INTRODUCTION:

The learning method used by students should allow them to grow matured and self-reliable. It has revealed in one of the previous studies that learning should empower the student to grow as an abled, mature, and authentic self. (Savin-Baden and Major (2004). All educators tried their best to improve the teaching and learning techniques. With time, learning methods are upgraded from traditional didactic lecture method to small group teaching like problem-based learning, tutorial, and seminar-based and self-directed learning. One of the literature studies has stated that Self-directed learning (SDL) is a learning process in which the key element is the learners’ conscious acceptance of responsibility for learning. The SDL has gained its popularity in due time since its introduction is in the early 70s until now.

The definition is given by Knowles, that the SDL is a process in which individuals take the initiative, on their own or taking help from others, to understand their learning needs, setting goals, identifying both human and material resources, further choosing and implementing this resources in appropriate form of learning methods, and evaluating its outcomes.

Knowles (1975) SDL made tremendous progress since then and most researchers defined and expanded its core essence differently. Taylor (1995) in his study, emphasized that in SDL the students should be motivated, is persistent, independent, self-disciplined, self-confident, and goal-oriented. [Taylor (1995)] Stephen Brookfield (2009) emphasized that self-directed learners are not to be thought of as Robinson Crusoes, working without human contact. Most educators accepted and perceived SDL as the most powerful and active learning in its sense.[Stephen Brookfield (2009)] There are studies on SDL readiness scores, perception scales, strategy, designs, models, and factors influencing the success of SDL. Nevertheless, SDL knowledge and its practice in young learners who appeared to expose to a complex, dynamic, and busy medical ward have not sought yet.

SDL includes in our curriculum in the first clinical year (year 3) of the medical program. They have experienced combined traditional lectures and problem-solving learning (PBL) method in the pre-clinical year (year 1 and 2). In the current study, researchers expect that PBL helps the students to become adult learners. In this study, we would like to find out our students were equipped with adequate knowledge and sufficient practice to adapt and adjust to the complicated clinical training during this transition period through effective learning methods like SDL. Here, the researchers are keen to explore if there is any difficulty, to take hold of SDL, which is a part of the current curriculum.

The difficulty could come up with SDL is some of the students merely get hold of the concept and details of it. Furthermore, they totally rely on the teacher as in our traditional old days (Teacher- dominated teaching) and enjoy the fruits of spoon-feeding. They forget the fact that role of educators changes with time during the advancement of the medical education process. Educators adopt the role from old times like teachers, lecturers, informers to become facilitators, assessors, curriculum planners, curriculum evaluators, mentors. [(R.M. Harden and Joy Crosby, 2000).] As an educator, we realize the progress of medical education should lead to an active, student-centered method of learning. In the current situation, it is a necessity to have clarity regarding roles in teaching and learning method not as a traditional medical teacher, but as a facilitator/ evaluator/mentor, to achieve the best outcome for the learners.

Taylor (1995), in his study, suggested that one important task of teachers was to raise awareness of the students’ own role in the SDL process. Although the learners find it hard to get control of their own learning, it is impossible to demean the role of facilitator in the SDL. [Taylor (1995)]

One of the previous studies explores that SDL is currently well understood as it is strongly influenced by many variables, such as the personality type, the learner’s previous experience, the accessibility of relevant resources, and the perceived cultural constraints. [Merriam and Caffarrella (1999)]

Pieces evidence mentions that SDL gives the learners the skills to be life-long learners. It builds up the confidence and competency to cope with the different learning process. [Regarding the benefits of SDL, Dynan, Linda and Cate, Tom and Rhee, Kenneth. (2008].

Those savoring the savvy concept of SDL will obtain its benefit, and they will grow themselves into life-long learners in the future. In SDL learners, have an increasing choice over the timing, location, contents, and path of their learning process. They control their learning situation and apply autonomy in the learning process, which makes the learner feeling satisfied and confident of oneself.

Furthermore, one of the literature studies has explored that SDL may be associated with increased curiosity, critical thinking, better understanding and retention of information, and improved motivation and confidence. [Devi, Bhat, Ramya, Ravichandran, and Kanungo, 2016)]

There were many studies focused on the concept, process, personal, and contextual factors, and readiness of SDL within our reach. However, the study on how much SDL is embraced with, how much aware of this method, how much is accepted, and consumed its benefits by the learners are merely known. This fact opens the door for the researchers to fill in this area.

OBJECTIVE:

Aim of the study is to determine the knowledge and practice of SDL.

METHODOLOGY:

It was the cross-sectional descriptive study conducting on all year 3 medical students from UNIMAS.

The questionnaire was structured for the study purpose based on the thesis of Jane Pilling-Cormick in the development of the SDL perception scale. The questionnaire was restructured and validated making a pilot study.

The reliability of the questionnaires was checked with Cronbach’s Alpha. The study conducted using well-structured questionnaires. The reliability of the questionnaires was 0.723 on Cronbach’s Alpha.

The questionnaires have 3 domains with a free comment box in the end. The first domain is for socio-demographic data, the second is on SDL knowledge, and the final part is for SDL practice. We monitored the practice by checking the logbook (journal) twice per week with assigned facilitators. In the logbook, we explored their setting goal, use of resources, time management with self-evaluation/reflection. The open comments at the end of the questionnaires were organized and compiled according to two themes- the role of facilitators and factors influencing the SDL process. The data entry and compilation were done and analyzed by SPSS version 22. The results were calculated and expressed in tables or graphs.

For the ethical considerations, the Centre for Applied Learning and Multimedia granted and approved this study (SoTL/FPSK/2018(1)/004).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

The researchers of this study explored the knowledge and practice towards the SDL of year 3 medical students during their posting. It indirectly helps us to find out the competency of our curriculum with the role of facilitator from the student’s perspectives.

The total participants in the study were 109. Data analysis of socio-demographic data shows the mean age of the study group was 21.89 (0.52) years. The study population was 22% male and 78% females. Malay (55%), Indian (14.7%), Chinese (11.9%), and Bumiputras (9.2%) included in the study.

The mean total scores on knowledge were 60.08 (6.93), and the mean practice total scores were 12.83 (2.56). (Table 1)

Table 1 Knowledge and Practice total scores of respondents

	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Std. Deviation
Kn_Total	38	77	60.08	6.931
Pract_Total	5	16	12.83	2.559
Valid N (listwise)

With Pearson correlation, there was a significant positive correlation between the knowledge and practice total scores. (Table 2; figure 1)

Figure 1: depicts positive correlation between the knowledge and practice total scores.

Table 2: Correlation between knowledge and practice scores ^**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

		Kn_scores	Pract_ scores
Kn_ scores	Pearson Correlation	1	.503
	Sig. (2-tailed)		.000^**
	N	109	109
Pract_ scores	Pearson Correlation	.503	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.000^**
	N	109	109

Table 3 Sociodemographic Data vs Knowledge Scores

Sociodemographic profile

Mean (SD^a)

F-statistics (df^b)

p-value^g

Age

21.89 (0.52)

0.308^e

r= 0.098

Gender

Male

Female

61.71 (7.33)

59.62 (6.79)

0.422^c(107)

0.195^d

Ethnicity

Malay

Chinese

Indian

Iban

Bidayuh

59.45 (7.64)

60.48 (5.60)

63.13 (5.81)

56.17 (6.59)

61.00 (4.55)

1.433 (4)

0.228^f

r = Pearson Correlation Coefficient

^astandard deviation

^bdegree of freedom

^ct- statistic

^dp-value for independent t-test

^ep-value for correlation test

^fp-value for one-way ANOVA

^g p-value of less than 0.05 is taken as significant

We used the independent student’s t test for the association between gender with knowledge total scores and there was no significant association (p = 0.195 >0.05). The relationship of the race and knowledge total scores among the students also seemed to be indifferent (ANOVA P=0.228, >0.05) (Table 3)

Table 4 Socio-demographic Data vs Practice Scores

Sociodemographic profile

Mean (SD^a)

F-statistics (df^b)

p-value^g

Age

21.89 (0.52)

0.467^e

r= 0.07

Gender

Male

Female

12.83 (2.57)

12.84 (2.57)

0.001^c(107)

0.997^d

Ethnicity

Malay

Chinese

Indian

Iban

Bidayuh

12.68 (2.41)

12.39 (2.90)

14.31 (1.70)

12.50 (3,27)

12.25 (3.59)

1.679 (4)

0.161^f

r= Pearson Correlation Coefficient

^astandard deviation

^bdegree of freedom

^ct- statistic

^dp-value for independent t-test

^ep-value for correlation test

^fp-value for one-way ANOVA

^g p-value of less than 0.05 is taken as significant

Table 4 showed that there was no significant association between gender and practice total scores (p = 0.997 >0.05) and between the race and practice total scores among the students (ANOVA P=0.161, >0.05). The findings from the study revealed that 65% of the respondents had a high knowledge level gained through self-directed learning, while 43% had a moderate level of knowledge. (Figure.2)

Figure 2: Level of knowledge of year 3 medical students towards SDL in percentage

Regarding the practice, the level of self-directed learning was 85% of the students, which postulated that they applied fully to the SDL steps during their posting, found as supportive findings to the curriculum of the university, while 15% used insufficiently (Figure.3).

Figure 3: Level of the practice of year 3 medical students towards SDL in percentage

In this study, the practice level resulted more than the knowledge level. (85% Vs 65%). It was probably due to the introduction of PBL practice in the pre-clinical year, which provided a firm ground to flourish its practice. It further coincided with the study which indicated, that problem-based learners are self-directed learners. (Loyens, S.M.M., Magda, J. and Rikers, R.M.J.P, 2008).

O’Shea, E (2003) stated in her study that not all students were self-directed, but mature students are more self-directed. With the evidence of high knowledge and practice score, we assumed confidently year3 students were well-perceived the core context of SDL through the pre-clinical problem-based learning process. It indicated that our university’s curriculum was adequate enough to shape up our young learners to perform well as self-directed learners in andragogy.

We organized the open comments in two themes as the role of facilitators and factors influencing the learning process. It revealed that the students preferred the facilitator coaching them in the learning process. The use of a logbook (journal) to set their own daily goals made them engaged more in the study and favored the use of resources.

They admitted that time management was not a problem for them as they spent at least 3.75 hours a day (3.75 +/- 0.96). Most of them applied the self-reflection process as they tried to memorize the contents after the study. There were different learning styles like highlighting, self-rehearsal for reciting, repetition, note-taking, or drawing. They also responded that if the facilitator coached them in the learning process, they were more motivated and they regained more self- confidence. They claimed there were initiatives to expand their learning in terms of contextual knowledge. The respondents in this study welcomed the facilitators’ help to accomplish the evaluation process. It was agreeable with one of the research literature studies, who highlighted the role of teachers or facilitators that they need to model learning strategies such as predicting, questioning, clarifying, and summarizing so that students will develop the ability to use these strategies on their own. [Many, Fyfe, Lewis, and Mitchell (1996)]

Sahoo (2016) again confirmed it in his study, that the majority of the students expressed better utilization of SDL study hours by motivating them with weekly assessment from facilitators, thereby fostering SDL habits. The current study has also found similar the same finding, as the students mentioned, they would become more confident and felt self-esteemed if the facilitator fosters them with evaluation.

Regarding the factors influencing SDL practice emphasized motivation and peer pressure as important factors. The study was not affected by any other factors like personality difference, underlying educational context, poor engagement, or diversity in the classroom as seen in other literature, also seen as 85% had good practice in the study group.

CONCLUSION:

In the current education system, the SDL is regarded as a good method of learning, which is systemically adopted in our University Curriculum. The built-in SDL session provides the knowledge and thrives the practice of SDL in year3 postings. The students ' perceived practice of SDL, although the knowledge level is lesser than their practice level. The motivation made by the facilitators, improving the confidence level of learners, and helping them in the self-evaluation process play an important role in the strengthening of the SDL practice.

From our findings, we recommended expanding the role of the facilitator to improve the proper and effective use of SDL to achieve the best performance from the students. It will definitely ease the learning path and grow stronger in their life-long learning behavior with enhanced self- confidence and dedication. The current study further postulates, that the SDL tiles the learning platform to the students to become more engaged with more passion for learning, as well as absorb good learning methods in their life-long learning process.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT:

There is no conflict of interest between the authors.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

We would like to express our gratitude to Dean, Deputy Dean of CALM, UNIMAS for their support and approval for the SoTL grant. (SoTL/FPSK/2018(1)/004)

We would like to thank our young learners (year 3 medical students - 2017/18) who agreed to take part in our study.

Lastly, we would like to share our thanks to support staffs of CALM and our department staffs who helped us to accomplish this study.

REFERENCES:

1. Devi S, Bhat KS, Ramya SR, Ravichandran K, Kanungo R. Self-directed learning to enhance active learning among the 2nd-year undergraduate medical students in Microbiology: An experimental study. Journal of Current Research in Scientific Medicine. 2016 Jul 1; 2(2):80.

2. Dynan L, Cate T, Rhee K. The impact of learning structure on students' readiness for self-directed learning. Journal of Education for Business. 2008 Nov 1; 84(2):96-100.

3. Pilling-Cormick J. Development of the self-directed learning perception scale (Doctoral dissertation, National Library of Canada= Bibliothèque Nationale du Canada).

4. Knowles MS. Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers.

5. Loyens SM, Magda J, Rikers RM. Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its relationships with self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review. 2008 Dec 1; 20(4):411-27.

6. Many JE, Fyfe R, Lewis G, Mitchell E. Traversing the topical landscape: Exploring students' self‐directed reading‐writing‐research processes. Reading Research Quarterly. 1996 Jan; 31(1):12-35.

7. Merriam S, Caffarella R. Key theories of learning. Learning in adulthood: a comprehensive guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1999; 2:248-66.

8. Merriam SB, Caffarella RS, Baumgartner LM. Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide Jossey-Bass. San Francisco. 1999.

9. O'Shea E. Self‐directed learning in nurse education: a review of the literature. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2003 Jul; 43(1):62-70.

10. Crosby RH. AMEE Guide No 20: The good teacher is more than a lecturer-the twelve roles of the teacher. Medical Teacher. 2000 Jan 1; 22(4):334-47.

11. Sahoo S. Finding self-directed learning readiness and fostering self-directed learning through weekly assessment of self-directed learning topics during undergraduate clinical training in ophthalmology. International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research. 2016 Jul; 6(3):166.

12. Savin-Baden M, Major CH. Foundations of problem-based learning. McGraw-Hill education (UK); 2004 Aug 1.

13. Brookfield SD. Self-directed learning. International Handbook of Education for the Changing World of Work 2009 (pp. 2615-2627). Springer, Dordrecht.

14. Maclean R, Wilson D, editors. International Handbook of Education for the changing world of work: Bridging academic and vocational learning. Springer Science and Business Media; 2009 Jun 29.

15. Taylor B. Self-Directed Learning: Revisiting an Idea Most Appropriate for Middle School Students.

Received on 11.11.2020 Modified on 19.12.2020

Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2021; 14(1):303-307.

DOI: 10.5958/0974-360X.2021.00055.X