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