sufficiency of originality cognitive style gap moved from more adaptive to more
innovative, students have higher levels of stress. See Table 4-76 for the unstandardized
coefficient (B), intercept (Constant), and standardized coefficient (0) for student stress.
Table 4-76. All Students Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student
Total Stress (n=496)
Model
Construct B SE Beta t. Sign. F Sign.
(Constant) 55.51 2.90 19.12 .00 5.74 .01
Sufficiency of originality
gap 0.15 0.04 .15 3.51 .00
College classification -1.93 0.84 -.11 -2.30 .02
Number of similar
courses 1.21 0.60 .09 2.02 .04
Note. Adjusted R2=.03
Considering total motivation of all students participating in this study, backward
stepwise multiple regression was used to find the best fitting model with the most
explanation using the independent variables cognitive style gap and student
demographics. Three independent variables were found to be significant (p<.05) in
explaining student motivation. They include efficiency cognitive style gap (P=-.08),
gender (P=. 12) and number of similar courses taken by the student (P=. 10). Considering
all the student participants and controlling for gender and number of similar courses,
students with an innovative 5-point efficiency cognitive style gap have an average 0.20
point lower total motivation score than the same students with no efficiency cognitive
style gap. The total motivation scale used in this study had a 42-point range. The data
suggests that students participating in this study having an innovative efficiency cognitive
style gap have lower total motivation scores controlling for gender and number of
relevant courses. This finding indicated that among these participants, as student
efficiency cognitive style gap moved from more adaptive to more innovative, students