ArticleBMC psychology2024
The relationship between information literacy and online learning engagement: a moderated mediating model.
Article in BMC psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- University library reading promotion and college students' cultural development: a meta-analysis of psychological mechanisms and moderating effects.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Pooled it
- Self-directed learning ability and online student engagement among nursing students: the mediating role of information literacy and the moderating role of self-control.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- The impact of artificial intelligence literacy on learning engagement among university students: the mediating role of psychological capital and the moderating role of professional identity.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Associated factors and mediating effects on traditional Chinese medicine health information literacy in undergraduate nursing students.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to examine how college students' information literacy affects their online learning engagement and what factors contribute to this relationship.
methodThe research adopted the method of cluster sampling to deliver a questionnaire survey to a sample of 1421 students' representative of four colleges. Information Literacy Scale, Online Learning Engagement Scale, Information Literacy Self-Efficacy Scale, and Psychological Resilience Scale were utilized in this study. SPSS 26.0 and the PROCESS plugin were used for correlation analysis, mediation effect and moderating effect testing. This study was based on the theories of learning engagement and self-determination and centred on building a moderated mediating model with online learning college students as its primary focus.
result(1) Among college students, there was a positive association between information literacy and online learning engagement; (2) Information literacy self-efficacy was demonstrated to mediate the relationship between information literacy and online learning engagement; (3) The impact of information literacy self-efficacy on online learning engagement and the influence of information literacy on online learning engagement were both moderated by psychological resilience.
conclusionColleges have the potential to enhance the online learning engagement of college students by improving their information literacy abilities, hence increasing their involvement in online learning projects. Implementing strategies including increasing the availability of online courses and improving teacher support in online learning can improve college students' information literacy self-efficacy and psychological resilience. This, in turn, can increase their participation in online learning activities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.