the test sample (Pintrich et al.) included extrinsic motivation (0.19 points higher), task

value (0.04 points higher), control of learning (0.28 points higher) and self-efficacy (0.77

points higher). Motivation scales means in Class E that were lower than the test sample

included intrinsic motivation (0.47 points lower) and test anxiety (0.06 points lower). All

motivation scale mean scores measured in Class E were within one standard deviation of

the test sample (Pintrich et al.). See Table 4-22 for reported motivation mean scores of

Class E.

Table 4-22. Class E Student Mean Scores of Motivation Constructs (n=48)
Construct Mean SD Min Max
Total motivation 31.20 3.79 19.90 37.57
Intrinsic motivation 4.58 1.15 2.00 6.50
Extrinsic motivation 5.22 1.05 2.75 7.00
Task value 5.58 1.19 2.00 7.00
Control of learning 6.02 0.93 2.50 7.00
Self-efficacy 6.24 0.77 3.50 7.00
Test anxiety 3.57 1.30 1.00 6.60
Note. Motivation was measured with the MSLQ using 31 items with standardized
constructs. Possible range: Total motivation (6-48), all constructs (1-7). Coded: higher
score equals higher level of motivation.

 There were 48 usable NSSE responses in Class E to determine level of student

engagement. In this study, constructs of academic challenge, active and collaborative

learning and student-faculty interaction formed a total student engagement score with a

range of 24 to 96 using 24 items. Items were coded in order that lower scores signify less

student engagement while higher scores signify more student engagement. The least

engaged student in Class E had a total engagement score of 32 and the most engaged

student scored 59 for total engagement. The Class E total student engagement mean score

was 47.88 (SD=5.50), which was 15.86 points lower than the national reported college

senior total engagement mean (Kuh et al., 2001) indicating a lower level of student

engagement in Class E. Constructs of student engagement as measured with the NSSE