faculty member have higher total engagement scores while controlling for students' total

motivation and age. The model was statistically significant (p<.05) and the adjusted R2

was .24. This indicated that age and total motivation contributed to explain 24% of the

variance of student engagement in Class C. See Table 4-80 for the unstandardized

coefficient (B), intercept (Constant), and standardized coefficient (0) determining student

engagement of Class C.

Table 4-80. Class C Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
 Engagement (n=56)
 Model
 Construct B SE Beta t. Sign. F Sign.
 (Constant) -11.88 17.61 -0.68 .50 6.66 .01
 Sufficiency of originality
 gap 0.25 0.16 .20 1.60 .12
 Total motivation 0.21 0.06 .45 3.74 .00
 Age 1.33 0.71 .22 1.89 .07
Note. Adjusted R2=.24

Class D

 To explain student engagement of Class D, backward stepwise multiple

regression was used to determine the independent variables that best fit into a model.

Data analysis found that only total motivation (P=.38) best explained student engagement

of Class D. To interpret, students in Class D with a total motivation score of 32.00 have

an average total engagement score of 48.71. This contrasts with students with a total

motivation score of 33.00 points and have an average total engagement score of 49.44.

The measurement of total engagement had a range of 24 to 96. The data suggests that

students who have more motivation in Class D have more total engagement. However,

there was no indication that cognitive style gap significantly explained student

engagement in Class D. The model was significant (p<.05) and the adjusted R2 was .13,

indicating that motivation contributed to 13% of the variance in explaining student