In order to produce lifelong learner medical graduates, guidelines for teaching and learning methods have been initiated in competency based medical education. The curriculum is designed to make it more learner centered, where students will take responsibility of their learning. Self directed learning (SDL) is one of the learning methods for active and effective learning where students take the initiative in learning. In SDL, students take active participation in learning activities1 and the learner is responsible for planning, implementing, and evaluating the work.2 . In medical education, SDL is the process in which medical students take the initiative, with or without the help of instructors and colleagues, determine their learning needs, set learning goals, identify resources for learning, choose and implement learning strategies to acquire knowledge, and finally evaluate learning outcomes.3 It is an effective strategy for students to develop competence in gaining knowledge. It is a process where individuals take the initiative and responsibility for their own learning.4 This makes them aware of their shortcomings in learning. The teacher’s role is to assist the student’s growth. Inculcating the teaching–learning activities definitely adds to lifelong learner. Moreover, it has a practical approach to make them independent decision makers and improve their communication skills.5,6 Objectives 1. To compare learning effectiveness of SDL method by Post test MCQ scores compared to didactic lecture. 2. To know the perceptions of students towards SDL. 3. To assess the retention of knowledge by students through SDL.

The study was conducted in the Department of Microbiology, Konaseema Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Foundation, Amalapuram, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh. Inclusion criteria : One hundred and fourteen (114) 2nd phase MBBS students were enrolled. The students who were present on the day of study were included, and those who were unable to attend were excluded from the study. Students were divided into 2 batches (Group A and B) of 57 each. Methodology : After obtaining Institutional Ethics Committee approval, the faculty and students were initially sensitized about SDL and 2 SDL sessions were conducted. Two traditional didactic lectures were conducted in systematic bacteriology on Gonnorhoea and Urinary tract infections. When didactic lecture on Gonorrhoea was taken for Group A, SDL was taken for Group B simultaneously on the same topic, where the students were divided randomly into 3 groups and facilitated by 3 faculty. For the next topic on Urinary tract infections, the batches were interchanged. Group B underwent didactic lecture on Urinary tract infections, while Group A underwent SDL session. The SDL sessions were given as case-scenario assignments with specific learning objectives. For SDL, the material and resources like books, internet was provided. Students were also asked to bring their textbooks, reference material, and handouts of power PowerPoint presentation were given. The class was divided into smaller groups and each smaller group was assigned a specific learning objective. Topics were discussed to cover all the specific learning objectives. Assessment included post-test MCQs, and feedback collected from students for both.

• Statistical Analysis : Data was analysed and results are presented in the form of tables and graphs. Post-Test Scores and perceptions for SDL were more compared to lecture. • The mean scores of the students in SDL method were more than the lecture method. Comparison of Post-Test Scores of the two different T-L methods Lecture SDL Case scenario I (Mean & SD) 8.61 ± 0.98 9.95 ± 0.23 Case scenario II (Mean & SD) 7.82 ± 1.38 9.19 ±1.04 P-value < 0.001; Highly Significant In Case scenario I : Mean & SD for lecture: 8.61 ±0.98 & for SDL - 9.95 ±0.23; In Case scenario II : Mean & SD for lecture: 7.82 ±1.38 & for SDL - 9.19 ±1.04. P-value is < 0.001; which is highly significant.

This study analyzed the effectiveness of SDL among the 2nd phase MBBS students compared to didactic lecture. The lecture method is a widely used technique for taking theory classes. The lecturer delivers up to date summary of the topic from several sources, which saves the learner’s time. However, this approach has many disadvantages. This is one way method, and students are passive during didactic lectures, and minimal input from their side leads to low interest among them. SDL will contribute to an enhanced understanding of the topic, clear doubts, and better examination performance7. In our study, 50% of the students enjoyed learning new information in an innovative way which is similar to the study of Murad et al.8 According to Fisher et al.9, greater scores indicate the readiness for SDL. In our study, 60 % students strongly agreed that SDL sessions were useful and increased their learning abilities. This suggests that most of the students were ready for SDL. SDL ultimately reflected on their learning process and outcomes,10,11. The students who are ready for SDL can be motivated as self-learner throughout their career. SDL sessions were found to create interest in them and also in depth coverage of the topic was found in 51% of the students. This can enhance their cognitive skills and habit of reading10,12,13 In the present study, we found that the mean test scores are more after SDL in comparison to test scores in didactic lecture method. This suggests that, the SDL session is more effective than the traditional didactic lecture method. Lazić et al. found that core basic knowledge is lost during clinical years of medical studies14 In a study conducted by Abraham et al. to determine the effectiveness of SDL, examination scores of the lecture method were significantly lower than SDL exam scores. Hence, SDL may be an effective learning tool. Some other studies also reported, better performance in self learning groups than in traditional didactic lectures 15-20 In the present study, the mean of retention test scores is significantly higher in the group following SDL compared to the other group following the lecture method, for both topics. This indicates that SDL is an effective teaching–learning method, helping the students to build on prior knowledge, integrate it, and apply it to future situations.

The present study showed that there was improvement in gaining knowledge in Microbiology by SDL method, when compared to didactic lecture and that SDL is more effective than traditional lecture as it empowers students to improve their own learning process, fostering deeper understanding and long-term retention.

1. Premkumar K, Pahwa P, Banerjee A, Baptiste K, Bhatt H, Lim HJ. Changes in self directed learning readiness in dental students: A mixed methods study. J Dent Educ 2014;78:934 43. 2. Premkumar K, Pahwa P, Banerjee A, Baptiste K, Bhatt H, Lim HJ. Does medical training promote or deter self directed learning? A longitudinal mixed methods study. Acad Med 2013;88:1754 64. 3. El Gilany AH, Abusaad Fel S. Self directed learning readiness and learning styles among Saudi undergraduate nursing students. Nurse Educ Today 2013;33:1040 4. 4. Pai KM, Rao KR, Punja D, Kamath A. The effectiveness of self directed earning (SDL) for teaching physiology to first year medical students. Australas Med J 2014;7:448 53. 5. Considine J, Botti M, Thomas S. Effect of a self directed learning package on emergency nurses’ knowledge of assessment of oxygenation and use of supplemental oxygen. Nurs Health Sci 2005;7:199 208. 6. Taylor EJ,Mamier I,Bahjri K,Anton T,Petersen F.Efficacy of a self study programme to teach spiritual care. J Clin Nurs 2009;18:1131 40. 7. Shankar N, Roopa R. Evaluation of a modified team based learning method for teaching general embryology to 1st year medical graduate students. Indian J Med Sci 2009;63:4 1 8. Murad MH, Coto Yglesias F, Varkey P, Prokop LJ, Murad AL. The effectiveness of self directed learning in health professions education: A systematic review. Med Educ 2010;44:1057 68 9. Fisher M, King J, Tague G. Development of a self-directed learning readiness scale for nursing education Nurse Educ Today. 2001;21:516–25 10. Gyawali S, Jauhari AC, Shankar PR, Saha A, Ahmad M. readiness for self directed learning among first semester students of a medical school in Nepal J Clin Diagn Res. 2011;5:20–3 11. Greveson GC, Spencer JA. Self-directed learning – The importance of concepts and contexts Med Educ. 2005;39:348–9 12. Kaufman DM. ABC of learning and teaching in medicine: Applying educational theory in practice BMJ. 2003;326:213–6 13. Candy PC. Self-Direction for Life Long Learning: A Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice 1991 San Francisco, CA Jossey Bass 14. Lazić E, Dujmović J, Hren D. Retention of basic sciences knowledge at clinical years of medical curriculum. Croat Med J 2006;47:882 7 15. Shershneva MB, Slotnick HB, Mejicano GC. Learning to use learning resources during medical school and residency. J Med Libr Assoc 2005;93:263 70. 16. Lake DA. Student performance and perceptions of a lecture based course compared with the same course utilizing group discussion. Phys Ther 2001;81:896 902. 17. Abraham RR, Upadhya S, Ramnarayan K. Self directed learning. Adv Physiol Educ 2005;29:135 6. 16. Wen-Wei P. Self-directed learning: A matched control trial. Teach Learn Med 1989;1:78 81. 18. Abraham GJ, Dhume VG, Diniz RS. Comparison of didactic lecture, self reading and self instruction as learning methods in medical students of Western India. Med Educ 1981;15:222 5. 19. Haidet P, Morgan RO, O’Malley K, Moran BJ, Richards BF. Acontrolled trial of active versus passive learning strategies in a large group setting. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2004;9:15 27. 20. Bradley P, Oterholt C, Herrin J, Nordheim L, Bjørndal A. Comparison of directed and self directed learning in evidence based medicine: A randomised controlled trial. Med Educ 2005;39:1027 35.