Abstract

Objectives This research explored the assessment of self-directed learning readiness within the comprehensive evaluation of medical students’ knowledge and skills and the extent to which several variables predicted participants’ self-directed learning readiness prior to their graduation. Methods Five metrics for evaluating medical students were considered in a multiple regression analysis. Fourth-year medical students at a competitive US medical school received an informed consent and an online survey. Participants voluntarily completed a self-directed learning readiness scale that assessed four subsets of self-directed learning readiness and consented to the release of their academic records. Results The assortment of metrics considered in this study only vaguely captured students’ self-directedness. The strongest predictors were faculty evaluations of students’ performance on clerkship rotations. Specific clerkship grades were mildly predictive of three subscales. The Pediatrics clerkship modestly predicted critical self-evaluation (r=-.30, p=.01) and the Psychiatry clerkship mildly predicted learning self-efficacy (r =-.30, p=.01), while the Junior Surgery clerkship nominally correlated with participants’ effective organization for learning (r=.21, p=.05). Other metrics examined did not contribute to predicting participants’ readiness for self-directed learning. Conclusions Given individual differences among participants for the variables considered, no combination of students’ grades and/or test scores overwhelmingly predicted their aptitude for self-directed learning. Considering the importance of fostering medical students’ self-directed learning skills, schools need a reliable and pragmatic approach to measure them. This data analysis, however, offered no clear-cut way of documenting students’ self-directed learning readiness based on the evaluation metrics included.

Highlights

  • In 1950, the timeframe in which the body of medical knowledge doubles was estimated to be 50 years; in 2010, it was 3.5 years, and in 2020, it is projected to be just 73 days.[1]

  • One of the independent variables, participants’ OSCE score, was removed from the analysis because it was recorded by the Registrar as pass/fail, and passing the evaluation is a requirement for graduation

  • All participants received the same grade on the metric, and it provided no differentiation in the analysis

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In 1950, the timeframe in which the body of medical knowledge doubles was estimated to be 50 years; in 2010, it was 3.5 years, and in 2020, it is projected to be just 73 days.[1].

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call