was 2.50 points lower, changes was 3.16 points lower, and self-imposed was 3.65 points

lower in measuring student perceived level of stress in Class A. See Table 4-5 for

findings regarding classroom specific stress.

Table 4-5. Class A Student Mean Scores of Stress Constructs
Construct N Mean SD Min Max
Total stress 68 52.44 10.57 29 76
Frustrations 70 12.03 3.73 6 21
Conflicts 69 5.97 2.54 3 12
Pressures 69 11.58 3.42 5 19
Changes 70 4.87 2.04 3 10
Self-imposed 70 18.17 3.86 9 25
Note. Perceived stress was measured with the SSI using 22 summated items. Possible
range: Total (22 to 110), Frustrations (6-30), Conflicts (3-15), Pressures (4-20), Changes
(3-15), Self-imposed (6-30). Coded: higher score equals higher level of perceived stress.

 For total motivation of Class A there were 69 usable scores. The MSLQ was

utilized to measure motivation and comprised 31 items. Construct scores were

standardized and ranged from 1 to 7 providing for a total score range of 6 to 42. Items

were coded with low scores signifying low motivation and high scores signifying high

motivation. The least motivated student of Class A scored 21.03 for total motivation

while the most motivated student scored 36.73. Class A respondents' total motivation

(M=29.31, SD=3.59, n=69) was 1.15 points lower than the norm reported by Pintrich,

Smith, Garcia and McKeachie (1991). Three motivation constructs between Class A and

the instrument norm (Pintrich, et al.) indicated lower levels of motivation: intrinsic

motivation was 1.02 points lower, task value was 1.01 points lower and control for

learning was 0.05 points lower. However three motivation constructs indicated Class A

had higher levels of motivation than the instrument norm (Pintrich, et al.): extrinsic

motivation was 0.28 points higher, self-efficacy was 0.56 points higher and test anxiety

was 0.05 points higher. All scale means of motivation were within one standard deviation