Background: Doctors are expected to be lifelong learners and engage in continuous professional development throughout their careers. Learning to be a self-directed learner as early as possible is therefore likely to lay the foundation for future learning and development. For this reason, self-directed learning (SDL) has recently been incorporated into the internal medicine curriculum at the Faculty of Medicine in Rabigh at King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia. The purpose of this study was to evaluate faculty perceptions of the effectiveness of these SDL activities. Methods: The evaluation framework for this study was underpinned by Stufflebeam's Context, Input, Process and Product (CIPP) evaluation model. Seven faculty members took part in semi-structured interviews that explored their understandings of SDL objectives (Context), their perceptions of the methods and resources used (Input), the implementation of SDL activities (Process) and whether they meet their intended educational goals (Product). Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using the thematic analysis method. Results: Four themes emerged from data and were mapped against the elements of CIPP model: these themes are as follows: faculty perception of SDL (context), content and resources (input), facilitation and scheduling (process) and student engagement and assessment (product). Conclusions: Faculty had different opinions about the objectives and content of SDL sessions; however, they agreed that these are aligned with internal medicine objectives and clinical content. Faculty perceived SDL activities as a reading task for students to complete prior to group discussion. The data revealed the necessity for faculty training to conduct such sessions. Challenges in the learning environment were reported, including issues in the library access and scheduling of the academic activities. Participants reported poor engagement from students to be a particular challenge and have made suggestions on how this could be addressed. In addition, they emphasised the need for assessment for these sessions.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study did not receive any funding

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The study was ethically approved by the School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee at Cardiff University (SMREC reference number 22/59)

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

The datasets generated and analysed during the study are not publicly available due to ethical considerations but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. The interview guide is available upon request from the corresponding author.