INTRODUCTION:

Self-directed learning (SDL) is a special type of learning method used more and more among the adult population ⁽¹⁾. Self-directed learners take control of their education and keep learning throughout their lives. They accept the freedom and responsibility of learning what is personally important to them and determine just how much control they take of their own learning process. The amount of control they maintain depends on their abilities, personal skills, attitudes, and behaviors ⁽²⁾.

Overall, SDL is “the process of deciding what to learn, to what depth and breadth; it occurs in a social context and includes decision-making and meta-cognitive thinking abilities”⁽³⁾. As a central theme in adult education, SDL is associated with the management of lifelong learning for better outcomes, and certain learning situations help strengthen SDL. In the specific context of nursing education, nursing science is changing rapidly, and there is always a need to acquire new knowledge. Therefore, it is important to train nurses to be ready for SDL while they are still in academic life ⁽⁴⁾. That said, every student has a different level of motivation. Students have diverse learning needs, and their attitudes and behaviors regarding learning and teaching vary. Moreover, every student responds differently to instructional practices and classroom environments. For teachers to fulfill the learning needs of all students and promote nursing education, they must first understand these diverse needs⁽⁵⁾. Because of ongoing changes and complexities in the development of the nursing profession, nursing education has turned its focus to SDL⁽⁶⁾. To identify the various traits of students, teachers could assess variations in the students’ levels of SDL readiness (SDLR). Understanding these traits could assist in significantly improving the educational skills and methods used in nursing education⁽⁷⁾. In Saudi Arabia, the Ministry of Education has introduced developments and changes at the university level, in general, and in nursing education, in particular. These efforts have focused primarily on implementing student-centered learning approaches in nursing education⁽⁸⁾. The rapid change occurring in nursing science has also motivated colleges to apply this type of approach. Thus, lectures are now considered insufficient for transferring knowledge from teachers to students. Instead, students explore the required knowledge and skills through SDL activities. Accordingly, to improve levels of SDLR and cultivate a positive perception towards student-centered learning, nurse educators should be encouraged to apply SDL strategies ⁽⁹⁾.

This student-centered approach provides students opportunities to improve their SDL, analytical skills, problem-solving skills, and lifelong learning ^(9-11). This approach also motivates students to become responsible for their education and take control of their studies ⁽⁹⁾. An improved understanding of SDLR could bring about positive changes in the educational climate and enhance the learner-centered approach. In addition, it will strengthen the autonomy of nurses and make them more responsible for SDL ⁽⁸⁾. Overall, to stimulate SDL among nursing students, it is imperative to recognize and create opportunities for capable students to manage and increase their critical thinking skills. This study is, therefore, specifically aimed at assessing the SDLR of baccalaureate nurses in Saudi Arabia. No previous studies have been carried out regarding SDLR at a Saudi College of Nursing, which explores the nursing students level of readiness for independency in learning and whether the Saudi learning culture may play a role; this is the first study of its kind. In this context, many studies have been conducted in a number of countries on students’ levels of SDLR. For example, a study in Australia that explored the SDLR of beginner bachelor students of nursing found that the self-control subscale had the highest mean score, and the second highest was for self-management and aspiration for learning ⁽¹²⁾. A Nepalese study found that most students (72.7%) scored higher than 150. According to Fisher et al. ⁽²⁾, who developed the SDLR Scale (SDLRS), total scores greater than 150 indicate readiness for SDL. Thus, the majority of students in the nepalise study were considered ready for SDL ⁽⁴⁾. A study conducted in Thailand ⁽¹³⁾ determined that the general SDLR of nursing students was higher among the “SDLR types”. These types included self-learner as an efficient student, problem-solving skills, well-versed recognition of responsibility for self-knowledge, openness to learning opportunities, creativity, independence in learning, initiative, self-determination in learning, and the capability to use primitive learning abilities. Furthermore, the SDLR scores of fourth-year nursing students were significantly higher than those in their first, second, and third years. In Turkey, Avdal conducted a study to analyze the effects of SDL on students’ success in nursing schools . The results were based on a relationship between students’ total SDL scores and their achievement level. In this case, a positive modest association was noted between the standard successful grade and the students’ SDL capability⁽¹⁾.

A Chinese study on students’ SDLR found that 51% of the nursing students implemented small-group studying procedures, problem-based learning (PBL), and SDL, and 62.3% of the students demonstrated elevated levels of SDLR. In this study, many of the students who employed small-group learning, PBL, and SDL had higher levels of SDLR than those who used different learning methods ⁽⁷⁾. With respect to participant demographics, many studies have found no significant difference in SDLR levels between males and females^(4,
7,12). However, a significant variance in SDLR among students has been demonstrated across years of study. In such cases, senior students have higher SDLR scores than those of junior students ⁽⁷⁾. Focusing on the development of SDL, Shankar et al. ⁽³⁾ conducted a comparative study on SDLR among students from the beginning to the end of their first year of study. According to the results, the total mean score for SDL improved from 152.7 to 157.3 from January to August. Self-management scores increased from 48.6 to 50.2. Additionally, students’ scores for self-control and desire for learning increased slightly ⁽³⁾. Finally, in Saudi Arabia, El-Gilany and Abusaad⁽⁸⁾ conducted a study at Al-Jouf University to determine the SDLR of Saudi nursing students. In this study, self-control recorded the highest mean score on the SDLR subscale (59.94 ± 6.7), whereas the self-management (51.3 ± 5.9) and the desire for learning (48.4 ± 5.5) subscales had scores lower than the SDLR subscale. In general, the nursing students demonstrated high levels of SDLR (77%) ⁽⁸⁾.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

1. What is the level of SDLR among KSU undergraduate nursing students?

2. Is there any association among SDLR readiness and any of the selected demographic characteristics among students?

METHODS:

DESIGN:

For the purpose of this research-based study, a cross-sectional descriptive study design was adopted.

Ethical Considerations

The first step was to obtain written approval from the administrative personnel at the KSU College of Nursing for the participation of both male and female students. Permission was then sought from Fisher to translate the SDLRS into Arabic and utilize the scale. Ethical codes of conduct were strictly adhered to at all stages of the study. During the data collection period, participants were guaranteed they would not be harmed in any way during their participation. Moreover, the students were informed of their rights to remain anonymous, refuse to answer any particular question, and decline or leave the study at any point in time ⁽¹⁴⁾. All information collected from the participants remained strictly anonymous and confidential. Verbal consent was obtained from all nursing students participating in the study. Data were collected from the participants through the distribution of a questionnaire. Data collection took 12 weeks, from February to May, 2013.

Setting:

The study was conducted in College of Nursing at one of the largest governmental universities in Saudi Arabia,.

Participants:

A non-probability, convenience sample of nursing students (male and female) enrolled in the bachelor’s (undergraduate) program from levels third through eighth in the selected setting and available at the time of data collection were asked to take part in the current study. Convenience sampling was employed because of its ease of use and the ability to use readily available participants. The participants included 118 male and 112 female nursing students (n = 230) whose mean age was 22.14 (± 1.55 years). The majority were in the seventh and eighth levels of study (23.5% and 30%, respectively), with most being single (82.6%), but a few married (17.4%). Furthermore, the majority lived with their families (93.9%). See Table 1.

Instrument:

The questionnaire included two parts: selected demographic, included questions concerning selected demographic characteristics: gender, age, and academic level, marital status and living place characteristics and SDLR, which was developed by Fisher et al. ⁽²⁾ and revised and validated by Fisher and King ⁽¹⁵⁾. This scale was initially developed to help nurse instructors and teachers analyze the thoughts, capacity, and personal distinctiveness essential for SDL. The scale is composed of 40 items grouped under three subscales: self-management (n = 13), desire for learning (n = 12), and self-control (n = 15). A 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree was utilized to weigh the students’ responses. The overall scores ranged from 40 up to 200, with top scores indicating an elevated SDLR. Numerous valued studies have used this scale, and its validity and reliability have been assessed in many studies conducted in the field of nursing education (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.87 and 0.924) ^(2,15).

Table 1: Selected Demographic Characteristics of Participant Nursing Students

Variables	Participants (n=230)
Variables	X ± SD	f (%)
Age ≤ 20	22.14 ± 1.55	30 (13.04)
21˃22		122 (53.04)
22 +		78 (33.92)
Gender Male		118 (51.3)
Female		112 (48.7)
Academic Level 3^rd		12 (5.2)
4^th		26 (11.3)
5^th		42 (18.3)
6^th		27 (11.7)
7^th		54 (23.5)
8^th		69 (30)

Data Collection:

Prior to the data collection period, the SDLRS was translated from English into Arabic to guarantee consistency in the participants’ understanding of the tool’s statements. The researchers translated the SDLRS using a back translation technique. This technique assisted the researchers in the identification, correction, and examination of mistakes between the source and target language. It also helped the researchers in achieving theoretical equivalence ⁽¹⁶⁾.

Data Analysis:

The data were coded, entered, verified, and examined using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS 21). Standard deviation (SD), percentage, frequency, and mean were employed to represent the descriptive statistics. Furthermore, independent Chi square tests, t-tests, and ANOVA tests were conducted as a component of the inferential statistics.

RESULTS:

Response Rate:

Three hundred questionnaires were distributed among female (n = 150) and male KSU nursing students (n = 150). Of those, 254 questionnaires were returned, indicating a response rate of 84.7%. All questionnaires were reviewed for their completion and validation. Twenty-four questionnaires were excluded for incompletion and/or invalidity, leaving 230 (76.7%) valid questionnaires for use in the data analysis.

Table 2 presents the participants’ SDLR and its subscales. The participants’ self-control recorded the highest mean score (56.72 ± 9.17),followed by the self-management (45.90 ± 6.93) subscale, with desire for learning recording the lowest mean score (45.04 ± 7.32).

Table 3: Association between the Selected Demographic Characteristics of Participants and Their Readiness for Self-Directed Learning

Selected variables (n = 230)		Self-directed learning readiness subscales
Selected variables (n = 230)		Self-management	Desire for learning	Self-control	Overall score
Age groups ≤ 20	X ± SD	46.23 ± 6.94	45.07 ± 6.44	56.53 ± 8.29	147.83 ± 18.79
21–22		46.73 ± 6.34	46.30 ± 7.26^a	58.29 ± 9.07^a	151.31 ± 20.31^a
> 22		44.46 ± 7.62	43.08 ± 7.37^b	54.35 ± 9.23^b	141.89 ± 21.69^b
Total		45.90 ± 6.93	45.04 ± 7.32	56.72 ± 9.17	147.66 ± 20.96
Significance	F	2.63	4.76	4.54	4.98
Significance	P*	0.074	0.009**	0.012**	0.008**
Gender Males (n=118)	X ± SD	45.32 ± 7.27	43.98 ± 7.96	55.94 ± 9.81	145.25 ± 22.50
Females (n=112)	X ± SD	46.50 ± 6.53	46.16 ± 6.41	57.54 ± 8.40	150.21 ± 18.98
Significance	t	1.29	2.28	1.33	1.80
Significance	P*	0.198	0.024*	0.185	0.073
Academic Level 3^rd	X ± SD	41.17 ± 6.28	41.00 ± 6.73	53.33 ± 7.95	135.5 ± 16.45
4^th		48.81 ± 6.59^a	44.81 ± 7.35	57.77 ± 7.94	151.39 ± 18.86^b
5^th		44.26 ± 7.65	42.26 ± 8.65	54.14 ± 10.72	140.67 ± 24.55
6^th		45.30 ± 8.37	46.78 ± 7.11^a	56.63 ± 9.99	148.70 ± 23.62
7^th		45.74 ± 6.82^b	44.72 ± 8.21	55.76 ± 10.42	146.22 ± 23.42
8^th		46.97 ± 5.54^a	47.10 ± 4.78^a	59.28 ± 6.61^a	153.35 ± 14.30^a
Total		45.90 ± 6.93	45.04 ± 7.32	56.72 ± 9.17	147.66 ± 20.96
Significance	F	3.012	3.56	2.31	3.13
	P*	0.012**	0.004**	0.045*	0.01**
	P*	0.59	0.23	0.37	0.32

*P ≤ 0.05; **P ≤0.01; ^aThe first or more effect on self-directed learning subscale and overall score ; ^bThe second effect on self-directed learning subscale and overall score.

Table 4: Relationship between Students’ Levels of Readiness for Self-Directed Learning and Their Characteristics

Students’ Characteristics	Readiness for Self-Directed Learning n (%)
	High level Mean score ˃150	Low level Mean score ≤ 150	χ²	P*
Age ≤ 20	14 (46.7%)	16 (53.3%)	5.47	0.065
21–22	66 (54.1%)	56 (45.9%)
> 22	29 (37.2%)	49 (62.8%)
Gender Male	48 (40.7%)	70 (59.3%)	4.38	0.036*
Female	61 (54.5%)	51 (45.5%)	4.38	0.036*
Academic Levels 3^rd	3 (25.0%)	9 (75.0%)	7.52	0.19
4^th	12 (46.2%)	14 (53.8%)
5^th	17 (40.5%)	25 (59.5%)
6^th	12 (44.4%)	15 (55.6%)
7^th	24 (44.4%)	30 (55.6%)
8^th	41 (59.4%)	28 (40.6%)

*P ≤ 0.05

Figure 1: Students’ Level of Readiness for Self-Directed Learning

DISCUSSION:

For the participants of the current study , self-control was a highly reported subscale for SDLR. This finding is parallel to the findings of many studies conducted in Saudi Arabia ⁽⁸⁾, China ⁽⁷⁾, and Australia ⁽²⁾. These studies concluded that the self-control subscale reflected the participants’ readiness for SDL. That said, in the current study, the subscales of self-control, self-management, and desire to learn, as well as the general score of SDLR, were slightly lower than those reported in a previous study conducted at Aljouf University ⁽⁸⁾. Furthermore, the current findings do not reflect those of the Jordanian study that found nursing students were autonomous learners and that most demonstrated a strong desire to learn ⁽¹⁴⁾. However, this study’s results were almost identical to those reported in studies conducted in China ⁽⁷⁾ and Australia ⁽²⁾. Regarding age groups, the current study found a statistically significant association between age and SDLR and its related subscales, excluding the self-management subscale. This supports Linares’ argument that the association between age and SDLR is statistically significant ⁽¹⁸⁾ . This finding proves that nursing students’ SDLR increases with age and experience ⁽¹³⁾. Concerning academic levels, the current study also found an affirmative association between SDLR and academic level, meaning SDLR increases as one’s academic level increases. This relationship is statistically significant. Furthermore, this result is analogous with those of a study in Thailand ⁽¹³⁾, which established that the SDLR scores of fourth-year nursing students were considerably higher than those in lower academic years ⁽¹³⁾. Likewise, studies conducted in Australia and China ^{(1, 12)} found that senior or older students had higher levels of SDLR than junior or younger students, and Shankar et al. found that Nepalese students’ SDLR increased from January to August ⁽³⁾, confirming the nature of the maturation process in the development of SDL ⁽¹⁹⁾. In the first academic year, nursing students are told about their tasks and roles and lectured on the significance of education and the need to learn to be successful in the nursing program. In the second and third academic years, changes in the students’ SDLR levels may indicate their awareness of the learning approach and decreased focus on understanding how to learn. Fourth- or last-year students have more experience and clinical practice in diverse clinical settings. The learners in this final year are responsible for facilitating discussion and sharing their opinions, making decisions, and working independently on special clinical situations ⁽¹⁹⁾. With each year, the level of SDL activities increases, and students need to adapt to survive. Regarding SDLR levels, the majority of the students in this study had a low SDLR level (score ≤ 150). This finding contradicts many previous studies conducted in Saudi Arabia ⁽⁸⁾, Thailand ⁽¹³⁾, Iran ⁽⁶⁾, China ⁽¹⁹⁾, and the United States ⁽¹⁸⁾, where nursing students were found to have high levels of SDLR. However, with respect to demographics, the current study found no significant association between selected demographic variables and students’ level of SDLR, except for gender. El-Gilany and Abusaad ⁽⁸⁾ and Yuan et al. ⁽¹⁹⁾ support these findings. Furthermore, Klunklin et al. ⁽¹³⁾ and Yuan et al. ⁽¹⁹⁾ add that students’ readiness for critical thinking and problem solving, analytical thinking, and learning satisfaction determines their SDLR. Accordingly, in cases of low SDLR levels, those students who do not possess strong study skills become unable to focus while studying and cannot efficiently manage their time ⁽¹⁷⁾. Overall, in the current study, the nursing students’ SDLR was slightly low, which affected their learning. In a follow-up with students' participants with low scores, they pointed to their lack of time management skills or their moods, values, attitudes, culture, and skills to manage their self-learning as possible influences on their SDLR (students’ comments). In other words, the variation in SDLR might be due to individual differences among the students, which lead to differences in their goals, motivation to learn, attitude towards teaching and teachers, and responses to classroom and clinical practice environments. Such factors can affect their SDLR ^{(20, 21)}. For instance, in Gyawali et al.’s study ⁽⁴⁾, thirty three students (27.3%) were having an SDL score which was less than 150. Students scoring less than 150 would have to depend on the teacher for the management of their studies, especially to formulate learning objectives and for evaluating the outcomes ⁽⁴⁾. According to Murray Fisher et al.⁽²⁾, these students may not perform well if they are not given opportunities to learn in highly structured situations. We anticipate that the majority of students near the group mean will adapt to our hybrid teaching-learning style. However, students with scores at the extremes may find the adjusting to certain learning environments more problematic ⁽²⁾. Concomitantly, according to Yuan et al. ⁽⁷⁾, an increased level of SDLR might reflect the emphasis on self-control and self-responsibility in clinical practice, which allows students to practice adult roles and prepare themselves for the beginning of their nursing careers ⁽⁷⁾ . Lastly, some studies have emphasized that culture and customs have a well-established influence on students’ development of SDLR, which affects their learning strategies. However, the level of influence depends on the individuals’ cultural backgrounds ^{(22, 23)}. In this context, Hamdan ⁽²⁰⁾ argued that Saudi university students come from a school culture (i.e., traditional educational culture) that teaches them to rely on the teacher as the sole source of and conduit for knowledge. The strong hold that the traditional approach to education has on the minds of many students leads some of them to resist approaches that place them at the centre of learning – and this is especially the case when they have to engage in discussions as a precondition for learning ⁽²⁰⁾. Moreover, the contextual aspect of self-directed learning and the role of culture is addressed by Learning in Adulthood, autonomy reflects independence and uniqueness, according to Boucouvalas while homonomy is “the experience of being part of a meaningful whole and in harmony with superindividual units such as family, social group, culture, and cosmic order”. It seems that a culture strongly supports homonomy over autonomy in middle eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia. Thus, it seems clear that Saudi culture, with its varying components, has an influence on nursing education ^{(21, 24)}.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

In conclusion, the readiness for self-directed learning among participating Saudi nursing students was low. Their self-control was high as compared with other SDLR subscales,. Finally, age and academic level influenced the studied sample’s SDL. Thus, the study recommends that Nursing students need to be supported for transition from traditional educational approaches to more active and independent ones, which emphasize critical thinking, self-direction, and collaboration as central strategies for learning. Faculty are required to actively involve their students in determining their learning needs to continue their professional education in a self-directed manner. Adding to that, Students and faculty need to continually appraise the extent of opportunities for SDL within the teaching–learning context through their mutual collaboration in achieving the lifelong independency in knowledge and skills acquirement.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

No conflict of interest has been declared by the authors.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:

We appreciate the help of the dean of the College of Nursing in King Saud University, whose guidance and vision helped us conduct this study effectively. We thank the statistician for consultancy and statistical input, academic staff and students participants of this study and the management of the Saudi university for their assistance. This research project was supported by a research fund from the “Research Center of the College of Nursing”, Deanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University, 2013.

REFERENCES:

1. Avdal, E. Ü. The effect of self-directed learning abilities of student nurses on success in Turkey. Nurse Education Today, 33(8); 2013: 838-841. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2012.02.006.

2. Fisher, M., King, J., and Tague, G. Development of a self-directed learning readiness scale for nursing education. Nurse Education Today, 21(7); 2001: 516-525. Retrieved from: http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/pl3p/selfdirected%20learning%20scale%20for%20nurses.pdf

3. Shankar, R., Bajracharya, O., Jha, N., Gurung, S. B., Ansari, S. R., andThapa, H. S. Change in medical students' readiness for self-directed learning after a partially problem-based learning first year curriculum at the KIST medical college in Lalitpur, Nepal. Education for Health (Abingdon), 24(2); 2011: 552. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22081659

4. Gyawali, S., Jauhari, A. C., Shankar, P. R., Saha, A., and Ahmad, M. Readiness For Self Directed Learning Among First Semester Students Of A Medical School In Nepal. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, 5(1); 2011: 20-23. Retrieved from: http://www.jcdr.net/articles/PDF/1130/1480_E(C)_F(J)_R(S)_PF(A)_P(20-23)_LowRes.pdf

5. Felder, R. M., and Brent, R. Understanding student differences. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1); 2005: 57-72. Retrieved from: http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/Understanding_Differences.pdf

6. Safavi, M., Shooshtari zadeh, Sh., Mahmoodi, M., and Yarmohammadian, M. Self-directed Learning Readiness and Learning Styles among Nursing Students of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. Iranian Journal of Medical Education, 10(1); 2010: 27-35. Retrieved from: http://ijme.mui.ac.ir/browse.php?a_code=A-10-725-5 and slc_lang=en and sid=1and sw=learning+style

7. Yuan, H. B., Williams, B. A., Fang, J. B., and Pang, D. WITHDRAWN: The relationship between self-directed learning readiness and problem solving in Chinese baccalaureate nursing students. Nurse Education Today. 2012. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0260691712000044

8. El-Gilany, A.-H., and Abusaad, F. E. S. Self-directed learning readiness and learning styles among Saudi undergraduate nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 33(9); 2013: 1040-1044. Retrieved from: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/1737/1/A%20survey%20of%20intrusion%20detection%20techniques%20in%20Cloud.pdf

9. Lestari, E., and Widjajakusumah, D. Students’ self-directed learning readiness, perception toward student-centered learning and predisposition towards student-centered behavior. [Original research paper]. South East Asian Journal of Medical Education, 3(1), 2009: 52-56. Retrieved from: http://seajme.md.chula.ac.th/articleVol3No1/OR8_Endang%20Lestari.pdf

10. Amin, Z., and Khoo, H. E. Basics in medical education. (Singapore, World Scientific Publishing). 2003. Retrieved from: http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/5140

11. Billings, D. and Kowalski, K. Teaching for Higher Order Learning, Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 36; 2005: 244-245. Retrieved from: http://teachingasleadership.org/sites/default/files/Related-Readings/LT_Ch5_2011.pdf

12. Smedley, A. The self-directed learning readiness of first year bachelor of nursing students. Journal of Research in Nursing, 12(4); 2007: 373-385. Retrieved from: http://jrn.sagepub.com/content/12/4/373.short

13. Klunklin, A., Viseskul, N., Sripusanapan, A., and Turale, S. Readiness for self-directed learning among nursing students in Thailand. Nursing and Health Sciences, 12(2); 2010: 177-181. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20602689

14. Portney, L. G., and Watkins, M. P. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice (3^rded.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall. 2009. Retrieved from: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=apNJPgAACAAJanddq=Foundations+of+clinical+research:+applications+to+practice+%283rded.%29. and hl=en and sa=X and ei=sgqLVPywM8TnapnigbAD and ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA

15. Fisher, M. J., and King, J. The Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale for nursing education revisited: a confirmatory factor analysis. [Validation Studies]. Nurse Education Today, 30(1); 2010: 44-48. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19541394

16. Maneesriwongul, W., and Dixon, J. K. Instrument translation process: a methods review. [Review]. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48(2); 2004: 175-186. Retrieved from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03185.x/abstract

17. Abu-Moghli, F., Khalaf, I., Halabi, J., and Wardam, L. Jordanian baccalaureate nursing students' perception of their learning styles. International Nursing Review, 52(1); 2005: 39-45. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15725275.

18. Linares, A. Z. Learning styles of students and faculty in selected health care professions. [Comparative Study]. Journal of Nursing Education, 38(9); 1999: 407-414. Retrieved from: http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/10609585.

19. Yuan, H. B., Williams, B. A., Fang, J. B., and Pang, D. Chinese baccalaureate nursing students' readiness for self-directed learning. Nurse Education Today, 32(4); 2012: 427-431. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21458116

20. Hamdan, A. K. The reciprocal and correlative relationship between learning culture and online education: A case from Saudi Arabia. [Education; Distance Education; Open Learning; Open Education; E-Learning]. 2014, 15(1). Retrieved from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1408/2773

21. Rathor, M., Fauzi, M., Shah, A., Leman, W., Akter, S., and Omar, A. The Principle of Autonomy as Related to Personal Decision Making Concerning Health and Research from an ‘Islamic Viewpoint’. Journal of the Indian Medical Association, Volume 43; 2011: 27-34. Retrieved August 14, 2013 from http://jima.imana.org/article/view/6396/43_1-5.

22. Ahmad, B. E., and Majid, F. A. Self-directed Learning and Culture: A Study on Malay Adult Learners. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 7(0); 2010: 254-263. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.10.036

23. Kim, S., and McLean, G. N. The Impact of National Culture on Informal Learning in the Workplace. Adult Education Quarterly, 64(1); 2014: 39-59. doi: 10.1177/0741713613504125. Retrieved from: http://aeq.sagepub.com/content/64/1/39.full.pdf+html

24. Frambach, J., Driessen, E., Chan, L., and van der Vleuten, P. Rethinking the globalisation of problem-based learning: How culture challenges self-directed learning. Medical Education, 46; 2012: 738–747. Retrieved from: http://www.ceesvandervleuten.com/application/files/1114/2883/1636/Frambach_Rethinking_the_nature_of_PBL_in_ME_2012.pdf.

Received on 11.02.2016 Modified on 20.03.2016

Asian J. Nur. Edu. and Research.2017; 7(1): 66-72.

DOI: 10.5958/2349-2996.2017.00014.3

Variable	Self-directed learning readiness subscales			Overall readiness to self-learn
Variable	Self-management	Desire for learning	Self-control	Overall readiness to self-learn
Mean ± SD	45.90 ± 6.93	45.04 ± 7.32	56.72 ± 9.17	147.66 ± 20.96
Minimum	21	16	19	56
Maximum	64	59	75	197
Total	230	230	230	230