Agentic engagement is the strongest predictor of teacher support but not of peer support¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? In the social support meta-analysis, agentic engagement (M Fisher's z = 0.49) predicted pooled social support significantly more strongly than behavioral and cognitive engagement, but not more than emotional engagement. → Johnmarshall Reeve 2025 q3 i? For peer support, engagement type was not a significant moderator, so agentic engagement showed no specialized advantage for peer support. → Johnmarshall Reeve 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Johnmarshall Reeve 2025¶

Johnmarshall Reeve, Geetanjali Basarkod, Hye-Ryen Jang, Rafael Gargurevich, Hyungshim Jang, Sung Hyeon Cheon. (2025). Specialized Purpose of Each Type of Student Engagement: A Meta-Analysis. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-09989-z

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Meta-analysis #2 pooled 212 effect sizes from 34 studies on teacher or peer support. Engagement type significantly moderated the relation, χ2(3) = 42.50, p < 0.001; agentic and emotional engagement both reached M Fisher's z = 0.49. The post-hoc tests showed agentic engagement's advantage held for behavioral and cognitive engagement but "not for emotional engagement (p = 0.880)". No standardized effect size was printed for the pairwise differences.

"the predictive power of agentic engagement was significantly greater than it was for behavioral engagement (p < 0.001) and cognitive engagement (p < 0.001) but not for emotional engagement (p = 0.880)"

Johnmarshall Reeve 2025 (2)¶

Johnmarshall Reeve, Geetanjali Basarkod, Hye-Ryen Jang, Rafael Gargurevich, Hyungshim Jang, Sung Hyeon Cheon. (2025). Specialized Purpose of Each Type of Student Engagement: A Meta-Analysis. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-09989-z

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

The peer support sub-analysis included only 20 effect sizes from 5 studies; all four engagement types correlated significantly but similarly (agentic z = 0.33, emotional z = 0.32, behavioral z = 0.28, cognitive z = 0.28). The article reports "type of engagement was not a significant moderator" for peer support. No standardized effect size was printed.

"For peer support, the lower part of Table 4 shows that type of engagement was not a significant moderator across the 20 effect sizes from the 5 included studies, χ2(3) = 1.87, p = 0.600"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Relative weights analysis identifies behavioral engagement for achievement, agentic for social support, and emotional for motivation and well-being — a broader claim this one bears on
• Cognitive engagement did not emerge as the strongest predictor of any correlate, leaving its specialized function ambiguous — related
• Geographical region moderated several engagement-correlate relations, with Eastern students showing higher relations than Western students — related