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