constructs of motivation were related to the measure of total motivation. However, the

measure of self-efficacy was less related with total motivation then expected.

 Considering the relationships among student motivation and student engagement

in Class G, total engagement was correlated with total motivation (r=.42, p<.05), intrinsic

motivation (r=.42, p<.05), extrinsic motivation (r=.43, p<.05) and task motivation (r=.36,

p<.05). Likewise, the engagement construct academic challenge was correlated with total

motivation (r=.43, p<.05), intrinsic motivation (r=.35, p<.05), extrinsic motivation (r=.45,

p<.05) and task motivation (r=.32, p<.05). Similarly, active learning was significantly

correlated with total motivation (r=.30, p<.05), intrinsic motivation (r=.37, p<.05),

extrinsic motivation (r=.31, p<.05) and task motivation (r=.26, p<.05). These correlations

indicated that higher levels of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and task

motivation were associated with higher levels of academic challenge and active learning.

Examining relationships among constructs of student engagement found that total student

engagement was correlated with academic challenge (r=.85, p<.05), active learning

(r=.71, p<.05) and student faculty interaction (r=.73, p<.05). These very high correlations

suggest a close relationship between constructs of student engagement and the measure of

student engagement. See Table 4-58 for correlations among total cognitive style gap,

stress, motivation and engagement.

 Student respondents were asked demographic questions including age, gender,

number of classes taken similar to Class G and college classification. None of these

demographic variables were significantly associated with total cognitive style gap.

Furthermore, no moderate correlations were found among demographic variables.