ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Peer collaborative learning and academic engagement in university libraries: a moderated mediation model and latent profile analysis.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: As university libraries transform into "Learning Commons," peer collaborative learning has become increasingly common. However, the complexity of its effectiveness and its underlying mechanisms remain underexplored. This study systematically investigates the relationship between peer collaborative learning and academic engagement. Integrating both person-centered and variable-centered approaches, the study employs Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) to identify heterogeneous groups of students based on their collaboration patterns and engagement levels, challenging the conventional wisdom that "collaboration is always beneficial." Concurrently, based on Self-Determination Theory (SDT), a mediation model is constructed to test the bridging role of basic psychological needs (competence and relatedness). Methods: Using a questionnaire survey, data were collected from 820 university students to measure their quality of peer collaborative learning, basic psychological need satisfaction, and academic engagement. The SPSS PROCESS macro was used for mediation analysis, and Mplus was used for Latent Profile Analysis. Results: (1) LPA identified four heterogeneous profiles: "High-Achieving All-Rounders" (26.1%), "Balanced Developers" (25.5%), "Inefficient Socializers" (27.6%), and "Indifferent and Unengaged" (20.9%). Notably, the largest group, "Inefficient Socializers," exhibited a distinct pattern of "high emotional support, low academic engagement." (2) Basic psychological needs played a significant partial mediating role in the relationship between the quality of peer collaborative learning and academic engagement, with the mediating effect accounting for 52.3% of the total effect. (3) The moderating effect of academic discipline was not significant. Conclusion: The study confirms that while high-quality peer collaboration can promote academic engagement by satisfying students' psychological needs, not all forms of collaboration are beneficial. The discovery of the "Inefficient Socializers"-the largest profile-is the core contribution of this research. It exposes the existence of a "pseudo-collaboration" trap, where social interaction detached from task-oriented goals may actually inhibit academic engagement. This finding offers crucial practical implications for the design of university learning spaces (shifting from "promoting co-presence" to "fostering effective interaction") and for academic advising (enabling the precise identification and intervention for different student types).
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.