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