moderate inverse relationships between constructs of student engagement and constructs

of motivation. This finding contradicts the depicted relationship by Astin (1984).

However, among classes B, D, G, H and I task motivation was moderately correlated

with academic challenge and one other student engagement construct. Likewise,

academic challenge was a prominent construct in finding correlations with motivation.

Also, note that Classes B, G and H had many moderate correlations between constructs of

motivation and constructs of engagement when compared to other classes. This provided

evidence that the relationships between engagement and motivation in these classes did

not offer consistent patterns of association.

 Pintrich and Schunk (2002) claim that expectancy components of motivation are

related to student engagement. The two expectancy motivational measures used in this

study include control of learning and self-efficacy. Although Classes A, B, D, F and H

had a moderate correlation between one expectancy motivation construct and one student

engagement construct, the data did not provide evidence of any consistent pattern for this

relationship. That is, these correlations were negative in Classes A and F. The data

provided evidence that the expectancy components of motivation as measured in this

study did not provide a consistent pattern to determine the relationship among these

variables and student engagement.

 Objective Four

Explain Undergraduate Student Motivation and Student Stress based on Cognitive
Style Gap and Selected Demographic Variables.

 The goal of objective four was to use backward stepwise multiple regression to

explain student stress from the cognitive style gap between a student and his or her

respective teacher. This data analysis procedure was utilized to determine if dissimilar