ArticleCureus2025
Evaluation of Self-Directed Learning Activities at King Abdulaziz University: A Qualitative Study of Faculty Perceptions.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose Doctors are expected to be lifelong learners and engage in continuous professional development throughout their careers. Learning to be a self-directed learner as early as possible is therefore likely to lay the foundation for future learning and development. For this reason, self-directed learning (SDL) has recently been incorporated into the internal medicine curriculum at the Faculty of Medicine in Rabigh at King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia. The purpose of this study was to evaluate faculty perceptions of the effectiveness of the SDL activities. Methods The evaluation framework for this study was underpinned by Stufflebeam's context, input, process, and product (CIPP) evaluation model. Seven faculty members took part in semi-structured interviews that explored their understandings of SDL objectives (context), their perceptions of the methods and resources used (input), the implementation of SDL activities (process), and whether they met their intended educational goals (product). Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using the thematic analysis method. Results The following four themes emerged from the data and were mapped against the elements of the CIPP model: faculty perception of SDL (context), content and resources (input), facilitation and scheduling (process), and student engagement and assessment (product). Conclusions The faculty had different opinions about the objectives and content of SDL sessions; however, they agreed that they align with internal medicine objectives and clinical content. The faculty perceived SDL activities as a reading task for students to complete prior to group discussion. The data revealed the need for faculty training to conduct such sessions. Challenges in the learning environment were reported, including issues in library access and the scheduling of academic activities. The participants reported poor student engagement to be a particular challenge and made suggestions on how this could be addressed. In addition, they emphasized the need for assessment for these sessions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.