BackgroundSelf-directed learning (SDL) is defined as learning on one’s own initiative, with the learner having primary responsibility for planning, implementing, and evaluating the effort. Medical education institutions promote SDL, since physicians need to be self-directed learners to maintain lifelong learning in the ever-changing world of medicine and to obtain essential knowledge for professional growth. The purpose of the study was to measure the self-directed learning readiness of medical students across the training years, to determine the perceptions of students and faculty on factors that promote and deter SDL and to identify the role of culture and curriculum on SDL at the Christian Medical College, Vellore, India.MethodsGuglielmino’s SDL Readiness Scale (SDLRS) was administered in 2015 to six student cohorts (452 students) at admission, end of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th year of training, and at the beginning of internship in the undergraduate medicine (MBBS) program. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare SDL scores between years of training. 5 student focus groups and 7 interviews with instructors captured perceptions of self-direction. Transcripts were coded and analyzed thematically.ResultsThe overall mean SDLRS score was 212.91. There was no significant effect of gender and age on SDLR scores. There was a significant drop in SDLRS scores on comparing students at admission with students at subsequent years of training. Qualitative analysis showed the prominent role of culture and curriculum on SDL readiness.ConclusionsGiven the importance of SDL in medicine, the current curriculum may require an increase in learning activities that promote SDL. Strategies to change the learning environment that facilitates SDL have to be considered.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-018-1244-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Introduction Articular cartilage is made up of hyaline tissue embodying chondrocytes, which arise from mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) and specialized extracellular matrix. Despite possessing resident progenitors in and around the joint primed for chondrogenesis, cartilage has limited intrinsic capacity of repair and cell turnover. Advances in isolation, culture, and characterization of these progenitors have raised the possibility for their use in cell-based cartilage repair. Chondroprogenitors (CPCs) have been classified as MSCs and have been postulated to play a vital role in injury response and are identified by their colony forming ability, proliferative potential, telomere dynamics, multipotency, and expression of stem cell markers. The combined presence of CPCs and chondrocytes within the same tissue compartments and the ability of chondrocytes to dedifferentiate and acquire stemness during culture expansion has obscured our ability to define and provide clear-cut differences between these 2 cell populations. Objective This review aims to evaluate and summarize the available literature on CPCs in terms of their origin, growth kinetics, molecular characteristics, and differential and therapeutic potential with emphasis on their difference from daughter chondrocytes. Design For this systematic review, a comprehensive electronic search was performed on PubMed and Google Scholar using relevant terms such as chondrocytes, chondroprogenitors, and surface marker expression. Results and Conclusion Our comparative analysis shows that there is an ill-defined distinction between CPCs and chondrocytes with respect to their cell surface expression (MSC markers and CPC-specific markers) and differentiation potential. Accumulating evidence indicates that the 2 subpopulations may be distinguished based on their growth kinetics and chondrogenic marker.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.