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