227
scores while controlling for gender. That is, as student efficiency cognitive style gap
moved from more innovative to more adaptive, students have higher levels of motivation.
See Table 4-75 for the unstandardized coefficient (B), intercept (Constant), and
standardized coefficient (0) for Class I total stress.
Table 4-75. Class I Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
Motivation (n=60)
Model
Construct B SE Beta t. Sign. F Sign.
(Constant) 29.45 1.94 15.20 .00 3.60 .03
Rules/Group conformity
gap -0.14 0.06 -.28 -2.22 .03
Gender -1.52 0.93 -.20 -1.64 .11
Note. Adjusted R2=.08
All Students
All students participating in this study were grouped together to explain student
stress based on cognitive style gap and student demographic variables. Considering all of
the students, the best fitting model to explain total stress included the independent
variables sufficiency of originality cognitive style gap ( =. 15), college classification (3=-
.11) and number of similar courses taken (p=.09). The most important variable of these
three was sufficiency of originality cognitive style gap. Controlling for college
classification and number of similar courses taken, students having an innovative 5-point
sufficiency of originality cognitive style gap have an average 0.75 point higher stress
scores than the same students with no sufficiency of originality cognitive style gap. The
total stress range as measured in this study was 22 to 110. The data suggests that
considering these students and controlling for college classification and number of
similar courses taken, students having an innovative sufficiency of originality cognitive
style gap with their faculty member have higher stress scores. That is, as student