cognitive style gap and student stress. Students enrolled in Class D with an innovative 5-

point efficiency cognitive style gap with the faculty member have an average 1.95 points

lower perceived stress score than students with no efficiency cognitive style gap

controlling for college classification. The total stress scale had a range of 88 points. The

data suggests that students with a higher innovative efficiency cognitive style gap have

lower perceived stress scores. This finding indicated that in Class D, as student efficiency

cognitive style gap moved from adaptiveness to innovativeness students have decreased

stress scores. This model had an adjusted R2 of. 10. That is, 10% of the variance of stress

in Class D was explained by these two variables (p<.05). See Table 4-70 for the

unstandardized coefficient (B), intercept (Constant), and standardized coefficient (0).

Table 4-70. Class D Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
 Stress (n=66)
 Model
 Construct B SE Beta t. Sign. F Sign.
 (Constant) 73.70 7.87 9.37 .00 4.44 .02
 Efficiency gap -0.39 0.32 -.15 -1.23 .22
 College classification -5.89 2.40 -.29 -2.45 .02
Note. Adjusted R2=. 10

 Backward stepwise multiple regression was again used in Class D to explain total

student motivation as a result of cognitive style gap and demographic variables. The best

fitting model included efficiency cognitive style gap (P=-.21), but this model was not

statistically significant (p=.08) and provided little explanation of the dependent variable

(Adjusted R2=.03).

Class E

 In Class E, backward stepwise multiple regression was utilized to regress total

student stress with cognitive style gap between the student and the instructing faculty