الفهرس 
AbstractOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 198 |  |  |
| | | from | 198 | | |
Abstract
Online instruction is probably going to become increasingly common in the wake of COVID-19. Studies have shown that college students’ capacity for SDL is essential to the seamless growth of online teaching in the context of long-term online instruction and the school closure policy (Cai et al., 2020; Xiang et al., 2021).
Learning that is spontaneous, deliberate, and enables self-management and self-evaluation is referred to as SDL. The collegiate level The future growth and dissemination of online education are also influenced by the SDL of students (Xie et al., 2020). The constructivist perspective emphasizes the value of student-centered, autonomous inquiry and knowledge production; self-determination theory contends that focused, deliberate learning activities can lead to more advantageous learning outcomes. Survey-based research indicates that learners’ academic achievement is significantly improved by SDL (Jaberzadeh and Mansouri, 2021; Oducado, 2021; Yang et al., 2021 ).
Therefore, this study posited that is to investigate self-directed learning, learner styles and it’s relation with academic achievement among students at Faculty of Nursing, Minia university.
Study Questions:
1.What is the correlation between self-directed learning, learner styles and his academic achievement among students at Faculty of Nursing, Minia university?
2.What is the relation between personal data, self-directed learning, learner styles and his academic achievement among students at Faculty of Nursing, Minia university?
Study design:
A descriptive correlation research design was utilized to achieve the aim of the current research.
Setting:
This study was conducted in the Faculty of Nursing, Minia University, Egypt.
Subjects:
The study subject was selected by using systematic random sample. It consisted of a (30%) of nursing students from the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th academic years during the ”second semester” of the academic year 2021 -2022 (total number 585).
Data Collection Tools:
Data were collected by three tools divided as following
Tool (I): Self- Directed Learning Readiness Scale (SDLRS)
This tool was divide into two parts:
Part I: Personal Data Sheet:
It used to collect data about nursing students. It included the items related to code of the student, age, gender, residence, and the academic year.
Part II: Self-Directed Learning Readiness Scale(SDLRS),
This scale developed by Guglielmino& Hillard (2007). to measure readiness for SDL. It consisted of (58) items with 5 likert scale
Tool (II): Learner Style Questionnaire
This questionnaire developed by O’Brien (1989). It consists of (30) items with 3 likert scale. It is divided to 3 dimensions.
Tool (III): Academic Achievement
This part’s scoring system was mentioned as:
•Poor: less than 60%
•Fair: from 60% to 64.9 %
•Good: from 65% to 74.9 %
•Very good: from 75% to 84.9%
•Excellent: from 85% and more
Data collection procedure
Official Permissions were obtained from administrative authorities before the data collection procedure (from the dean of the faculty, the vice dean for education and student affairs as well as head of the department (. During each classroom visit, the researcher took permission from the head of the department, the clinical coordinators, and the clinical instructors to work with students at the beginning or the end of the clinical section according to the appropriate time for students. The sheets were given individually to the students who participated in this research and they were given time to respond to all items in the tools. Also, the data were received according to each student’s time. Data were collected from (2nd , 3rd , and 4th -year faculty students) during the second semester of the academic year 2021- 2022 (from end of February to the end of May).
Ethical considerations
An official letter was granted from the Ethical Committee of Research as well as the Faculty Dean. Before conducting the pilot study as well as the actual study, oral consent was obtained from the students after explaining the aim of this research. The study subjects had the right to refuse to participate or withdraw from the study without any rationale at any time. The study subjects’ privacy was considered during the collection of data. Participants were assured that all their data were highly confidential; anonymity was also assured by assigning a number for each nursing student instead of names to protect their privacy.
Main findings
•Concerning the student personal data, the present study showed (57.9. %) of nursing students’ age ranged from (21-22) years old. Concerning the residence there are (75.9%) of them were living in the rural area, (57.1%) of nursing students were females, while (42.9%) of them were males, also (48.7 %) of nursing students were in the second year, while (30.8%) of them were in the third year of education
•In relation to nursing students total SDL, the present study illustrated (55.6%) of nursing students had below average SDL, while (24.1%) of them had average SDL. In addition (20.3%) of them had above average for SDL.
• Regarding to nursing students learner style, the actual study revealed (71.8%) of nursing students had learner visual style in learning, while (50.9%) of them had auditory style in learning. In addition (69.2%) of them had haptic style in learning. Also (34.2%) of nursing students had three styles of learning, while (33.2%) of them had two styles of learning. In addition (22.2%) of nursing students had one styles of learning.
•Concerning nursing students academic achievement, the actual study displayed (44.3%) of nursing students had very good degree, while (33.7%) of them had excellent degree, also (12.3%) of them had good degree.
•In relation between nursing student’s personal data and SDL as well as LS, there were statistically significant relations between nursing students’ SDL and their (gender, residence, and years of education) with. While, there were no statistically significant relations between nursing students’ SDL and their (age).
•Also there were no statistically significant relations between nursing students’ visual style of learning and their personal data. Moreover there were statistically significant relations between nursing students’ auditory style of learning and their (years of education) with. While, there were no statistically significant relations between nursing students’ auditory style of learning and their (age, gender, and residence).
•additionally there were statistically significant relations between nursing students’ haptic style of learning and their (age) with. While, there were no statistically significant relations between nursing students’ haptic style of learning and their (gender, residence and years of education). Finally there were no statistically significant relations between nursing students’ academic achievement and their personal data.
•Last and not least there were positive correlations between the study variables except between auditory LS and academic achievement