Educ Technol Soc 2000;3:
165–77.
19 Park O-C, Lee J. Adaptive Instructional Systems. In: Jonassen DH
(ed). Handbook of research on educational communications and
technology, 2nd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2004:651–84.
20 Nathoo AN, Goldhoff P, Quattrochi JJ. Evaluation of an interactive
case-based online network (ICON) in a problem based learning
environment. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2005;10:215–30.
21 Bello G, Pennisi M, Maviglia R et al. Online vs live methods for
teaching difficult airway management to anesthesiology residents.
Intensive Care Med 2005;31:547–52.
22 Sweller J. Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia
learning. In: Mayer RE (ed).The Cambridge handbook of multimedia
learning. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
23 Alur P, Fatima K, Joseph R. Medical teaching websites: do they reflect
the learning paradigm? Med Teach 2002;24:422–4.
24 Merrill MD. First principles of instruction: a synthesis. In: Reiser R,
Dempsey JV (eds). Trends and issues in instructional design and
technology, 2nd edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2006.
25 Grundman J, Wigton R, Nickol D. A controlled trial of an interactive,
web-based virtual reality program for teaching physical diagnosis skills
to medical students. Acad Med 2000;75:S47–9.
26 Kamin C, O’Sullivan P, Deterding R, Younger M. A comparison of
critical thinking in groups of third-year medical students in text,
video, and virtual PBL case modalities. Acad Med 2003;78:204–11.
27 Jao CS, Brint SU, Hier DB. Making the neurology clerkship
more effective: can e-Textbook facilitate learning? Neurol Res 2005;
27:762–7.
28 Bell DS, Fonarow GC, Hays RD, Mangione CM. Self-study from
web-based and printed guideline materials: A randomized, controlled
trial among resident physicians. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:938–46.
29 Schaad DC, Walker EA, Wolf FM et al. Evaluating the serial migration
of an existing required course to the World Wide Web. Acad Med
1999;74:S84–6.
30 Fordis M, King JE, Ballantyne CM et al. Comparison of the
Web-based learning: pros, cons and controversies
Clinical Medicine Vol 7 No 1 January/February 2007 41