Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

Locus of Control and Self-Directed Learning Readiness of Nursing Students During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study from Saudi Arabia

Altmetrics

Downloads

293

Views

95

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

This version is not peer-reviewed

Preprints on COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2

Submitted:

03 October 2023

Posted:

04 October 2023

Read the latest preprint version here

Alerts
Abstract
Background: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has caused one of the worst global pandemics in recent decades. It has disrupted education systems worldwide, leading to a forced shift from traditional face-to-face to blended or fully distanced learning, requiring a higher level of student readiness for self-directed learning (SDL) and a more internal locus of control (LOC). Objective: This study explored the relationship between locus of control and level of readiness for SDL among Saudi nursing students and whether the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted this relationship. Methods: a cross-sectional correlational descriptive study was conducted to survey 277 Saudi nursing students enrolled in the bachelor program in one of the reputable universities in Saudi Arabia. An E-questionnaire containing two scales, the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale for Nursing Education, and the Locus of Control Scale, was used to collect data in addition to the selected participants’ characteristics. Results: Nursing students had a moderate-to-low level of readiness for SDL (mean = 144.0), and the majority had an external LOC. There was a significant association between locus of control and level of readiness for self-directed learning (r = 0.19*, p = 0.001), and the internal locus of control was more significantly associated with self-directed learning (r = 0.22*, p = 0.0001) than with external locus of control. Conclusion: The study findings indicate a propensity of respondents towards an external locus of control, whereas the majority of the respondents reported low to moderate levels of readiness across all dimensions of self-directed learning. This study was not registered.
Keywords: 
Subject: Public Health and Healthcare  -   Nursing

1. Introduction

INTRODUCTION:
The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has dramatically altered education worldwide. The disruption caused by COVID-19 compelled academic institutions to focus their efforts on facilitating a swift and unexpected transition to online education and assessment [1]. These efforts have resulted in a substantial rise in e-learning, whereby teaching and learning activities occur remotely via digital platforms, including nursing education [2]. The abrupt closure of educational institutions left students confused and greatly affected their academic schedules, performance, and achievements [3,4]. Moreover, it is likely to influence all aspects of university students’ lives worldwide [5], and nursing students are no exception [6]. Disruptions caused by COVID-19 induced heightened stress and anxiety [7] and have affected students’ educational requirements. [3,8]. In Saudi Arabia, the unscheduled closure of schools and universities commenced on 9th March 2020, to control the spread of coronavirus, prompting universities to take swift action.
To continue teaching and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic while complying with preventative protocols and measures, universities worldwide have been urged to develop online courses with reformed content and innovative teaching methods within a relatively brief timeframe [9]. Nursing education institutions have transitioned from traditional face-to-face instruction to virtual modes [10]. This shift to virtual education necessitated the rapid conversion of content previously delivered in person to an online format, with limited opportunities for students to engage in clinical practice, as is customary in traditional nursing curricula [6]. The adoption of this mode of education introduced innovative approaches to assessment, compelling students to quickly adapt to the challenges of attending virtual classes and successfully fulfilling assessment requirements.
In this context, students must consider new methodologies for organizing, preparing, and engaging in their studies. This resulted in heightened levels of independence and self-direction in completing course requirements. Self-directed learning is one of the strongest predictors of improved learning outcomes and academic achievement among students undergoing educated in online environments [11]. Extensive research has demonstrated that locus of control (LOC) and self-directed learning (SDL) are pivotal factors influencing students’ performance and online learning readiness [12].
Locus of control pertains to the extent to which individuals believe they possess control over their own lives [13], while SDL refers to the degree of responsibility a learner accepts for their own educational journey [14]. SDL is the most significant criterion that enables nursing students to cultivate professionalism, a critical attribute for future success [15]. Distance learning provides meaningful learning by encouraging students to take charge of their education and manage various circumstances to achieve academically [16]. As a psychological construct, the LOC motivates students to learn. However, a global pandemic may affect LOC [17] potentially affecting academic achievement [18,19].
SDL and LOC have been recognized as prerequisites for lifelong learning, enabling individuals to continuously and critically appraise the knowledge acquired in an ever-changing world characterized by the influx of new evidence [20,21]. This aligns with the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic [6]. Within the domain of nursing education, the adoption of lifelong learning strategies leads to a better quality of education and professional competence, fostering the development of professional values among nursing students [22] and ultimately contributing to improved nursing care outcomes [21,23]. Such traits correlate significantly with and are in congruence with the goals of Saudi Vision 2030 - a plan to enhance healthcare and education.
One of the predominant repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the onset of various psychological challenges, including stress and anxiety, also affecting higher education students [24]. The prevalence of perceived stress among students during COVID-19 was reported as high as 35%, with many experiencing moderate to extreme levels of anxiety [25]. Concomitantly, recent literature indicates that locus of control significantly correlates with perceived stress among students [26,27] and influences students’ learning outcomes [28], especially the internal locus of control, which is considered a prerequisite for high academic performance [29].
In response to numerous calls for an exploration of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic across all sectors, especially health and education, extensive research has been conducted to investigate students’ readiness to embrace SDL [30,31,32], while others have focused on the impact of locus of control [33,34]. However, a literature gap exists concerning whether locus of control impacts the level of SDL among nursing students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, the current study aims to address this gap in the literature by exploring nursing students' levels of readiness for SDL and the nature of their LOC. In the current global context, where many nursing schools utilize online learning platforms, students are compelled to exercise self-direction in their learning, making this study's potential contribution more valuable than ever. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to link students' LOC with SDL within the realm of nursing education during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia, thereby offering novel insights to nursing educators, academic leaders, educational psychologists, and policymakers concerned with nursing students’ learning and achievement.
BACKGROUND:
SDL plays a crucial role in preparing college students for postgraduate life [35]. It is an educational approach increasingly used in higher education, entailing the learner assuming responsibility of their own learning. The extent of control in this process depends on the learner’s attitudes, abilities, and personality characteristics. SDL finds widespread application in problem-solving contexts, contractual arrangements, distance learning, and clinical documentation [36]. Cheng et al. noted that SDL involves the learner, with or without external support, in formulating learning objectives, selecting appropriate learning strategies, diagnosing learning needs, identifying learning resources, and evaluating learning outcomes [37].
SDL offers numerous advantages to nursing students, including the development of independent learning skills [38]. It fosters purposeful change, essential for effective personal and professional life [39]. Moreover, SDL enhances students’ self-confidence and motivation [22,40,41]. Lee et al. identified an important direct influence of SDL on the professional values of nursing students [22]. The findings of this study should encourage nursing educators to promote SDL among nursing students, especially in light of the new generation’s proficiency in using the Internet and other information sources. SDL has been studied in various countries, including Italy, Brunei, China, and Turkey, with researchers consistently noting a strong correlation between SDL use and positive educational outcomes.
Assessing nursing students’ levels of self-direction can be achieved through the measurement of their levels of self-directed learning readiness (SDLR) [42]. A study conducted at Al-Jouf University in Saudi Arabia revealed that 77% of nursing students demonstrated high levels of SDLR [38], which positively correlated with academic performance in undergraduate nursing students [43]. Alsufyani et al. discovered that SDLR was affected by factors such as the gender, age, and clinical experience of nursing students, although another study reported no significant gender-based differences in SDLR scores [44].
Rotter expounded on the concept of LOC in a psychological context, referring to individuals’ beliefs regarding their control over causality, situations, and life experiences [45]. In education, LOC refers to how students interpret the factors contributing to their academic successes or failures. LOC is categorized into internal and external types by Rotter [45]. Internally orientated individuals believe that their behavior is primarily guided by their personal decisions and efforts, whereas those with an external LOC attribute their behaviors to external factors.
Locus of control exhibits a significantly positive association with academic achievement [18], a crucial aspect for students [46]. Moreover, LOC plays a critical role in motivating learning [47]. Studies [48], [49], and [50] revealed that students with a high internal LOC are more likely to persevere in online education and achieve superior academic outcomes compared to those with an external LOC. By contrast, Harrell and Bower found no significant relationship between LOC and student perseverance in online learning [51]. Bahçekapılı and Karaman concluded that external LOC has a negative and insignificant relationship with students’ academic achievement [52]. Arkan et al. examined the influence of SDL and LOC on nursing students and found that students with high levels of internal LOC are better prepared for SDL in a traditional classroom setting compared to students with low levels of internal LOC, regardless of their year of study [15].
Aim of the Study
This study aimed to explore whether a relationship exists between LOC and the level of readiness for SDL among nursing students during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic contingency.
Research Questions:
RQ 1: What is the nature of the nursing students’ locus of control?
RQ 2: What is the level of readiness for self-directed learning among nursing students?
RQ 3: Is there a relationship between locus of control and readiness for self-directed learning among nursing students during the COVID-19 pandemic?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. RESEARCH DESIGN

This study utilized a cross-sectional correlational descriptive design to elucidate relationships among variables, refraining from making inferences of causality [53].

2.2. RESEARCH SETTING

This study transpired at the Nursing College, at one of the reputable universities in Saudi Arabia, during the academic year 2020–2021. All nursing students enrolled in the 3rd through 8th levels of the bachelor’s program who were available during data collection were invited to participate in the study. Convenience sampling was employed for participant selection.

2.3. PARTICIPANTS

The total number of nursing students enrolled in the nursing bachelor’s program at King Saud University during the 2020–2021 academic year (target population) was 967 (497 females, 470 males). The sample size was calculated using the Raosoft website’s sample calculator. A total of 276 participants were needed to achieve an effect size of 0.3 (medium), a level of significance (α) of 0.05, and a test power (1- β) of 0.95. An additional 5% of participants were invited to account for attrition and/or withdrawal resulting in 290 participants being invited to participate.

2.4. INCLUSION CRITERIA

The study included nursing students (both male and female) enrolled in the 3rd to 8th levels who were available during data collection and willing to participate.

2.5. STUDY INSTRUMENTS:

A structured self-report questionnaire was used to collect the data and comprised three parts. The first part assessed participants’ demographic characteristics, including variables such as age, marital status, academic level, permanent residence, and years of experience.
The second part utilized the Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale for Nursing Education, developed by Fisher et al. [36] and revised and validated by Fisher and King [54]. This scale was initially developed to assist nursing educators in diagnosing students’ attitudes, abilities, and personality characteristics necessary for SDL. The scale comprises 40 items grouped into three categories: self-management (n = 13), desire for learning (n = 12), and self-control (n = 15). A five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was used to measure the students’ responses. Reverse scoring was implemented for negatively stated statements (e.g., strongly agree to strongly disagree). The overall scores ranged from 40 to 200, with higher scores reflecting a stronger readiness for SDL. The scale’s validity and reliability have been assessed in various nursing education studies [36,54,55,56], with Cronbach's alpha values between 0.70 and 0.85.
The third part of the questionnaire used the Locus of Control Scale, developed by Dag [57] adapted from Rotter’s Internal-External Locus of Control Scale [45]. This scale evaluates whether individuals believe that the consequences of their actions are controlled by themselves (Internal LOC) or by external forces (External LOC). The scale comprises 47 items divided into five categories addressing factors such as personal control (18 items), belief in chance (11 items), meaninglessness of effort (10 items), belief in fate (3 items), and belief in an unjust world (5 items). Responses were ranked on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all suitable to 5 = fully suitable). A higher score indicated a stronger belief in external LOC. The internal consistency of the original scale was assessed in previous studies and found to be consistent, with a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.92 and a Pearson’s product-moment correlation test value of r = 0.88 [57].
Cross-cultural and linguistic adaptation of the Locus of Control Scale adhered to Beaton et al.’s guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures [58]. For construct validity, two bilingual nursing professionals independently translated the scale into English and then performed blind back-translation into Turkish. Subsequently, the scale was reviewed by three academic and two professional experts proficient in both Turkish and English, who compared the back-translations to the original. Google Forms facilitated the administration of online surveys.
A pilot study involving 10 students was conducted to assess the linguistic clarity and cultural coherence of the scales with respect to the Saudi Nursing Academic culture and related nursing practices. No issues were reported by the students regarding questionnaire clarity or relevance; hence the pilot test responses were included in the study. The internal consistency analysis for both scales yielded a Cronbach’s α of 0.91 for the locus of control survey and 0.86 for the self-directed learning scale. The CHERRIES Checklist for electronic surveys [59] was followed.
6. DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE:
Upon obtaining approval from the Standing Committee for Scientific Research Ethics at King Saud University, and in accordance with COVID-19 restrictions and the university’s epidemic prevention and control policies, all students were approached online, as physical contact was not possible. The college’s scientific research unit coordinated with researchers and academic advising committee members to disseminate the online questionnaire link to nursing students who consented to participate. Academic-level coordinators were provided with the e-survey links to share with students via their academic email addresses. Data collection transpired over a 12-week period from January to March 2021.
7. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS:
Approval for the study was granted by the Bioethical Committee of the Institutional Review Board of the researchers’ university (IRB log number: #####). Additional approval was obtained from the vice deanship for academic affairs, academic advisors, academic-level coordinators, and faculty members instructing undergraduate nursing students at academic levels 3rd through 8th. Permission to obtain information regarding the study and the participants’ informed consent were translated into the LOC scale, and both LOC and RSDL were adapted from the authors. Participants were required to click “agree” to indicate not only their comprehension of the study's purpose, nature, benefits, and usage of data but also their voluntary agreement to participate. To ensure anonymity, no names or personally identifiable information were captured in the survey responses, indicating that the respondent’s IP addresses, usernames, contact information (e.g., email addresses), or respondent tracking functionality were not used in creating the survey, and those with access to the responses could not associate a response with a respondent’s identity [59].
8. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:
Data were coded and analyzed using SPSS version 21 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Continuous quantitative variables were described after assessing their normal distribution, which was evaluated using the Shapiro-Wilk test. For variables displaying a normal distribution, means (X) and standard deviations (SD) were calculated. Nominal categorical variables are described using frequencies (f) and percentages (%).
For RQ1 and RQ2, descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percentages, means, standard deviations, and minimum and maximum values were employed to summarize participants’ demographic characteristics and assess their levels of RSDL and LOC. For RQ3, inferential statistics were applied. Pearson product-moment correlation analysis was used to ascertain the relationship between students’ LOC and their readiness for SDL. A statistical significance threshold was set at p ≤ 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Analysis:

Out of the 290 student participants, 277 completed the electronic survey, yielding a response rate of 95.5%. Table 1 presents an overview of the demographic characteristics of participants. Female students constituted 57% of the participants, whereas 43% were male. The mean reported age was 20.5 (±1.6) with the majority (98.6%) being single. Regarding academic level, 29.2% were at Level 6, 23.5% were at Level 7, 16.2% at Level 4, 14% at Level 3, and 10.8% at Level 5. Most participants were residents of Riyadh City and resided in their family homes (92.4%).
  • RQ 1: What is the nature of the nursing students’ locus of control?
Locus of control consists of five subscales: personal control, belief in chance, meaninglessness of effort, belief in fate, and belief in an unjust world. Table 2 shows that participants reported higher mean scores for external LOC (X = 86.2, SD = 19.7) than for internal LOC (X = 56.38, SD = 1.45), indicating that participants in this study believed that external factors or forces such as luck would determine their outcomes. The findings revealed that a higher mean score was reported for personal control (X = 56.38, SD = 1.45), followed by belief in chance (X = 32.21, SD = 7.97), belief in meaningless effort (X = 29.37, SD = 7.61), belief in an unjust world (X = 14.76, SD = 3.79), and belief in fate (X = 9.87, SD = 2.61).
  • RQ 2: To what extent are nursing students ready for self-directed learning?
SDL was assessed using three subscales: self-management, desire for learning, and self-control. Results showed that almost 60% of participants reported a low level of readiness for SDL (144 ±0.49), while 40% reported a high level. For the subscales, the highest mean score was for self-control (X = 52.36, SD = 12.45), followed by desire for learning (X = 45.02, SD = 10.38), and self-management (X = 39.52, SD = 9.04) (Table 3).

3.2. Inferential Analysis:

  • RQ 3: Is there a relationship between LOC and readiness for self-directed learning among nursing students during the COVID-19 pandemic?
Correlation analysis demonstrated a significant association between the locus of control and level of readiness for SDL (r = 0.19*, p = 0.001), with the internal locus of control showing a more substantial association with SDL (r = 0.22*, p = 0.0001) than the external locus of control, which exhibited no statistically significant association (r = 0.10, p = 0.08). Moreover, the self-directed learning subscales displayed statistically significant correlations with all the locus of control subscales. Table 4 presents the results of correlation analyses.

4. Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this study marked the first attempt to explore LOC and RSDL among nursing students in Saudi Arabia during the COVID-19 crisis. SDL is a critical component of problem-solving abilities [60] and significantly contributes to building clinical competence in nursing students. The primary aim of this study was to scrutinize the nature of LOC and level of readiness for SDL among Saudi nursing students during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, we explored whether there existed an association between LOC and SDL readiness. The robustness of this study ensues from its pioneering use of the English version of the Locus of Control Scale, initially developed by Dag [57], following its cross-cultural adaptation and validation for Saudi culture, all within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic contingency. These findings underscored a noteworthy association between the study variables. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the internal locus of control exhibited a significant decrease among the student population, while the external locus of control increased. This finding aligns with previous studies conducted in similar COVID-19 situations. For instance, external LOC was more prevalent among university students compared to internal LOC. This finding is consistent with those of Misamer et al. [61], Wali et al. [62], and Hammoud [63], who observed that most of their study participants displayed a higher external LOC than internal LOC, and there was a substantial shift from internal to external LOC during the initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. This phenomenon can be attributed to the challenging nature of the pandemic and accompanying rapid changes in all learning experiences, leading students to experience heightened stress. In response, those with external LOC tend to react emotionally and withdraw from stressful situations (such as the COVID-19 pandemic) compared to individuals with internal LOC, who demonstrate greater adaptability to stress and employ problem-solving strategies to mitigate its impact [62].
Regarding the level of readiness for SDL, the current study revealed that nearly 60% of the participating nursing students exhibited a low level of readiness. This finding is consistent with those of Ballad et al. [30], Nazarianpirdosti et al. [64], and Dogham et al. [65]. Conversely, the current findings contradict the conclusions of Samarasooriya et al. [66] and Alsufyani et al. [42], who posited that previous clinical experience and self-reliance among bridging program students or registered nurse (RN) students were significantly associated with high levels of SDL readiness. In this context, a previous systematic review by Nazarianpirdosti et al. [64] suggested that SDL appears to be insufficient. Furthermore, nursing students generally reported moderate levels of readiness for SDL.
Concerning the dimensions of SDLR readiness, the findings revealed that self-control was the most influential subscale when compared to self-management and the desire to learn. This finding corroborates those of Kaur et al. [67], Aljohani & Fadila [68], and Ballad et al. [30], who found that the majority of participating Indian, Saudi, and Omani students reported high self-control scores. This indicates that nursing students are fully cognizant of and responsible for their learning processes [30]. The current findings indicate that nursing students are proficient at managing their own conduct in pursuit of their goals and ideals, as well as effectively handling their learning in the context of the online educational platforms (LMS-Bb) available during the pandemic [69]. In contrast, students demonstrated fewer abilities, attitudes, and personality characteristics related to SDL.
Regarding the association between LOC and SDL readiness level among student participants, the current findings revealed a significant link between LOC and SDLR, particularly concerning the internal locus of control. This internal LOC exhibited a significant positive association with SDLR and all its dimensions and subscales, including self-control, self-management, and the desire to learn. This finding aligns with those of Sidola et al. [70], Syahputra & Affandi [71], Javidkar et al. [72] and Arkan et al. [15], who identified a significant positive association between internal LOC and academic self-regulation (self-control) among student participants. This indicates that student with an internal LOC demonstrated low to moderate levels of readiness for SDL and relied on external circumstances to control their achievements. This association implies that students with an internal LOC exhibit limited control over their behaviors, emotions, and thoughts in pursuit of long-term goals. More specifically, they possess diminished abilities to monitor and manage their emotions, thoughts, behaviors and energy in ways that are conducive to their well-being, learning, and academic success [70].
In terms of desire to learn and self-management, the findings of the current study revealed a significant positive association between an internal LOC and the desire to learn and self-management. After referring to the literature, the researchers considered students’ motivation to learn and self-efficacy as predictors of their desire to learn in comparison to the current findings. Rafique et al. [73] indicated that students who were internally controlled exhibited a greater readiness towards SDL in terms of learning motivation compared to those with an external LOC. This indicates that students possessing an internal LOC were more confident in executing their study plans, seeking timely assistance, managing their time, setting learning goals, and had higher expectations for their learning performance. Consequently, they were more innovative, motivated, and more inclined to share their ideas with their colleagues and teachers. They also demonstrated effective self-management and a genuine interest in learning. In contrast, externally controlled students lacked these attributes and relied more on external support to achieve their goals [73].
Limitations:
The generalizability of the findings is limited as the setting was a single nursing college, convenience sampling was employed, and the sample size was relatively small. Data were obtained using a cross-sectional self-report e-questionnaire, wherein dependent and independent variables were measured simultaneously. Therefore, it cannot provide sound information regarding the causal relationships among the investigated variables. Furthermore, this study focused on the relationship between LOC and SDLR and did not consider external variables that may affect students’ SDL, such as mood, health status, and gender. Consequently, further longitudinal studies are required. Additionally, the causes of students’ external control and lack of SDL readiness have not been explored, and the findings rely heavily on the COVID-19 crisis as the main precipitating factor.
Recommendations:
Based on the results of this study, several recommendations are proposed. Universities and administrators should work on developing policies for mentoring and counseling students to improve their loci of control. Institutions of higher education can establish sessions including presentations and classes on variables affecting the locus of control and enhancing SDL readiness. Nursing educators should be encouraged to create a conducive learning environment for implementing SDLR, promoting increased confidence, autonomy, motivation, and preparation for lifelong learning. Developing a systematic program led by specialists in mind coaching to increase internal locus of control is advised. Further research should explore external variables that influence students’ LOC and SDLR skills.
Nursing students can use the SDL process to review and improve their learning processes [22]. Evidence suggests that SDL plays a positive role in nursing education and is significantly associated with academic achievement [74], professional competence, communication self-efficacy [75], assertiveness and accountability [64], and clinical competencies [76]. Given the importance of SDL in nursing education, nursing educators should motivate students to effectively utilize SDL skills. Furthermore, as SDL plays a pivotal role in fostering clinical competence among nursing students, the necessary measures should be taken to encourage this form of learning. In this regard, nursing professors must train their students and impart SDL skills before incorporating them into the curriculum. They can improve the quality of nursing education and teaching methods by adopting problem-based and student-centered curricula. Since the level of SDL in nursing students falls short of the desired level, future studies should investigate the factors influencing the development of students’ readiness for SDL and evaluate the effect of educational interventions on SDL rates. Qualitative studies are required to investigate the factors that facilitate and inhibit SDL.
Further Studies:
Future studies should replicate this study using different target settings and populations, including nursing and non-nursing health colleges. Although these findings are applicable at the target-setting (college) level, they can be replicated both nationally and internationally.
Conclusion:
The overview of the preceding findings from the study indicates a propensity among respondents towards an external locus of control. The majority of the respondents scored low across all dimensions of readiness for SDL. Regardless of the SDL dimensions, the majority of the respondents displayed a low level of readiness for SDL, with self-control being the most impactful dimension compared to self-management and the desire to learn. This finding indicates that nursing students have the capability to regulate their conduct based on their goals and can manage their learning effectively considering the availability of necessary resources. Correlation analysis of the data revealed a significant positive correlation between the internal locus of control and readiness for SDL. Thus, the majority of student participants with an external LOC may benefit from educational administration and academic staff cultivating a learning environment that enhances their confidence in executing their study plans, seeking timely assistance, time management, goal setting, and higher expectations for learning performance. This would make them more innovative, motivated, inclined to share ideas with colleagues and teachers, adept at effective self-management, and keen on learning.
Thus, the results of this study advocate for the promotion of an internal locus of control among nursing students to foster their development as self-directed learners, a trait often considered positive and known to enhance nurses' potential to achieve their targeted goals. Moreover, the internal locus of control significantly contributes towards all three dimensions of readiness for SDL as well as the overall readiness of the participating nursing students. This underscores the importance of the internal locus of control in enhancing SDL approaches among nursing students, thereby enhancing life-long learning, achieving greater clinical competence, and attaining success.
Relevance To Clinical Practice:
The abrupt transformation of educational methods and learning experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic gave rise to conflicts between students and educators. From a more optimistic perspective, the COVID-19 contingency created new opportunities to improve university education systems. These improvements impacted all educational systems, including nursing education, and were implemented while considering numerous factors. First, nursing educators had to transition from the traditional in-class system to a self-directed learning experience, fostering students’ creativity, interactivity, and innovative learning by enhancing their SDL skills. Second, it encouraged students to augment their autonomy in learning, directing them to acquire knowledge in a relevant and meaningful manner. Third, curricula and academic policies should undergo annual review and development. Moreover, SDL readiness can be cultivated and enhanced through various mechanisms, such as promoting students’ awareness of their own SDL skills, employing learning contracts, embracing learning approaches that stimulate creativity, innovation, critical thinking, and independence, implementing contemporary teaching and assessment strategies that promote SDL, and providing the necessary technical and administrative support systems.

Author Contributions

Hanan Alkorashy (HK) and Hanan Alotaibi (HO) contributed to the design and implementation of the study. HO collected the data and HK analyzed the data. Both researchers HK and HO wrote the final report and manuscript. Both the authors read and approved the version for submission. HK conceived and supervised the project.

Funding

This research project was funded by the Research Center of the College of Nursing, Deanship of Scientific Research, King Saud University. Please note that King Saud University does not provide funding to the authors until the study has been published. Therefore, no specific grant number was provided.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Bioethical Committee of the Institutional Review Board of the researchers’ university (IRB log number: KSU-HE-21-02). Additional approval was obtained from the vice deanship for academic affairs, academic advisors, academic-level coordinators, and faculty members instructing undergraduate nursing students at academic levels 3rd through 8th.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the academic staff and students for their time and authentic participation in this study. The authors are thankful to the Deanship of Scientific Research, College of Nursing Research Center at King Saud University for funding this research. Moreover, the authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University for the logistic support of this work through the Research Assistant Internship Program, Project no. (RAIP-2-20-228). The statistics of this research study were checked prior to submission by an expert statistician, Professor Hanem Mohamed (dr.hfm7@gmail.com). Both authors extend their gratitude to her and affirm that the methods used in the data analyses are suitably applied to their data within their study design and context, and the statistical findings have been implemented and interpreted correctly.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Public Involvement Statement

No public involvement in any aspect of this research.

Guidelines and Standards Statement

This manuscript was drafted against the (STROBE) for a cross-sectional study.

References

  1. Jack, A.; Smyth, J. Coronavirus: universities face a harsh lesson. Financial Times 2020. Available online: https://www.ft.com/content/0ae1c300-7fee-11ea-82f6-150830b3b99a.
  2. Mustafa, N. Impact of the 2019-20 Coronavirus pandemic on education. International Journal of Health Preferences Research. 2020, 5, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Onyema, E.M.; Eucheria, N.C.; Obafemi, F.A.; Sen, S.; Atonye, F.G.; Sharma, A.; et al. Impact of Coronavirus Pandemic on Education. Journal of Education and Practice. 2020, 11, 108–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Tran, T.; Hoang, A.D.; Nguyen, Y.C.; Nguyen, L.C.; Ta, N.T.; Pham, Q.H.; et al. Toward sustainable learning during school suspension: Socioeconomic, occupational aspirations, and learning behavior of vietnamese students during COVID-19. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2020, 12, 4195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Plakhotnik, M.S.; Volkova, N.V.; Jiang, C.; Yahiaoui, D.; Pheiffer, G.; McKay, K.; et al. The Perceived Impact of COVID-19 on Student Well-Being and the Mediating Role of the University Support: Evidence From France, Germany, Russia, and the UK. Front Psychol 2021, 12, 642689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Agu, C.F.; Stewart, J.; McFarlane-Stewart, N.; Rae, T. COVID-19 pandemic effects on nursing education: looking through the lens of a developing country. Int Nurs Rev [Internet]. 2021, 68, 153–158. Available online: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/inr.12663. [CrossRef]
  7. Son, C.; Hegde, S.; Smith, A.; Wang, X.; Sasangohar, F. Effects of COVID-19 on college students’ mental health in the United States: Interview survey study. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2020, 22, e21279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gadi, N.; Saleh, S.; Johnson, J.A.; Trinidade, A. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the lifestyle and behaviours, mental health and education of students studying healthcare-related courses at a British university. BMC Med Educ. 2022, 22, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Xinhua. XinhuaNet. Chinese universities to remain closed until effective control of epidemic. 2020. Available online: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-02/25/c_138814715.htm. (accessed on 24 September 2023).
  10. Lade, K.; Gaglani, H.; Khare, S.; Muley, S.; Jha, R. Perception of student’s towards online learning during COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2022, 6, 473–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Torun, E.D. Online Distance Learning in Higher Education: E-Learning Readiness as a Predictor of Academic Achievement. Open Praxis. 2019, 12, 191–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Martin, F.; Stamper, B.; Flowers, C. Examining student perception of readiness for online learning: Importance and confidence. Online Learning Journal. 2020, 24, 38–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Boddu, V.K.; Rebello, A.; Chandrasekharan, S.V.; Rudrabhatla, P.K.; Chandran, A.; Ravi, S.; et al. How does “locus of control” affect persons with epilepsy? Epilepsy and Behavior 2021, 123, 108257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dwilestari, S.; Zamzam, A.; Susanti, N.W.M.; Syahrial, E. The Students’ Self-Directed Learning in English Foreign Language Classes During The Covid-19 Pandemic. Jurnal Lisdaya. 2021, 17, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Arkan, B.; Ünsal Avdal, E.; Yildirim Sari, H. Locus of Control and Self Directed Learning Relation on Nursing Students. International Journal of Caring Sciences. 2016, 9, 514–519. [Google Scholar]
  16. Naseer, N.; Kanwal, S.; Habib, Z. Exploration of Distance Learners’ Nature of Locus of Control: Qualitative Analysis. Global Educational Studies Review. 2020, V, 20–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sigurvinsdottir, R.; Thorisdottir, I.E.; Gylfason, H.F. The impact of COVID-19 on mental health: The role of locus on control and internet use. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020, 17, 6985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Alipio, M.M. Academic success as estimated by locus of control and motivation. EdArXiv Preprints [Internet] 2020, 1–9. Available online: https://edarxiv.org/smf84/ (accessed on 19 September 2023).
  19. Hosseini, S.N.; Mirzaei Alavijeh, M.; Matin, B.K.; Hamzeh, B.; Ashtarian, H.; Jalilian, F. Locus of control or self-esteem; Which one is the best predictor of academic achievement in Iranian college students. Iran J Psychiatry Behav Sci. 2016, 10, 2602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cadorin, L.; Ghezzi, V.; Camillo, M.; Palese, A. The self-rating scale of self-directed learning tool: findings from a confirmatory factor analysis. J Nurs Educ Pract. 2016, 7, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Qalehsari, M.Q.; Khaghanizadeh, M.; Ebadi, A. Lifelong learning strategies in nursing: A systematic review. Electron Physician. 2017, 9, 5545–5550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lee, S.; Kim, D.H.; Chae, S.M. Self-directed learning and professional values of nursing students. Nurse Educ Pract 2020, 42, 102647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mlambo, M.; Silén, C.; McGrath, C. Lifelong learning and nurses’ continuing professional development, a metasynthesis of the literature. BMC Nurs. 2021, 20, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hossain, S.F.A.; Nurunnabi, M.; Sundarasen, S.; Chinna, K.; Kamaludin, K.; Baloch, G.M.; et al. Socio-psychological impact on bangladeshi students during COVID-19. J Public Health Res. 2020, 9, 1911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Khoshaim, H.B.; Al-Sukayt, A.; Chinna, K.; Nurunnabi, M.; Sundarasen, S.; Kamaludin, K.; et al. How students in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are coping with COVID-19 pandemic. J Public Health Res. 2020, 9, 1898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ganjoo, M.; Farhadi, A.; Baghbani, R.; Daneshi, S.; Nemati, R. Association between health locus of control and perceived stress in college student during the COVID-19 outbreak: a cross-sectional study in Iran. BMC Psychiatry. 2021, 21, 529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mori, M.; Seko, T.; Ogawa, S. Association of Social Capital and Locus of Control with Perceived Health during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022, 19, 9415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Al Mulhim, E.N. Flipped Learning, Self-Regulated Learning and Learning Retention of Students with Internal/External Locus of Control. International Journal of Instruction. 2020, 14, 827–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Animba, I.E.; Ezema, E.O.; Chukwu, P.N.; Nwobodo, P. LOCUS OF CONTROL, SELF-EFFICACY ANDACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS IN ENUGU STATE, NIGERIA. GPH-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH [Internet] 2022, 5, 45–52. Available online: http://www.gphjournal.org/index.php/er/article/view/707/471 (accessed on 18 September 2023).
  30. Ballad, C.A.C.; Labrague, L.J.; Cayaban, A.R.R.; Turingan, O.M.; Al Balushi, S.M. Self-directed learning readiness and learning styles among Omani nursing students: Implications for online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nurs Forum (Auckl). 2022, 57, 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Luu, T.M.V. Readiness for Online Learning: Learners’ Comfort and Self-Directed Learning Ability. International Journal of TESOL & Education. 2022, 2, 213–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Titiek Murniati, C.; Hartono, H.; Cahyo Nugroho, A. Self-directed Learning, Self-efficacy, and Technology Readiness in E-learning Among University Students. KnE Social Sciences. 2022, 7, 213–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Oktrivina, A.; Achmadi, A.; Hendryadi, H. Ethical Perceptions Of Accounting Students: The Role Of The God Locus Of Control, Moral Disengagement, And Love Of Money. Jurnal Reviu Akuntansi dan Keuangan. 2022, 12, 144–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Uysal, Ş.K.; Karadağ, H.; Tuncer, B.; Şahin, F. Locus of control, need for achievement, and entrepreneurial intention: A moderated mediation model. International Journal of Management Education. 2022, 20, 100560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. S. C. A. Attitude and Perceptions of Students Towards Self-directed Learning in Under-graduate Medical Education: A Mixed Method Study. Journal of Clinical & Diagnostic Research 2022, 16, 23. Available online: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asx&AN=155608420&site=eds-live (accessed on 2 October 2023).
  36. Fisher, M.; King, J.; Tague, G. Development of a self-directed learning readiness scale for nursing education. Nurse Educ Today. 2001, 21, 516–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cheng, S.F.; Kuo, C.L.; Lin, K.C.; Lee-Hsieh, J. Development and preliminary testing of a self-rating instrument to measure self-directed learning ability of nursing students. Int J Nurs Stud. 2010, 47, 1152–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. El-Gilany, A.H.; Abusaad, F.E.S. Self-directed learning readiness and learning styles among Saudi undergraduate nursing students. Nurse Educ Today. 2013, 33, 1040–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Morris, T.H. Self-directed learning: A fundamental competence in a rapidly changing world. International Review of Education. 2019, 65, 633–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Deacon, A.K.; Larson, N.; O’Neill, T.A.; Brennan, R.W.; Eggermont, M.; Rosehart, W. THE SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING READINESS SCALE, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, AND THE PREDICTION OF ENGINEERING STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (PCEEA) [Internet] 2015. Available online: https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/PCEEA/article/view/5953 (accessed on 2 October 2023). [CrossRef]
  41. O’Shea, E. Self-directed learning in nurse education: A review of the literature. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2003, 43, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Alsufyani, A.M.; Aboshaiqah, A.; Moussa, M.L.; Baker, O.G.; Aljuaid, D.A.; Alshehri, F.A. Self-Directed Learning Readiness of Students in Bridging Nursing Programs in Saudi Arabia -A Descriptive Study. Midwifery Pract Nurs Stand. 2020, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Alotaibi, K.N. The learning environment as a mediating variable between self-directed learning readiness and academic performance of a sample of saudi nursing and medical emergency students. Nurse Educ Today. 2016, 36, 249–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Alharbi, H.A. Readiness for self-directed learning: How bridging and traditional nursing students differs? Nurse Educ Today 2018, 61, 231–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rotter, J.B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological monographs. 1966, 80, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ozuome, C.C.; Oguzie, A.E.; Mokwelu, O.B.; Anyamene, A. Locus of Control as a Correlate of Secondary School Students’ Academic Achievement in Imo State, Nigeria. Journal of Guidance and Counselling Studies. 2020, 4, 374–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yang, J.C.; Lin, Y.L.; Liu, Y.C. Effects of locus of control on behavioral intention and learning performance of energy knowledge in game-based learning. Environ Educ Res. 2017, 23, 886–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Esterhuysen, S.; Stanz, K.J. Locus of control and online learning. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology. 2004, 30, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lowes, S.; Lin, P. Learning to learn online: Using locus of control to help students become successful online learners. Journal of Online Learning Research. 2015, 1, 17–48, Waynesville, NC USA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved October 2, 2023 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/149845/. [Google Scholar]
  50. Brammer, S.E.; Punyanunt-Carter, N.M. Getting the attention of online learners. Commun Educ. 2022, 71, 155–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Harrell, I.L.; Bower, B.L. Student characteristics that predict persistence in community college online courses. American Journal of Distance Education. 2011, 25, 178–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bahçekapılı, E.; Karaman, S. A path analysis of five-factor personality traits, self-efficacy, academic locus of control and academic achievement among online students. Knowledge Management and E-Learning. 2020, 12, 191–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Polit, D.F.; Beck, C.T. Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice, 11th ed.; LWW: Philadelphia, US, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  54. Fisher, M.J.; King, J. The self-directed learning readiness scale for nursing education revisited: A confirmatory factor analysis. Nurse Educ Today. 2010, 30, 44–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Abdulghani, H.; Almndeel, N.; Almutawa, A.; Aldhahri, R.; Alzeheary, M.; Ahmad; et al. The validity of the self-directed learning readiness instrument with the academic achievement among the Saudi medical students. Int J Med Sci Public Health. 2019, 9, 44–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Fooladvand, M.; Nadi, M. Validation of revisited self-directed learning readiness scale for nursing education among Iranian nursing and midwifery students. J Educ Health Promot. 2019, 8, 266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Dag, I. Locus of Control Scale: Scale Development, Reliability and Validity Study. Turk Psikoloji Dergisi. 2002, 17, 77–90. [Google Scholar]
  58. Beaton, D.E.; Bombardier, C.; Guillemin, F.; Ferraz, M.B. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000, 25, 3186–3191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Eysenbach, G. Improving the Quality of Web Surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res [Internet]. 2004, 6, e34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Manuaba, I.B.A.P.; No, Y.; Wu, C.C. The effectiveness of problem based learning in improving critical thinking, problem-solving and self-directed learning in first-year medical students: A meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2022, 17, e0277339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Misamer, M.; Signerski-Krieger, J.; Bartels, C.; Belz, M. Internal Locus of Control and Sense of Coherence Decrease During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey of Students and Professionals in Social Work. Frontiers in Sociology. 2021, 6, 705809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wali, O.; Vanka, S.; Vanka, A.; Alamoudi, N. Locus of Control - A Dental Student Perspective. J Evol Med Dent Sci. 2021, 10, 573. Available online: https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A654627503/AONE?u=anon~7d130064&sid=googleScholar&xid=83e38e55 (accessed on 2 October 2023). [CrossRef]
  63. Hammoud, S. Achievement Motivation and its Relationship to Locus of Control among Nursing Faculty Students in Tishreen University. Tishreen University Journal -Medical Sciences Series 2021, 43. Available online: https://journal.tishreen.edu.sy/index.php/hlthscnc/article/view/10558 (accessed on 2 October 2023).
  64. Nazarianpirdosti, M.; Janatolmakan, M.; Andayeshgar, B.; Khatony, A. Evaluation of Self-Directed Learning in Nursing Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Education Research International 2021, 2112108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Dogham, R.S.; Elcokany, N.M.; Ghaly, A.S.; Dawood, T.M.A.; Aldakheel, F.M.; Llaguno, M.B.B.; et al. Self-directed learning readiness and online learning self-efficacy among undergraduate nursing students. Int J Afr Nurs Sci. 2022, 17, 100490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Samarasooriya, R.C.; Park, J.; Yoon, S.H.; Oh, J.; Baek, S. Self-directed learning among nurse learners in Sri Lanka. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2019, 50, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kaur, A.; Lakra, P.; Kumar, R. Self-directed Learning Readiness and Learning Styles among Nursing Undergraduates. Nursing and Midwifery Research Journal. 2020, 16, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Aljohani, K.A.; Fadila, D.E.S. Self-directed learning readiness and learning styles among Taibah nursing students. Saudi J Health Sci [Internet]. 2018, 7, 153–158. Available online: https://journals.lww.com/sjhs/fulltext/2018/07030/self_directed_learning_readiness_and_learning.3.aspx. [CrossRef]
  69. Nwagu, E.N.; Enebechi, J.C.; Odo, A.N. Self-Control in Learning for Healthy Living Among Students in a Nigerian College of Education. Sage Open. 2018, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Sidola, S.; Saini, S.; Kang, T.K. Locus of control as correlate of self-regulation among college students. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2020, 9, 116–122. [Google Scholar]
  71. Syahputra, I.A.; Affandi, G.R. The Relationship between Internal Locus of Control and Academic Self-Regulation in Class 11 Vocational High School Students in Sidoarjo. Psikologia : Jurnal Psikologi. 2021, 6, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Javidkar, S.; Hoda, D.; Masoud, S.; Ali, H. A Path Analysis of Autonomy Supportive Teaching, EFL Learners’ Willingness to Communicate, Self-Regulation, Academic Engagement, and Perceived Locus of Control. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies. 2022, 9, 25–49. [Google Scholar]
  73. Rafique, G.M.; Mahmood, K.; Warraich, N.F.; Rehman, S.U. Readiness for Online Learning during COVID-19 pandemic: A survey of Pakistani LIS students. Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2021, 47, 102346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Avdal, E.Ü. The effect of self-directed learning abilities of student nurses on success in Turkey. Nurse Educ Today. 2013, 33, 838–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Song, Y.; Yun, S.Y.; Kim, S.A.; Ahn, E.K.; Jung, M.S. Role of self-directed learning in communication competence and self-efficacy. Journal of Nursing Education. 2015, 54, 559–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Taylor, T.A.H.; Kemp, K.; Mi, M.; Lerchenfeldt, S. Self-directed learning assessment practices in undergraduate health professions education: a systematic review. Medical Education Online. 2023, 28, 2189553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Study Sample (n=277).
Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of the Study Sample (n=277).
Item Number (%)
Gender
 Male
 Female 		119 (43)
158 (57)
Age Mean 20.51 ± 1.6
Marital Status
 Single
 Married
273 (98.6)
4 (1.4)
Academic level
  Level 3
  Level 4
  Level 5
  Level 6
  Level 7
  Level 8		 39 (14.1)
45(16.2)
30 (10.8)
81(29.2)
65 (23.5)
17 (6.1)
Residence
 Riyadh
 Outside Riyadh 		255 (92.4)
20 (7.2)
Table 2. Results of Locus of Control Subscale Among the Study Sample.
Table 2. Results of Locus of Control Subscale Among the Study Sample.
Locus of control Subscales Minimum Maximum Mean (SD)
Personal control 18 90 56.38 (14.47)
Belief in chance 11 55 32.21 (7.97)
Meaningless of the effortfulness 10 50 29.37 (7.61)
Belief in fate 3 15 9.87 (2.61)
Belief in unjust world 5 25 14.76 (3.79)
Internal locus of control 18 90 56.37 (1.45)
External locus of control 29 235 86.2 (19.7)
Table 3. Self-Directed Learning Among the Study Participants (n = 277).
Table 3. Self-Directed Learning Among the Study Participants (n = 277).
SDL Subscales Minimum Maximum Mean (SD) Level # (%)
Self-management 13 65 39.52(9.04) Low 227 (81.9)
High 50 (18.1)
Desire for learning 12 60 45.02 (10.38) Low 121 (43.6)
High 156 (56.4)
Self-control 15 75 52.36 (12.45) Low 157 (56.7)
High 120 (43.3)
Total level of readiness for SDL 40 200 144.0 (0.49) Low 166 (59.9)
High 111 (40.1)
# High level of readiness > 150, Low level of readiness < 150
Table 4. Correlation Analysis Among the LOC Subscales and SDL Readiness Subscales.
Table 4. Correlation Analysis Among the LOC Subscales and SDL Readiness Subscales.
SDL readiness subscales Locus of control subscales
Personal control Belief in chance Meaninglessness of the effortfulness Belief in fate Belief in unjust world Overall LoC
Self-management r = .38*
p = (.0001)		 r = .26*
p = (.0001)		 r = .25*
p = (.0001)		 r = .37*
p = (.0001)		 r = .33*
p = (.0001)		 X
Desire for learning r = .33*
p = (.0001)		 r = .20*
p = (.003)		 r = .21*
p = (.002)		 r = .36*
p = (.0001)		 r = .24*
p = (.001)		 X
Self-control r = .40*
p = (.0001)		 r = .24*
p = (.001)		 r = .22*
p = (.001)		 r = .39*
p = (.0001)		 r = .26*
p = (.0001)		 X
Overall Level of readiness for self-directed learning Internal LOC External LOC
 X
r =.22*
p = .0001
 r = .10
p = .08		 r = .19*
p = .001
*p ≤ 0.05
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated