226


a range of 88 points. The data suggests that students in Class I having a higher adaptive

efficiency cognitive style gap with this innovative faculty member have higher total stress

scores. That is, as efficiency cognitive style gap moved from more innovative to more

adaptive, students exhibited higher levels of stress. See Table 4-74 for the unstandardized

coefficient (B), intercept (Constant), and standardized coefficient (0) for Class I total

stress.

Table 4-74. Class I Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
 Stress (n=60)
 Model
 Construct B SE Beta t. Sign. F Sign.
 (Constant) 3.95 26.91 0.15 .88 4.16 .02
 Efficiency gap 0.72 0.30 .29 2.37 .02
 Age 2.30 1.30 .22 1.77 .08
Note. Adjusted R2. 10

 Considering total student motivation of Class I, the same independent variables

were used in backward stepwise regression data analysis to find the best fitting model

with the most explanation of student motivation. Rule/group conformity style gap (3=-

.28) and gender (p=-.20) were both considered significant contributors to the model. The

adjusted R2=.08 indicating that 8% of the variance of total student motivation was

explained by these two independent variables. The model was statistically significant

(p<.05). Of the two independent variables, rule/group conformity cognitive style gap was

more important in explaining the variance of student motivation in Class I. Students

having an adaptive 5-point efficiency cognitive style gap with the faculty member have

an average 0.70 points higher total motivation score than students having no efficiency

cognitive style gap while controlling for gender. The total motivation score range was 6

to 48 points. The data suggests that students in Class I with higher adaptive efficiency

cognitive style gap with the innovative faculty member have higher total motivation