Lower academic self-efficacy is associated with membership of three less engaged momentary-engagement profiles and lower peer support with two, while educational goals and family support do not differ across the four profiles tested¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2021 · checked against its sources 2026-10-23 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Compared with the engaged profile, self-efficacy was lower in the disengaged (β = -1.22, OR = .30), attentive disaffected (β = -.54, OR = .58) and attentive disinterested (β = -.89, OR = .41) profiles. → Symonds 2021
q2 i? Peer support was lower in the attentive disinterested (β = -1.02, OR = .36) and attentive disaffected (β = -.37, OR = .69) profiles but not in the disengaged profile, where teacher support was lower instead (β = -.64, OR = .53). → Symonds 2021
q2 i? Educational goals and family support were equivalently high across the four profiles entered in the regression; the three smallest of the seven profiles were not tested. → Symonds 2021
Evidence¶
Symonds 2021¶
Symonds, J. E., Schreiber, J. B., & Torsney, B. M. (2021). Silver linings and storm clouds: Divergent profiles of student momentary engagement emerge in response to the same task. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(6), 1192–1207. doi:10.1037/edu0000605
q2 · i? · associational · r2
Latent profile analysis of students' momentary engagement during one classroom task found seven profiles (196 cases). A multinomial logistic regression was run on the four largest profiles only, with the engaged profile as reference, entering subjective facilitators after controlling for individual characteristics. Self-efficacy was lower in all three less engaged profiles tested; peer support was lower in the attentive disinterested and attentive disaffected profiles but not in the disengaged one (β = .48, n.s., Table 6), where teacher support was lower instead; educational goals and family support did not differ. The design is cross-sectional and associational, so it shows which characteristics go with which profile, not that low self-efficacy or peer support causes disengagement. No standardized effect size was printed. The paper lists the four regression profiles as engaged, attentive amotivated, attentive disinterested and disengaged, but reports results (text and Table 6) under "attentive disaffected"; the labels here are the paper's. The post-print the batch read is dated 2020; Crossref dates the issue August 2021.
"Compared to the engaged profile, self-efficacy was lower in the disengaged profile (β = -1.22, OR = .30, p = < .001), the attentive disaffected profile (β = -.54, OR = .58, p = < .05) and the attentive disinterested profile (β = -.89, OR = .41, p = < .01). Peer support was also lower in the attentive disinterested profile (β = -1.02, OR = .36, p = < .001) and the attentive disaffected profile (β = -.37, OR = .69, p = < .05), and teacher support was lower in the disengaged profile (β = -.64, OR = .53, p = < .05). Educational goals and family support were equivalently high across the four profiles tested."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Home Learning Environment — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
- Social Supports — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
Related Claims¶
- Classmate cognitive engagement, but not classmate behavioral or emotional engagement, predicts individual momentary engagement profile membership — related
- Internally divergent momentary engagement profiles occur within a single task, with students attentive yet emotionally and cognitively disengaged — related
- Female gender and Irish ethnicity predict membership of less positively engaged momentary profiles relative to the engaged profile — related
- Adult learners' motivational profiles differ significantly in self-efficacy, learning strategies and behavioral engagement: the good-quality motivation group scores higher on all three, the high-quantity group on strategies and engagement only — related
- The four profiles differ in academic self-efficacy, time/study management, and effort regulation, with HL highest, but not in help seeking — related
- At Time 3, profile membership was significantly associated with Japanese learning self-efficacy and learning burnout, with all three profiles differing pairwise — related
- Peer-related help-seeking and learner-learner engagement strategies appear less often in profiles of students with lower digital distraction — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
self-efficacy-peer-support-predict-profile-membership |
title |
Lower academic self-efficacy is associated with membership of three less engaged momentary-engagement profiles and lower peer support with two, while educational goals and family support do not differ across the four profiles tested |
description |
Lower academic self-efficacy is associated with membership of three less engaged momentary-engagement profiles and lower peer support with two, while educational goals and family support do not differ across the four profiles tested |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2021 |
source_checked |
2026-10-23 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-23 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — symonds-2021 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.