Accessibility settings

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Models and Frameworks in Medical Education (115) Teamwork (90) Undergraduate Education for Future Doctors (251) Learning and Education (166) Peer-Learning in Medical and Health Education (32) Interprofessional Education and Team Care (47)

Published on in Vol 12 (2026)

This is a member publication of University of Tubingen

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/86893, first published .
Medical students in a dissection lab studying a skeleton

The Relationship Between Sense of Community and Collaborative Learning: Quantitative Study in Medical Education

The Relationship Between Sense of Community and Collaborative Learning: Quantitative Study in Medical Education

Authors of this article:

Harald Knof1, 2 Author Orcid Image ;   Markus Berndt3 Author Orcid Image ;   Anne Herrmann-Werner1 Author Orcid Image ;   Bernhard Hirt2 Author Orcid Image ;   Thomas Shiozawa2 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations Metrics

    1TIME – Tuebingen Institute for Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany

    2Institute of Clinical Anatomy and Cell Analysis, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tuebingen, Elfriede-Aulhorn-Straße 8, Tuebingen, Germany

    3Institute of Medical Education, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany

    Corresponding Author:

    Thomas Shiozawa, MME, Dr med


    Background: Medical education has shifted from an individual, teacher-led process to an interactive, group-oriented approach, fostering clinical reasoning and teamwork. Sense of Community (SoC) appears to be a key factor in this process; however, its link to collaborative learning and academic success is underexplored.

    Objective: This study investigates this relationship, focusing on SoC dimensions (connectedness and learning) as well as the different forms of initiative collaborative learning and subordinate collaborative learning.

    Methods: The German form of the Classroom Community Scale (CCS-D) was used to assess SoC. The extent of collaborative learning was measured using the Learning Strategies in Study questionnaire. A total of 331 first-year medical students participated. Data analysis included exploratory factor analysis, correlation analysis, and regression analysis.

    Results: SoC showed a moderate positive correlation with the use of collaborative learning strategies (r=0.466; P<.001). Connectedness emerged as a significant predictor of collaborative learning (R²=0.257, adjusted R²=0.255; F1,329=113.990; P<.001). Both initiative collaborative learning and subordinate collaborative learning are based more strongly on feelings of connectedness. The feeling that members of the course depend on oneself had the strongest predictive value for collaborative learning (R²=0.188, adjusted R²=0.185; F1,329=75.956; P<.001).

    Conclusions: A strong SoC promotes the use of collaborative learning strategies, particularly through social connectedness. The lesser importance of the learning dimension suggests that social bonds appear more influential than shared academic goals, particularly during help seeking, where trust and psychological safety are critical. Targeted support of learning communities may enhance didactic approaches and foster both initiative collaborative learning and subordinate collaborative learning. Cultivating connectedness and responsibility may support academic adaptation and emotional well-being in the critical early phase of medical education.

    JMIR Med Educ 2026;12:e86893

    doi:10.2196/86893

    Keywords

    medical education; students; sense of community; collaborative learning; interpersonal relations; social identification; social environment; survey; regression analysis; factor analysis 


    Background

    Learning has shifted from an individual and teacher-directed process to a more interactive, group-oriented approach [1]. Knowledge is therefore constructed collaboratively to enhance knowledge acquisition, clinical reasoning, and teamwork skills [2-4]. The theoretical roots can be traced back to Piagetian and Vygotskian perspectives, both emphasizing the role of social interactions in learning [5,6]. In the Piagetian theory, sociocognitive conflicts drive learning by exposing individuals to alternative problem-solving strategies [5,7-10]. These conflicts encourage cognitive restructuring, deeper understanding, and skill development [11,12]. The Vygotskian perspective highlights the so-called zone of proximal development, where learning occurs through guided social interaction and peer support until learners achieve independence [6,7,10,13].

    Contemporary educational research further highlights the importance of leadership, learning culture, and socially supportive educational environments in shaping successful learning processes [14-18]. Within modern “leadership for learning” approaches, educators are increasingly understood not merely as instructors but as mediators who create psychologically safe, collaborative, and student-centered learning environments [14-17]. More recent perspectives, such as socially shared regulation of learning, conceptualize learning as a process in which learners manage motivation, cognition, and learning activities through interaction, feedback, and shared responsibility within groups [19-21]. Similarly, the communities of practice theory emphasizes that learning and professional development occur through active participation in socially and professionally meaningful communities [22,23].

    These developments are also reflected in competency-based medical education frameworks such as entrustable professional activities, which underline the acquisition of professional responsibility, self-regulated learning, feedback, and collaborative practice within authentic clinical contexts [24]. Together, these modern perspectives increasingly conceptualize learning not only as knowledge acquisition but as a socially embedded, collaborative, and professionally oriented developmental process.

    Collaborative Learning

    Collaborative learning is a widely studied but inconsistently defined concept, often used interchangeably with terms such as group work or tutorial learning [25]. It refers to situations where 2 or more individuals learn together by joint problem-solving and pursuing shared goals [26,27]. Two forms can be distinguished: initiative collaborative learning, which is proactive, and subordinate collaborative learning, which is reactive and occurs when students seek help after encountering difficulties [28]. Collaborative learning offers numerous advantages across multiple layers and levels [29]. Cognitively, it promotes argumentation, questioning, and explanation, deepening understanding for both the explainer and the recipient [30-32]. Culturally, it fosters a learning environment that values professional exchange [33]. It encourages the identification of knowledge gaps, explanation, questioning, and clarification, leading to deeper learning [34-37]. Professionally, it supports communication and teamwork skills essential in fields such as medicine, where complex knowledge must be conveyed clearly and collaboratively [38,39].

    In addition, collaborative learning influences cognitive, emotional, and motivational regulation, as conceptualized in socially shared regulation of learning [19-21]. Learners engage in self-shared, coshared, and socially shared regulation to refine strategies and sustain engagement [19,21,40]. These shared responsibilities and mutual support create a Sense of Community (SoC), which plays a key role in sustaining motivation and fostering a positive learning environment [1,41].

    Sense of Community

    Despite extensive research, there is no universally accepted definition of the term “Sense of Community” [42-45]. Some definitions emphasize belonging and emotional connection, while others focus on interdependence and shared identity [46,47]. The study by McMillan and Chavis [44] describes SoC as a feeling of belonging, mutual significance, and confidence that members’ needs will be met through group commitment [45]. Core elements include trust, responsibility, shared goals, and mutual interdependence [42,48-51]. The expression of SoC, however, varies by context, particularly in educational settings [48,52,53].

    In classrooms, community takes a distinct form shaped by learning goals, structured interactions, and time-limited membership [54]. It consists of 2 main components: connectedness, reflecting belonging and trust, and learning, representing shared academic goals [42,55]. Learners who experience a high sense of classroom community are better able to coordinate working together to achieve the group’s collective goals [56]. A strong classroom community promotes engagement, collaboration, and resilience [57,58]. Weak community ties instead increase the risk of disengagement and dropout [59].

    Belonging appears to be a fundamental psychological need that directly influences motivation, engagement, and persistence in educational contexts [60,61]. This perspective is further extended by the concept of communities of practice, which frames learning as participation in a shared professional culture and the gradual development of identity through social interaction [22,23]. Educators therefore play a crucial role in fostering connectedness and collective learning to enhance student satisfaction and success [62,63].

    Both SoC and collaborative learning contribute to learning and may lead to academic success. These concepts share commonalities, may be linked, or build a communal foundation for social learning. Till date, there is no research connecting these 2 concepts or investigating both constructs in the same study population. This study aims to unveil the interrelations between SoC and collaborative learning based on 2 validated questionnaires [64-66]. The research questions (RQs) can be formulated as follows:

    • RQ1: What is the relationship between SoC and collaborative learning?
    • RQ2: How do connectedness and learning aspects influence collaborative learning?
    • RQ3: How does the SoC differentially influence initiative collaborative learning and subordinate collaborative learning?
    • RQ4: Which items of the German form of the Classroom Community Scale (CCS-D) are key predictors of collaborative learning?

    Data Collection

    First-semester medical students from the winter semester 2021-2022 and summer semester 2022 cohorts were invited to participate in a paper-based survey exploring their learning strategies and perceived SoC. By this time, participants had completed all courses for the first semester of their medical studies. The initial invitation to participate was extended personally by the first author. Students received a €5 (€1=US $1.15 as of June 8, 2026) expense allowance for their participation.

    Ethical Considerations

    Prior to the study, written informed consent was obtained from all participants, who were thoroughly informed about the study’s opportunities, risks, rights, obligations, and voluntary nature. Data collection was conducted in a pseudonymized format, with all participants consenting to anonymized data publication. Students retained the right to withdraw consent at any time without facing any disadvantages. Ethics approval for the study was granted by the ethics committee at Eberhard Karls University of Tuebingen (reference number 086/2022BO2). The study was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

    Measures

    German Version of the Classroom Community Scale

    To assess the perceived SoC, the CCS-D was used [64] (Table 1). On the basis of Rovai’s original Classroom Community Scale (CCS), this version has been validated for use in German-speaking contexts [64,67].

    Table 1. German form of the Classroom Community Scale.
    ItemSubscalePrompt
    1ConnectednessI feel that students in this course care about each other.
    2LearningI feel that I am encouraged to ask questions.
    3ConnectednessI feel connected to others in this course.
    4iLearningI feel that it is hard to get help when I have a question.
    5iConnectednessI do not feel a spirit of community.
    6LearningI feel that I receive timely feedback.
    7ConnectednessI feel that this course is like a family.
    8iLearningI feel uneasy exposing gaps in my understanding.
    9iConnectednessI feel isolated in this course.
    10iLearningI feel reluctant to speak openly.
    11ConnectednessI trust others in this course.
    12iLearningI feel that this course results in only modest learning.
    13ConnectednessI feel that I can rely on others in this course.
    14iLearningI feel that other students do not help me learn.
    15ConnectednessI feel that members of this course depend on me.
    16LearningI feel that I am given ample opportunities to learn.
    17iConnectednessI feel uncertain about others in this course.
    18iLearningI feel that my educational needs are not being met.
    19ConnectednessI feel confident that others will support me.
    20iLearningI feel that this course does not promote a desire to learn.

    The CCS consists of 20 items divided into 2 subscales: connectedness and learning. The connectedness subscale focuses on feelings of connection, while the learning subscale addresses perceptions of interaction within the learning community. Participants rate each item on a 5-point Likert scale. The scoring for items 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 19 is as follows: strongly agree=4, agree=3; neutral=2, disagree=1, and strongly disagree=0. For items 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 20, the scoring scale is reversed: strongly agree=0, agree=1, neutral=2, disagree=3, and strongly disagree=4 [67]. For further analysis, these item scores must be inverted. These items are labeled with an “i” in the tables and figures of this paper.

    To calculate the total CCS score (maximum score=80), the values of all 20 items are summed. Each subscale has a maximum score of 40. Higher scores on the total CCS score reflect a stronger sense of classroom community, while lower scores indicate a weaker sense of classroom community [67].

    Learning Strategies in Study Questionnaire

    To assess the use of collaborative learning strategies, the Learning Strategies in Study (LIST) questionnaire found in the study by Wild et al [65,66] was used (Table 2). In this survey, only the learning with fellow students subscale of the LIST questionnaire was used. Items 1 to 4 form the subscale for initiative collaborative learning, while items 5 to 7 form the subscale for subordinate collaborative learning [28]. Participants rate the frequency of their use of each learning strategy on a 5-point Likert scale (1=very seldom, 2=seldom, 3=sometimes, 4=often, and 5=very often) [65]. The extent of the use of collaborative learning strategies was determined by calculating the scale mean, with higher values indicating greater use.

    Table 2. Learning Strategies in Study scale—learning with fellow students.
    ItemPrompt
    1I work on texts or assignments together with my fellow students.
    2I take time to discuss the material with fellow students.
    3I compare my lecture notes with those of my fellow students.
    4I have a fellow student quiz me and ask him questions about the material as well.
    5I enlist the help of others when I have serious comprehension problems.
    6If something is not clear to me, I ask a fellow student for advice.
    7If I discover major gaps in my records, I contact my fellow students.

    Data Analysis

    Following a descriptive analysis, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated, and linear regression analyses were conducted. Subsequently, a principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization was conducted to verify the underlying structure and confirm the division into subordinate collaborative learning and initiative collaborative learning of the learning with fellow students scale. The PCA used listwise deletion, and items with factor loadings ≤ |0.30| on one or both dimensions were retained [68,69]. Prior to the PCA, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett test of sphericity were assessed. The PCA results served as the foundation for subsequent stepwise regression analyses. The significance level for evaluating results was set at .05.

    SPSS Statistics (version 29; IBM Corp) was used for collecting questionnaire responses, data extraction, and statistical analysis.


    Sample

    A total of 344 first-semester medical students were surveyed. With a total number of 210 students per semester, a maximum of 420 participants could have been included, resulting in a response rate of 81.9% (344/420). Participants with missing data were excluded, resulting in a final sample of 331 respondents. The study sample reflected the gender distribution of the cohort, with 68.9% (n=228) of participants being female, and the ages of the participants ranged from 18 to 35 years, with a mean age of 20.72 (SD 2.72) years. The majority of participants were medical students (320/331, 96.7%), followed by dentistry students (10/331, 3%) and students from molecular medicine (1/331, 0.3%).

    Scale Characteristics and Internal Consistency

    Descriptive statistics for the individual items, as well as the total CCS-D score and its subscale scores, are presented in Table S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1. The total CCS-D demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach α=0.87) as a measure for reliability. The connectedness subscale (Cronbach α=0.84) also showed good internal consistency, while the learning subscale (Cronbach α=0.77) showed acceptable internal consistency. Similarly, Table S2 in Multimedia Appendix 1) presents descriptive statistics of the LIST questionnaire along with the total score on the learning with fellow students scale and its subscales. The total learning with fellow students scale showed good internal consistency (Cronbach α=0.86). The subscales for initiative collaborative learning (Cronbach α=0.82) and subordinate collaborative learning (Cronbach α=0.84) demonstrated high reliability.

    RQ1: Relationship Between SoC and Collaborative Learning

    To measure the relationship between SoC and collaborative learning, Pearson correlation was conducted. The correlation coefficient for the relationship between the SoC and the learning with fellow students scale was found to be r=0.466; P<.001. Higher levels of SoC were associated with greater use of collaborative learning strategies (Figure 1).

    ‎
    Figure 1. Scatterplot of the total score of the German form of the Classroom Community Scale (CCS-D) and the learning with fellow students subscale of the Learning Strategies in Study questionnaire (LIST). Each point represents an individual student (N=331).

    To further examine this relationship, the next step was to examine the association between SoC and collaborative learning through linear regression analysis. The regression model explained 21.7% of the variance in the use of collaborative learning strategies (R²=0.217, adjusted R²=0.214; F1,329=91.020; P<.001). The unstandardized coefficient was B=0.038 and the standardized coefficient was ß=0.466, both statistically significant at P<.001. SoC was significantly associated with the use of collaborative learning strategies.

    RQ2: Influence of Connectedness and Learning on Collaborative Learning

    To determine whether connectedness or learning is more strongly associated with collaborative learning, a stepwise regression analysis was conducted using CCS-D subscales connectedness and learning as predictors, with the learning with fellow students scale as the dependent variable (Table S3 in Multimedia Appendix 1).

    The model including only connectedness yielded significant results: R2=0.257, adjusted R2=0.255; F1,329=113.990; P<.001. The unstandardized coefficient B=0.070 and the standardized coefficient ß=0.507 were both significant at P<.001. The learning subscale was excluded from the model (β=0.023; 2-tailed t329=0.382; r=0.021, T=0.651; P=.70).

    RQ3: Differences in the Influence of SoC on Initiative Collaborative Learning and Subordinate Collaborative Learning

    Principal Component Analysis

    To verify the division between initiative collaborative learning and subordinate collaborative learning, a PCA was conducted. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure was 0.844, representing a relatively good factor analysis. The Bartlett test of sphericity was significant (approximately χ2=1120.7; P<.001), suggesting that the analyzed data do not result in an identity matrix and are therefore suitable for factor analysis. Only factors with eigenvalues ≥1 were considered [70,71]. On the basis of the Kaiser criteria and the scree plot, 2 factors with eigenvalues ≥1 were retained, accounting for 70.95% of the total variance. In the varimax-rotated 2-factor model (Table 3), the underlying structure of subordinate collaborative learning and initiative collaborative learning can be verified, as the items 1 to 4 are loading on factor 1 and the items 5 to 7 on factor 2 [28].

    Table 3. Principal component analysis of learning with fellow studentsa,b.
    Rotated component matrixcComponent
    12
    Item 10.840—d
    Item 20.838—
    Item 30.641—
    Item 40.776—
    Item 5—0.854
    Item 6—0.852
    Item 7—0.808

    aExtraction method: principal component analysis. Rotation method: varimax with Kaiser normalization.

    bFactor loadings <.35 are not reported.

    cRotation converged in 3 iterations.

    dNot applicable.

    Stepwise Regression

    To investigate which factor was more strongly related to initiative collaborative learning and subordinate collaborative learning strategies, stepwise regression analyses were conducted using the CCS-D subscales connectedness and learning as predictors, with the subscales initiative collaborative learning and subordinate collaborative learning as outcome variables.

    For initiative collaborative learning, the model including only connectedness yielded significant results, with R²=0.157, adjusted R²=0.155, F1,329=61.419; P<.001 (Table S4 in Multimedia Appendix 1). The unstandardized coefficient was B=0.065 and the standardized coefficient was ß=0.397, both statistically significant at P<.001. The learning subscale was not retained from the model (β=–0.013; t329=−0.208; r=−0.012; T=0.651; P=.83).

    For subordinate collaborative learning, the model including connectedness also showed significant results, with R²=0.277, adjusted R²=0.275; F1,329=125.976; P<.001 (Table S5 in Multimedia Appendix 1). The unstandardized coefficient was B=0.077 and the standardized coefficient was ß=0.526, both statistically significant at P<.001. The learning subscale was again not retained from the model (β=0.071; t329=1.214; r=0.067; T=0.651; P=.22).

    RQ4: CCS-D Items Associated With Collaborative Learning

    To determine which items are most strongly associated with collaborative learning, a stepwise regression analysis was conducted using the CCS-D items as independent variables, with the scale learning with fellow students as the dependent variable.

    The final model, which included item 15, item 3, item 14i, item 9i, and item 19, yielded significant results: R²=0.338, adjusted R²=0.328; F5,325=33.145; P<.001. The unstandardized coefficients were B=0.211 (P<.001) for item 15, B=0.130 (P=.007) for item 3, B=0.131 (P=.002) for item 14i, B=0.128 (P=.009) for item 9i, and B=0.138 (P=.01) for item 19. The standardized coefficients ß ranged from ß=0.139 to ß=0.244, indicating that item 15 (“I feel that members of this course depend on me”) showed the strongest association with collaborative learning (ß=0.244), followed by item 14i (ß=0.156) and item 19 (ß=0.139; Table S6 in Multimedia Appendix 1).


    Principal Findings

    This study aimed to explore the relationship between SoC and collaborative learning among first-semester medical students. The results of this study show that perceived SoC is significantly associated with the use of collaborative learning strategies. The underlying structure of subordinate collaborative learning and initiative collaborative learning was confirmed. Connectedness showed a stronger association with collaborative learning than the learning dimension. Connectedness was more strongly associated with subordinate collaborative learning than with initiative collaborative learning. Item 15 of the CCS-D (“I feel that the members of this course depend on me”) showed the strongest association with collaborative learning.

    RQ1: Relationship Between SoC and Collaborative Learning

    The findings resonate with theoretical perspectives that link social and emotional bonds to cooperative learning [5,6]. A stronger SoC is associated with a greater engagement in cooperative learning, supporting prior research highlighting the importance of social belonging in promoting student engagement [42,45].

    This is particularly relevant for first-semester medical students who must navigate both academic and social transitions [72]. Up to this point of their studies, many students have little experience with self-organized group learning and must first familiarize themselves with new learning demands and environments [73]. School-based learning strategies must be adapted to the new university requirements at the beginning of studies [74]. In this transitional phase, social connections can help by reducing uncertainties and lowering the threshold for interaction [75]. Numerous studies show that both learning environment and interaction with fellow students play a central role in the selection and adaptation of learning strategies [76-79]. Collaborative learning helps reduce exam anxiety and related stress, which are known to hinder academic success [80,81]. Students who feel well-prepared are more likely to remain motivated and persist through academic challenges [82,83].

    RQ2: Influence of Connectedness and Learning on Collaborative Learning

    In this study, only connectedness was significantly associated with collaborative learning, while learning was not retained from the analytical models. This suggests that interpersonal connectedness is more strongly associated with collaborative learning behavior than sharing common academic goals. One possible explanation for this lies in the specific structure of medical studies, which is more characterized by external learning objectives (eg, exams and clinical competencies). These standardized and homogeneous goals may be less relevant for collaborative behavior. Studies further show that SoC serves as a mediator between motivation and student contribution during collaborative learning, with the mediation effect being stronger for intrinsic motivation than for extrinsic motivation [84]. Therefore, interpersonal connectedness not only appears to facilitate social integration but also strengthens intrinsic motivation, which in turn significantly contributes to active participation in group learning [84]. The first term of medical school is a phase in which students need to orient themselves both academically and socially as written above. In this orientation phase, feelings of belonging and trust are often more relevant than clearly defined common learning goals. It is therefore plausible that interactions in early study phases primarily serve social exchange and network building, while learning goals gain secondary importance.

    Another interpretation is that social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic may have increased the importance of interpersonal connection over content motivation in developing collaborative learning. During the pandemic, opportunities to build personal relationships and engage in face-to-face interactions were severely restricted, as universities and schools shifted to digital learning environments [85-89]. The participants in this study had to complete high school during that time under remote learning conditions [90]. Many students reported missing in-person interaction and expressed a need to meet and learn together to stay motivated [91,92]. These prior experiences may have intensified the value of social connectedness as a foundational support in their early university learning. In this context, feeling connected to peers may serve not only as a motivator for collaborative learning but also as a compensatory mechanism for previously unmet social and educational needs.

    RQ3: Differences in the Influence of SoC on Initiative Collaborative Learning and Subordinate Collaborative Learning

    Interestingly, connectedness is more strongly associated with subordinate collaborative learning than initiative collaborative learning. This difference can be understood by considering their distinct natures. Initiative collaborative learning is proactive when students actively engage with peers to work through tasks, discuss lecture content, and question one another to strengthen understanding [28]. In contrast, subordinate collaborative learning is reactive, arising when students encounter challenges such as unclear concepts or incomplete notes and turn to peers for support to fill those gaps and improve comprehension [28]. This differentiation and our findings suggest that social factors are particularly relevant when students rely on support, whereas initiative is more likely driven by individual traits such as motivation or self-efficacy [93-95].

    In highly selective programs such as medicine in Germany, where all students have been admitted based on outstanding academic achievement, asking for help is not only a question of competence but also social safety [96]. When all peers may be considered intellectually capable, students may hesitate to seek help from someone if they fear being judged or feeling help seeking as evidence of incompetence [96-99]. In this context, interpersonal trust becomes a crucial factor for starting collaborative behaviors [100]. Particularly in subordinate collaborative learning, students are maybe more likely to turn to peers who create a nonthreatening environment and signal mutual respect. This supports the finding that social connectedness, more than academic motivations and shared learning goals, is associated with collaborative learning strategies. Trust creates a psychologically safe space in which students can take academic risks without fear of judgment [101]. Feeling embedded in a supportive peer community may lower the psychological threshold for admitting uncertainty and promotes help seeking without fear of negative evaluation [100,101].

    RQ4: CCS-D Items Associated With Collaborative Learning

    Particularly noteworthy is the role of item 15 of the CCS-D (“I feel that the members of this course depend on me”), which showed the strongest association with collaborative learning. This highlights the importance of perceived responsibility within a learning community and aligns with the concept of a “Sense of Community Responsibility” in collaborative environments [50,51].

    Accordingly, psychological experiences of responsibility and commitment among members of a community are significantly linked to their attitudes and behaviors within collaborative processes [102]. It has also been demonstrated that collaborative learning fosters a sense of accountability, as students feel responsible not only for their own performance but also for that of their peers [103]. Research has shown that individuals tend to emphasize group cohesion when the value of the group is threatened, with such reactions being most pronounced by those members who already feel a strong sense of commitment toward other group members [102,104]. Feeling that others depend on one’s contribution may strengthen identification with the group, which in turn increases the motivation to participate actively and contribute meaningfully. This aligns with social identity theory, which posits that individuals derive part of their self-concept from group membership [105]. Within learning contexts, a sense of connectedness and perceived responsibility toward peers can foster intrinsic motivation and engagement, thereby promoting collaborative behaviors and support [106].

    It is also worth discussing whether the present finding may, in part, reflect a form of “helper syndrome,” in which individuals derive a sense of self-worth from being needed by others and perceive their peers as dependent on their contributions [107]. In the context of health care professionals and medical education, where altruism, care, and accountability are core professional values, this perceived responsibility may be reinforced by internalized norms of helping and supporting others. The statement “they depend on me” likely captures a positive perception of having a meaningful role within the group, which can be intrinsically motivating for collaborative learning as individuals experience social worth when they feel needed [108,109]. While such attitudes can strengthen engagement and cooperative behaviors, they may also be associated with a tendency to prioritize others’ needs over one’s own well-being, or to underestimate personal limits, which are characteristic aspects of helper syndrome [110].

    Strengths and Limitations

    This study has several strengths. Data were collected across multiple cohorts, providing a broader and more generalizable view of first-semester medical students. The high response rate reduces selection bias, and the use of validated instruments strengthens construct validity for both SoC and collaborative learning measures. Robust statistical analyses, including principal component and regression analyses, further enhance methodological rigor.

    However, some limitations should be noted. The LIST questionnaire may not fully capture the range of collaborative learning strategies actually used, and self-reported data are susceptible to recall and response bias. Furthermore, all students participated in fixed-group laboratory courses and mentoring programs that fostered collaboration and community, which may have elevated CCS-D scores. Still, as all participants experienced the same conditions, a consistent baseline across the sample can be assumed. A moderate proportion of variance in collaborative learning behavior was explained by the models, while a substantial proportion remained unexplained. This may be attributed to the use of stepwise regression analyses, which are prone to chance findings, thereby potentially compromising the stability and generalizability of the identified predictors. Similarly, the cross-sectional design does not allow for causal inferences, meaning that the observed relationships can only be interpreted as associations. The results should therefore be interpreted with appropriate caution.

    Conclusions

    A strong SoC appears to be closely associated with collaborative learning in medical education. Social connectedness showed a stronger association with collaborative learning than shared academic goals. Both initiative collaborative learning and subordinate collaborative learning benefited from stronger community ties, with the effect being most pronounced for reactive peer support. The feeling that course members depend on one’s own contributions showed the strongest association for collaborative learning.

    These findings suggest that deliberately cultivating SoC through structured group work, peer networks, and mentoring may support not only learning outcomes but also teamwork skills and collaboration. Beyond the academic context, fostering a strong sense of belonging and mutual support may better prepare future health care professionals for the collaborative demands of clinical practice, where trust, communication, and cooperation are essential.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors would like to express their gratitude to the participating students. The authors would also like to acknowledge the support from the Open Access Publication Fund of the University of Tuebingen.

    Excerpts from this manuscript were presented at the Annual Conference of the DACH Association for Medical Education in Düsseldorf 2025 [110].

    The authors used DeepL Write to check individual sentences for grammar and spelling. They did not check entire paragraphs nor did they use artificial intelligence to generate text. After using this tool, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the final content of the publication.

    Funding

    This study was funded by the Faculty of Medicine Tuebingen.

    Data Availability

    The datasets used and analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

    Authors' Contributions

    Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by HK. The manuscript was written by HK. MB, AH-W, BH, and TS contributed to the manuscript in revising it critically for important intellectual content. AH-W, MB, and BH made substantial contributions to the conception of the study. TS oversaw the overall direction of the study. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript to be published and are accountable for all aspects of the work.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    Descriptive statistics and stepwise regression analyses.

    DOCX File, 41 KB
    1. Järvelä S, Kirschner PA, Panadero E, et al. Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups: designing for CSCL regulation tools. Educ Technol Res Dev. Feb 2015;63:125-142. [CrossRef]
    2. Joshi T, Budhathoki P, Adhikari A, Poudel A, Raut S, Shrestha DB. Team-based learning among health care professionals: a systematic review. Cureus. Jan 2022;14(1):e21252. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Chawla S, Pawlina W, Hafferty F, Lachman N. The hidden learning environment: effect of informal student networks on team performance in a gross anatomy course. FASEB J. Apr 2015;29(S1). [CrossRef]
    4. Bergman EM, Sieben JM, Smailbegovic I, de Bruin AB, Scherpbier A, van der Vleuten CP. Constructive, collaborative, contextual, and self-directed learning in surface anatomy education. Anat Sci Educ. 2013;6(2):114-124. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Piaget J. Equilibration of Cognitive Structures: The Central Problem of Intellectual Development. University of Chicago Press; 1985. URL: https://archive.org/details/equilibrationofc0000piag/page/n21/mode/2up [Accessed 2026-06-19]
    6. Vygotsky LS, Cole M, editors. Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press; 1978. URL: https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Mind_in_Society.html?id=RxjjUefze_oC&redir_esc=y [Accessed 2026-06-19] ISBN: 0674576292
    7. Brown AL, Palincsar AS. Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In: Resnick LB, editor. Knowing, Learning, and Instruction. Routledge; 1989:393-451. [CrossRef]
    8. Doise W. The development of individual competencies through social interaction. In: Foot HC, Morgan MJ, Shute RH, editors. Children Helping Children. John Wiley & Sons; 1990:43-64. ISBN: 9780471922926
    9. Doise W, Mugny G. The Social Development of the Intellect. Pergamon Press; 1984. URL: https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9781483286105_A23884450/preview-9781483286105_A23884450.pdf [Accessed 2026-06-19]
    10. Palincsar AS. Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annu Rev Psychol. 1998;49:345-375. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Perret-Clermont AN. Tajfel H, editor. Social Interaction and Cognitive Development in Children. Academic Press; 1980. URL: https://libra.unine.ch/entities/publication/088ab9c9-febd-4108-ab13-b0861b0ab93a [Accessed 2026-06-19] ISBN: 0125519508
    12. Hatano G, Inagaki K. Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity. In: Resnick LB, Levine JM, Teasley SD, editors. Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. 1st ed. American Psychological Association; 1991:331-348. [CrossRef]
    13. Foot HC, Howe C. The psycho-educational basis of peer-assisted learning. In: Topping K, Ehly S, editors. Peer-Assisted Learning. 1st ed. Lawrence Erlbaum; 1998:27-43. ISBN: 9780805825022
    14. Papadakis S, Kanadlı S, Kardas A, Tülübaş T, Karakose T, Polat H. Investigating the relationship between leadership for learning and student achievement through the mediation of teacher performance: a meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM) approach. Educ Sci. 2024;14(12):1320. [CrossRef]
    15. Harden RM, Crosby J. AMEE guide no 20: the good teacher is more than a lecturer - the twelve roles of the teacher. Med Teach. Jan 2000;22(4):334-347. [CrossRef]
    16. Daniëls E, Hondeghem A, Dochy F. A review on leadership and leadership development in educational settings. Educ Res Rev. Jun 2019;27:110-125. [CrossRef]
    17. Järvelä S, Hadwin AF. New frontiers: regulating learning in CSCL. Educ Psychol. Jan 2013;48(1):25-39. [CrossRef]
    18. Leithwood K, Louis KS, Anderson S, Wahlstrom K. How leadership influences student learning. The Wallace Foundation. 2004. URL: https:/​/wallacefoundation.​org/​sites/​default/​files/​2023-07/​How-Leadership-Influences-Student-Learning.​pdf [Accessed 2026-06-19]
    19. Hadwin A, Järvelä S, Miller M. Self-regulation, co-regulation, and shared regulation in collaborative learning environments. In: Schunk DH, Greene JA, editors. Handbook of Self-Regulation of Learning and Performance. 2nd ed. Routledge; 2017. [CrossRef]
    20. Järvenoja H, Järvelä S, Malmberg J. Supporting groups’ emotion and motivation regulation during collaborative learning. Learn Instr. Dec 2020;70:101090. [CrossRef]
    21. Wenger E. Communities of practice and social learning systems: the career of a concept. In: Blackmore C, editor. Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice. Springer; 2010:179-198. [CrossRef]
    22. Wenger E. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press; 1998. [CrossRef]
    23. ten Cate O. Entrustability of professional activities and competency-based training. Med Educ. Dec 2005;39(12):1176-1177. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Pauli C, Reusser K. Zur Rolle der Lehrperson beim kooperativen Lernen. Swiss J Educ Res. 2000;22(3):421-442. [CrossRef]
    25. Dillenbourg P. What do you mean by collaborative learning? In: Dillenbourg P, editor. Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. Elsevier; 1999:1-19. URL: https://telearn.hal.science/hal-00190240v1/document [Accessed 2026-06-08]
    26. Roschelle J, Teasley SD. The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In: O’Malley C, editor. Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. Springer; 1995:69-97. [CrossRef]
    27. Knof H, Berndt M, Shiozawa T. The influence of collaborative learning and self-organisation on medical students’ academic performance in anatomy. Ann Anat. Jan 2024;251:152182. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Nokes-Malach TJ, Richey JE, Gadgil S. When is it better to learn together? Insights from research on collaborative learning. Educ Psychol Rev. Dec 2015;27:645-656. [CrossRef]
    29. Bereiter C, Scardamalia M. Learning to work creatively with knowledge. In: De Corte E, Verschaffel L, Entwistle N, van Merrienboer J, editors. Powerful Learning Environments: Unravelling Basic Components and Dimensions. Elsevier Science BV; 2003:55-68. URL: https:/​/books.​google.co.in/​books/​about/​Powerful_Learning_Environments.​html?id=atTUfmfJVMAC&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y [Accessed 2026-06-19]
    30. Vuopala E, Näykki P, Isohätälä J, Järvelä S. Knowledge co-construction activities and task-related monitoring in scripted collaborative learning. Learn Cult Soc Interact. Jun 2019;21:234-249. [CrossRef]
    31. Baker MJ. A model for negotiation in teaching-learning dialogues. J Artif Intell Educ. 1994;5(2):199-254. URL: https://telearn.hal.science/hal-00190394v1 [Accessed 2026-06-08]
    32. Renkl A, Mandl H. Kooperatives Lernen: die Frage nach dem Notwendigen und dem Ersetzbaren [Article in German]. Unterrichtswissenschaft. 1995;23(4):292-300. URL: https://www.fachportal-paedagogik.de/literatur/vollanzeige.html?FId=2772207 [Accessed 2026-06-08]
    33. Webb NM. Peer interaction and learning in small groups. Int J Educ Res. Jan 1989;13:21-39. [CrossRef]
    34. Webb NM, Troper JD, Fall R. Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. J Educ Psychol. 1995;87(3):406-423. [CrossRef]
    35. Nieder GL, Parmelee DX, Stolfi A, Hudes PD. Team-based learning in a medical gross anatomy and embryology course. Clin Anat. Jan 2005;18(1):56-63. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    36. Offir B, Lev Y, Bezalel R. Surface and deep learning processes in distance education: synchronous versus asynchronous systems. Comput Educ. Nov 2008;51(3):1172-1183. [CrossRef]
    37. Kemp K, Baxa D, Cortes C. Exploration of a collaborative self-directed learning model in medical education. Med Sci Educ. Jan 2022;32(1):195-207. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    38. Langewitz W. Physician-patient communication in medical education: can it be learned? [Article in German]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. Sep 2012;55(9):1176-1182. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. Hadwin AF, Bakhtiar A, Miller M. Challenges in online collaboration: effects of scripting shared task perceptions. Intern J Comput Support Collab Learn. Sep 2018;13:301-329. [CrossRef]
    40. Reeves T, Gomm P. Community and contribution: factors motivating students to participate in an extra-curricular online activity and implications for learning. E-Learn Digit Media. 2015;12(3-4):391-409. [CrossRef]
    41. Rovai AP. Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. Internet High Educ. 2002;5(4):319-332. [CrossRef]
    42. Westheimer J, Kahne J. Building school communities: an experience-based model. Phi Delta Kappan. 1993;75(4):324-328. URL: https:/​/www.​researchgate.net/​publication/​285737065_Building_school_communities_An_experience-based_model [Accessed 2026-06-08]
    43. Graves LN. Cooperative learning communities: context for a new vision of education and society. J Educ. Apr 1992;174(2):57-79. [CrossRef]
    44. McMillan DW, Chavis DM. Sense of community: a definition and theory. J Community Psychol. Jan 1986;14(1):6-23. [CrossRef]
    45. Sarason SB. The Psychological Sense of Community: Prospects for a Community Psychology. Jossey-Bass; 1974. URL: https:/​/books.​google.co.in/​books/​about/​The_Psychological_Sense_of_Community.​html?id=-DK3AAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y [Accessed 2026-06-19] ISBN: 9780875892160
    46. Unger DG, Wandersman A. The importance of neighbors: the social, cognitive, and affective components of neighboring. Am J Commun Psychol. Apr 1985;13:139-169. [CrossRef]
    47. Hill JL. Psychological sense of community: suggestions for future research. J Community Psychol. Oct 1996;24(4):431-438. [CrossRef]
    48. Shaffer CR, Anundsen K. Creating Community Anywhere: Finding Support and Connection in a Fragmented World. Tarcher; 1993. URL: https:/​/scholar.​google.com/​scholar_lookup?&title=Creating%20community%20anywhere%3A%20Finding%20support%20and%20con%20nection%20in%20a%20fragmented%20world&publication_year=1993&author=Shaffer%2CC.​%20R&author=Anundsen%2CK [Accessed 2026-06-19]
    49. Nowell B, Boyd NM. Sense of community responsibility in community collaboratives: advancing a theory of community as resource and responsibility. Am J Community Psychol. Dec 2014;54(3-4):229-242. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Nowell B, Boyd N. Viewing community as responsibility as well as resource: deconstructing the theoretical roots of psychological sense of community. J Community Psychol. Sep 2010;38(7):828-841. [CrossRef]
    51. Rheingold H. The Virtual Community: Finding Connection in a Computerized World. 1st ed. Secker & Warburg; 1993. URL: https://books.google.co.in/books/about/The_Virtual_Community.html?id=0XyYEV9Ev8gC&redir_esc=y [Accessed 2026-06-19] ISBN: 9780436202087
    52. Strayhorn TL. College Students’ Sense of Belonging: A Key to Educational Success for All Students. 2nd ed. Routledge; 2018. [CrossRef]
    53. Rovai AP. Building and sustaining community in asynchronous learning networks. Internet High Educ. 2000;3(4):285-297. [CrossRef]
    54. McMillan DW. Sense of community. J Community Psychol. Oct 1996;24(4):315-325. [CrossRef]
    55. Watkins C. Classrooms as Learning Communities: What’s in It for Schools? Routledge; 2005. [CrossRef]
    56. Tinto V. Classrooms as communities: exploring the educational character of student persistence. J High Educ. 1997;68(6):599-623. [CrossRef]
    57. Keyes TS, Heath RD. The association between teaching practices and students’ perceptions of being in a classroom community of engaged learners. Sch Community J. 2023;33(1):251-278. URL: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1391477.pdf [Accessed 2026-06-09]
    58. Sheets MF. Characteristics of adult education students and factors which determine course completion: a review. New Horiz Adult Educ Hum Resour Dev. 1992;6(1):3-18. [CrossRef]
    59. Yeager DS, Walton GM. Social-psychological interventions in education: they’re not magic. Rev Educ Res. Jun 2011;81(2):267-301. [CrossRef]
    60. Baumeister RF, Leary MR. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol Bull. May 1995;117(3):497-529. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    61. Bruffee KA. Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge. Johns Hopkins University Press; 1993. URL: https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Collaborative_Learning.html?id=1cedAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y [Accessed 2026-06-19] ISBN: 9780801846427
    62. Dede C. The evolution of distance education: emerging technologies and distributed learning. Am J Distance Educ. 1996;10(2):4-36. [CrossRef]
    63. Knof H, Shiozawa T. Validation of the German form of the Classroom Community Scale (CCS-D). GMS J Med Educ. 2025;42(1):Doc13. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    64. Wild KP, Schiefele U. Lernstrategien im Studium: Ergebnisse zur Faktorenstruktur und Reliabilität eines neuen Fragebogens [Article in German]. Zeitschrift Differentielle Diagnostische Psychologie. 1994;15(4):185-200. URL: https:/​/www.​researchgate.net/​publication/​232453552_Lernstrategien_im_Studium_Ergebnisse_zur_Faktorenstruktur_und_Reliabilitt_eines_neuen_Fragebogens_Learning_strategies_of_university_students_Factor_structure_and_reliability_of_a_new_questionnaire [Accessed 2026-06-09]
    65. Wild KP, Schiefele U, Winteler A. List: Ein Verfahren Zur Erfassung von Lernstrategien Im Studium [Book in German]. Institut für Erziehungswissenschaft und Pädagogische Psychologie, Universität der Bundeswehr München; 1992. URL: https://www.fachportal-paedagogik.de/literatur/vollanzeige.html?FId=2248205 [Accessed 2026-06-09]
    66. Rovai AP. Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. Internet High Educ. Sep 2002;5(3):197-211. [CrossRef]
    67. Comrey AL, Lee HB. A First Course in Factor Analysis. Psychology Press; 1992. [CrossRef]
    68. Kline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Publications; 1998. URL: https:/​/books.​google.co.in/​books/​about/​Principles_and_Practice_of_Structural_Eq.​html?id=JGVuQgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y [Accessed 2026-06-19] ISBN: 9781572303362
    69. Kaiser HF. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas. Apr 1960;20(1):141-151. [CrossRef]
    70. Guttman L. Some necessary conditions for common-factor analysis. Psychometrika. Jun 1954;19:149-161. [CrossRef]
    71. Picton A, Greenfield S, Parry J. Why do students struggle in their first year of medical school? A qualitative study of student voices. BMC Med Educ. Feb 16, 2022;22(1):100. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    72. Fabry G, Giesler M. Novice medical students: individual patterns in the use of learning strategies and how they change during the first academic year. GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2012;29(4):Doc56. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    73. Schiefele U, Streblow L, Ermgassen U, Moschner B. Lernmotivation und Lernstrategien als Bedingungen der Studienleistung [Article in German]. Zeitschrift Pädagogische Psychologie. 2003;17(3/4):185-198. [CrossRef]
    74. Worsley JD, Harrison P, Corcoran R. Bridging the gap: exploring the unique transition from home, school or college into university. Front Public Health. 2021;9:634285. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    75. Entwistle NJ. Approaches to learning and forms of understanding. In: Dart B, Boulton-Lewis G, editors. Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: From Theory to Practice. Australian Council for Educational Research; 1998:72-101. URL: https:/​/books.​google.co.in/​books/​about/​Teaching_and_Learning_in_Higher_Educatio.​html?id=8Rs3-TNRGccC&redir_esc=y [Accessed 2026-06-19]
    76. Entwistle N, Ramsden P. Understanding Student Learning. Routledge; 1983. [CrossRef]
    77. Wierstra RF, Kanselaar G, van der Linden JL, Lodewijks H, Vermunt JD. The impact of the university context on European students’ learning approaches and learning environment preferences. High Educ. Jun 2003;45:503-523. [CrossRef]
    78. Trigwell K, Prosser M. Relating approaches to study and quality of learning outcomes at the course level. Br J Educ Psychol. Nov 1991;61(3):265-275. [CrossRef]
    79. Laakkonen J, Muukkonen H. Fostering students' collaborative learning competencies and professional conduct in the context of two gross anatomy courses in veterinary medicine. Anat Sci Educ. Mar 2019;12(2):154-163. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    80. Pintrich PR, De Groot EV. Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. J Educ Psychol. 1990;82(1):33-40. [CrossRef]
    81. Ames C, Archer J. Achievement goals in the classroom: students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. J Educ Psychol. 1988;80(3):260-267. [CrossRef]
    82. Smit K, de Brabander CJ, Boekaerts M, Martens RL. The self-regulation of motivation: motivational strategies as mediator between motivational beliefs and engagement for learning. Int J Educ Res. 2017;82:124-134. [CrossRef]
    83. Han J, Jiang Y, Mentzer N, Kelley T. The role of sense of community and motivation in the collaborative learning: an examination of the first-year design course. Int J Technol Des Educ. Jul 2022;32:1837-1852. [CrossRef]
    84. Ordinance of the State Government on infection protection measures against the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (Corona Ordinance - “CoronaVO”). Ministry of Social Affairs, Health and Integration Baden-Württemberg. 2020. URL: https:/​/sozialministerium.​baden-wuerttemberg.de/​fileadmin/​redaktion/​m-sm/​intern/​downloads/​Downloads_Gesundheitsschutz/​200502_CoronaVO_konsolidiert_Stand_040520_englisch.​pdf [Accessed 2026-06-19]
    85. Ordinance of the State Government on infection protection measures against the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (Corona Ordinance – “CoronaVO”). Ministry of Social Affairs, Health and Integration Baden-Württemberg. 2022. URL: https:/​/www.​baden-wuerttemberg.de/​fileadmin/​redaktion/​m-sm/​intern/​downloads/​Downloads_Gesundheitsschutz/​220531_CoronaV_konsolidiert_en.​pdf [Accessed 2026-06-09]
    86. Ferrel MN, Ryan JJ. The impact of COVID-19 on medical education. Cureus. Mar 31, 2020;12(3):e7492. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    87. Braun T, Qekaj A, Rapp S, König S, Loewe S, Boehringer D. Anregungen für eine Gestaltung des Studieneinstiegs unter Pandemiebedingung: Blaupausen für das digitale Wintersemester 2020/21. Zentrum für Lehre und Weiterbildung. 2020. URL: https:/​/elib.​uni-stuttgart.de/​server/​api/​core/​bitstreams/​4671534c-b60e-4e75-bdb8-c956414295e6/​content [Accessed 2026-06-09]
    88. Andresen S, Lips A, Möller R, Rusack T, Schröer W, Thomas S, et al. Erfahrungen und Perspektiven von jungen Menschen während der Corona-Maßnahmen: erste Ergebnisse der bundesweiten Studie JuCo. Universitätsverlag Hildesheim; 2020. URL: https:/​/hilpub.​uni-hildesheim.de/​server/​api/​core/​bitstreams/​dcfebb6e-eecb-4da2-af9e-138d9655ebef/​content [Accessed 2026-06-09]
    89. Schneider R, Sachse KA, Schipolowski S, Enke F. Teaching in times of COVID-19: the evaluation of distance teaching in elementary and secondary schools in Germany. Front Educ. 2021;6. [CrossRef]
    90. Boulos AN. Evaluation of the effectiveness of online education in anatomy for medical students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Anat. Oct 2022;244:151973. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    91. Kalmar E, Aarts T, Bosman E, et al. The COVID-19 paradox of online collaborative education: when you cannot physically meet, you need more social interactions. Heliyon. Jan 2022;8(1):e08823. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    92. Zimmerman BJ. Becoming a self-regulated learner: an overview. Theory Pract. May 2002;41(2):64-70. [CrossRef]
    93. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. Mar 1977;84(2):191-215. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    94. Schunk DH, DiBenedetto MK. Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemp Educ Psychol. Jan 2020;60:101832. [CrossRef]
    95. Ryan AM, Gheen MH, Midgley C. Why do some students avoid asking for help? An examination of the interplay among students’ academic efficacy, teachers’ social–emotional role, and the classroom goal structure. J Educ Psychol. 1998;90(3):528-535. [CrossRef]
    96. Newman RS, Goldin L. Children’s reluctance to seek help with schoolwork. J Educ Psychol. 1990;82(1):92-100. [CrossRef]
    97. Butler R. Determinants of help seeking: relations between perceived reasons for classroom help-avoidance and help-seeking behaviors in an experimental context. J Educ Psychol. 1998;90(4):630-643. [CrossRef]
    98. Karabenick SA, Knapp JR. Relationship of academic help seeking to the use of learning strategies and other instrumental achievement behavior in college students. J Educ Psychol. 1991;83(2):221-230. [CrossRef]
    99. Qayyum A. Student help-seeking attitudes and behaviors in a digital era. Int J Educ Technol High Educ. Dec 2018;15(1):17. [CrossRef]
    100. Edmondson A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q. 1999;44(2):350-383. [CrossRef]
    101. Ellemers N, Spears R, Doosje B. Self and social identity. Annu Rev Psychol. 2002;53:161-186. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    102. VanLeuven AJ, Szymik BG, Ramsey LM, Hesse DW. A multi‐year evaluation of medical student performance on and perceptions of collaborative gross anatomy laboratory examinations. Anat Sci Educ. 2023;16(3):557-566. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    103. Turner JC, Hogg MA, Turner PJ, Smith PM. Failure and defeat as determinants of group cohesiveness. Br J Soc Psychol. Jun 1984;23(2):97-111. [CrossRef]
    104. Tajfel H, Turner JC. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: Jost JT, Sidanius J, editors. Political Psychology: Key Readings. Psychology Press; 2004. [CrossRef]
    105. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Am Psychol. Jan 2000;55(1):68-78. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    106. Schmidbauer W. Die hilflosen Helfer: Über die seelische Problematik der helfenden Berufe (German Edition). Rowohlt; 1977. ISBN: 9783498061234
    107. McAdams DP, de St. Aubin E. A theory of generativity and its assessment through self-report, behavioral acts, and narrative themes in autobiography. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1992;62(6):1003-1015. [CrossRef]
    108. Grant AM, Gino F. A little thanks goes a long way: explaining why gratitude expressions motivate prosocial behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol. Jun 2010;98(6):946-955. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    109. Maringgele VE, Scherr M, Aichhorn W, Kaiser AK. Helper Syndrome and Pathological Altruism in nurses - a study in times of the COVID-19 pandemic. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1150150. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    110. Knof H, Berndt M, Shiozawa T. The influence of community spirit on collaborative learning in medical education. In: Annual Meeting of the Society for Medical Education (GMA) [Book in German]. German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2025. [CrossRef]

    ‎
    CCS: Classroom Community Scale
    CCS-D: German form of the Classroom Community Scale
    LIST: Learning Strategies in Study
    PCA: principal component analysis
    RQ: research question
    SoC: Sense of Community

    Edited by Waseem Jerjes; submitted 31.Oct.2025; peer-reviewed by Jae Il Shin, Jing-Woei Li, Stamatis Papadakis, Thomas Ungar; final revised version received 29.May.2026; accepted 30.May.2026; published 06.Jul.2026.

    Copyright

    ©Harald Knof, Markus Berndt, Anne Herrmann-Werner, Bernhard Hirt, Thomas Shiozawa. Originally published in JMIR Medical Education (https://mededu.jmir.org), 6.Jul.2026.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Medical Education, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://mededu.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.