Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42856865›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Blended learning experience, student engagement, and civic engagement in university physical education with ideological and political education.

Peng Wang, Kangrong Luo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Peng WangHongyi College, Chengdu Technological University, Chengdu, China.
Kangrong LuoHongyi College, Chengdu Technological University, Chengdu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study examined how Community of Inquiry (CoI)-based perceived blended learning experience and student learning engagement were associated with civic actions and civic intentions in university physical education incorporating ideological and political education. The study links three forms of learning presence and three dimensions of engagement with behavioral and intentional civic outcome scores in a large multi-site Chinese sample. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 2,035 undergraduate students from 15 universities in Sichuan Province, China. CoI-based perceived blended learning experience was represented by teaching, social, and cognitive presence, and student learning engagement by behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement. A 69-item hierarchical structural equation model was estimated using robust maximum likelihood; ordered-indicator WLSMV, Monte Carlo interval estimation, and an equal-loading unmeasured latent method construct were used for sensitivity analyses. Exploratory fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis examined configurations associated with high and non-high civic action and intention scores. Results: Under robust maximum likelihood, perceived blended learning experience was positively associated with student learning engagement ( Conclusion: CoI-based perceived learning experience and student engagement were consistently related to self-reported civic outcomes in this university physical education context. The findings support an associational account centered on coordinated teaching, social, cognitive, and engagement dimensions; the cross-sectional, single-source design does not establish temporal or causal ordering.

Indexed as

blended learning experiencecivic engagementcommunity of inquiryfsQCAideological and political educationstructural equation modelingstudent learning engagementuniversity physical education

Identifiers

PMID42856865
PMCPMC13649470

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.