Self-Directed Learning: Faculty and Student Perceptions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports the results of a qualitative study that explored faculty and student perceptions of self-directed learning (SDL) and investigated factors that facilitate or impede it. This study was conducted at McMaster University with faculty and students in a 4-year undergraduate nursing program. Data were collected from 47 faculty and 17 students by means of focus groups that were audiotaped and transcribed. Content analysis was conducted to identify common themes in faculty and student transcripts. The themes that emerged provide insight into the educational strategy of self-directed learning and can be summarized by the following major points: (1) commitment to SDL requires students and faculty to understand the value of empowering learners to take increased responsibility for decisions related to learning; (2) students engaged in self-directed learning undergo a transformation that begins with negative feelings (i.e., confusion, frustration, and dissatisfaction) and ends with confidence and skills for lifelong learning; and (3) faculty development is important to ensure high levels of competency in facilitating self-directed learning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it