216
variables. No interaction effects were found in the data analysis for determining student
stress and student motivation in these classes.
Class A
In Class A, student stress was explained by efficiency cognitive style gap (P=.33)
and students' age (P=.31) using a backward stepwise regression analysis. The model had
an adjusted R2 of .20 indicating that 20% of the variance of students' perceived stress in
Class A was contributed by these two variables (p<.05). For Class A, both independent
variables had a positive relationship with student stress, but efficiency cognitive style gap
was more important than age in explaining the dependent variable. The data provided
evidence that 21 year-old students in Class A with an innovative 5-point efficiency
cognitive style gap with the faculty member have an average total stress score of 51.22.
However, 21 year-old students with no efficiency cognitive style gap with this faculty
member have an average total stress level score of 47.52. Note that total stress had a
possible range of 88 points. The researcher concluded that in Class A, controlling for age,
students with an innovative efficiency cognitive style gap with this adaptive faculty
member have higher levels of total stress. This indicated that as student efficiency
cognitive style gap moved from adaptiveness to innovativeness with respect to the faculty
member, students have increased stress levels. See Table 4-65 for the unstandardized
coefficient (B), intercept (Constant), and standardized coefficient (0).
Table 4-65. Class A Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
Stress (n=57)
Model
Construct B SE Beta t. Sign. F Sign.
(Constant) 17.07 11.77 1.45 .15 8.04 .01
Efficiency gap 0.74 0.27 .33 2.76 .01
Age 1.45 0.55 .31 2.61 .01
Note. Adjusted R2=.20