The influence of university library environment on student interactions and college students' learning engagement

The study examines how the university library environment influences college students’ learning engagement and the role of student interactions as a mediating mechanism. Motivated by evidence that learning engagement predicts academic persistence, satisfaction, and achievement yet remains suboptimal among Chinese college students, the authors focus on the largely underexplored impact of physical library environments—key informal, autonomous learning spaces—on engagement. Recognizing disciplinary differences between liberal arts and science students in learning modes and collaboration, the research asks whether the library environment directly affects learning engagement, whether it fosters student interaction that in turn enhances engagement, and whether these pathways differ by academic major. The study formulates hypotheses that the library environment positively affects learning engagement (H1), promotes student interactions (H2), that interactions positively affect engagement (H3), that interactions mediate the environment–engagement link (H4), and that these effects differ between liberal arts and science students (H5).

Prior work links learning engagement to persistence, satisfaction, performance, and long-term wellbeing. Environmental psychology and campus studies indicate that physical learning environments can trigger normative behaviors and support attention, motivation, and engagement. Libraries have evolved into learner-centered spaces that support intentional learning, autonomy, and social learning, with studies reporting associations between library use and academic outcomes. Learning spaces can encourage or constrain behaviors; environments that support autonomy and collaboration can raise self-discipline and engagement. Libraries provide both quiet, individual spaces and collaborative areas (learning commons, group rooms, cafés), facilitating dialogue, knowledge sharing, and peer effects. Student interaction can stimulate motivation, enhance psychological safety and belonging, and improve learning outcomes, suggesting it may mediate environmental effects on engagement. Evidence also points to disciplinary differences: science students may benefit more from interactive, collaborative settings, whereas liberal arts students may emphasize individual reading and writing. However, systematic analyses of how library environments shape engagement via interaction—and how these pathways vary by discipline—remain scarce, motivating the present hypotheses.

Design and sampling: A cross-sectional survey was conducted from October 1, 2021 to January 30, 2022 across 45 Chinese universities selected to maximize diversity in geography, campus size, institution type, and architectural characteristics (spanning 14 provinces, 3 municipalities, and 4 autonomous regions). Student-level sampling sought to reflect the national composition by gender, level of study, and field distribution (with science students more numerous than liberal arts students). The final effective sample comprised 1060 students. Data quality safeguards included password-protected survey access, crafted item design, real-name drawing system, duplicate IP checks, and a minimum completion time filter. Measures: - Dependent variable: Learning engagement was measured using the UWES-S (Fang et al., 2008), capturing four positive learning states: feeling energetic, enthusiastic, time passing quickly while studying, and joy/concentration when fully engaged. Each item was rated 1–5 (1=never to 5=always); total score 5–25, higher indicating greater engagement. - Independent variable: Library environment was operationalized as students’ subjective assessment of physical environment quality across six aspects: location appropriateness, functional layout completeness, equipment adequacy, maintenance/management effectiveness, lighting appropriateness, and artistic atmosphere. Items rated 1–5 (1=very dissatisfied to 5=very satisfied); total 5–25, higher indicating better perceived environment quality. - Mediator: Student interaction captured frequency/extent of communication and discussion with roommates and non-roommates about study/life and psychological thoughts/emotions (four items; 1–5 scale). Higher values indicate more interaction. - Controls: Education stage (1=freshman to 4=senior), monthly expenses (1=below 1000 yuan; 2=1000–2000; 3=2000–3000; 4=3000–5000; 5=5000–8000; 6=8000–12,000; 7=more than 12,000), and gender (1=male, 2=female). Statistical analysis: Measurement models were assessed via multifactor validation analyses. Reliability/validity met accepted thresholds: composite reliability >0.6, AVE >0.5, factor loadings >0.6, reliability coefficients >0.36. Structural model fit indices indicated good fit (CFI > 0.90, TLI > 0.90, RMSEA < 0.08). Structural paths tested direct effects of library environment on learning engagement and student interaction, the effect of interaction on engagement, and the indirect (mediated) effects. Multi-group comparisons by major (liberal arts vs. science) examined moderation of path coefficients.

Sample characteristics: Of 1060 students, 25.48% were liberal arts (n=270) and 74.52% science (n=790); 46.23% male and 53.77% female. Descriptive statistics: Mean learning engagement total=14.794 (liberal arts=14.649; science=14.833). Mean library environment total=18.136 (liberal arts=18.812; science=17.961). Mean student interaction total=12.742, slightly higher among liberal arts students. Full-sample structural results (controlling for grade, major, expenses, gender): - Library environment → Learning engagement: total effect=0.320 (significant), supporting H1. - Student interaction → Learning engagement: total effect=0.316 (significant), supporting H3. - Library environment → Student interaction: effect=0.227 (significant), supporting H2. - Mediation: Student interaction significantly mediated the effect of library environment on learning engagement; indirect effect=0.072 (significant), supporting H4. Disciplinary differences (multi-group analysis; significant path differences, supporting H5): - Liberal arts: Learning engagement positively associated with library environment (total=0.329; direct=0.306) and with student interaction (0.215). Library environment → student interaction was not significant; the indirect path was insignificant, indicating no mediation—effects were primarily direct. - Science: Learning engagement positively associated with library environment (total=0.315; direct=0.229) and student interaction (0.339). Library environment → student interaction=0.255 (significant). Mediation by interaction was partial and significant; indirect effect=0.087.

Findings confirm that a higher-quality library environment is associated with greater learning engagement among college students, and that more frequent student interactions also increase engagement. In the full sample, the library environment not only directly enhances engagement but also indirectly does so by fostering student interaction, indicating that libraries function as both learning and social spaces that can support motivation, belonging, and collaborative knowledge construction. Importantly, disciplinary differences shape these pathways: for liberal arts students, who often engage in solitary, reading- and writing-intensive tasks, the library’s physical and aesthetic qualities directly drive engagement with little added contribution from peer interaction. For science students, whose learning often includes collaborative problem-solving and lab-style teamwork, the environment’s effect on engagement is more strongly channeled through peer interactions; thus, social affordances of space (e.g., group areas, commons) are pivotal. These results address the study’s hypotheses by delineating both direct and mediated effects and by demonstrating that academic major moderates the influence pathways. Practically, the findings suggest that library design and policy should simultaneously optimize physical conditions for focused work and create social configurations that encourage productive interaction, with tailored emphases for different disciplines.

There are notable differences in learning engagement between Chinese college students by major, with liberal arts students exhibiting lower engagement than science students. The university library environment significantly influences learning engagement, and student interaction mediates this relationship. However, the pathways differ by discipline: the library environment has a stronger direct effect on liberal arts students’ engagement, whereas for science students its effect operates more strongly through student interactions. These insights inform library construction and renovation: environments should be improved to support focused, aesthetically pleasing, and well-maintained spaces, and also be designed to encourage friendly, productive student interactions—especially for science students. To提升 overall engagement, universities should combine enhancements in library environments with strategies fostering interaction, while also considering other factors such as teaching quality and student wellbeing.

The survey covered a limited number of universities and an unbalanced sample with substantially more science than liberal arts students, constraining generalizability. Although efforts were made to approximate the national student composition, representativeness can be further improved. The library environment measure relied on subjective evaluations; future work should integrate objective environmental assessments with subjective perceptions. Additional empirical studies with larger, more balanced samples are needed to validate and extend these findings.