222


member as well as demographic variables including gender, age, similar number of

courses taken and college classification. However, no model was statistically significant.

 For student motivation, sufficiency of originality cognitive style gap (P=.44) and

gender (p=.27) contributed to a model to explain student motivation in Class E.

Sufficiency of originality was a more important variable than gender in explaining

student stress. To interpret, students in Class E with an innovative 5-point sufficiency of

originality gap have an average total motivation score of 1.20 points higher than students

with no sufficiency of originality cognitive style gap while controlling for gender. The

total motivation measure used in this study had a range of 42 points. The researcher

concluded that students in Class E with higher innovative sufficiency of originality gap

with the faculty member also have higher total motivation scores. Said differently, as

student sufficiency of originality cognitive style gap moved from more adaptive to more

innovative, students have higher levels of motivation. The model had an adjusted R2 of

.13 indicating that 13% of the variance of student total motivation was explained by these

two variables. See Table 4-71 for the unstandardized coefficient (B), intercept (Constant),

and standardized coefficient (0).

Table 4-71. Class E Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
 Motivation (n=32)
 Model
 Construct B SE Beta t. Sign. F Sign.
 (Constant) 26.69 3.18 8.39 .00 3.38 .05
 Sufficiency of originality
 gap 0.24 0.10 .44 2.49 .02
 Gender 2.66 1.77 .27 1.50 .14
Note. Adjusted R2=. 13