239


rules/group conformity cognitive style gap have an average 2.20 point decrease in their

student engagement score than students with no rules/group conformity cognitive style

gap with the faculty member, controlling for number of similar courses taken, total

motivation and total stress. The total engagement score range was 24 to 96 points. Also

note that the faculty member instructing Class H was highly innovative. The data

suggests that students in Class H with a more adaptive rules/group conformity cognitive

style gap with the faculty member have lower student engagement scores when

controlling for number of similar courses the student had taken, student motivation and

student stress. The model was significant (p<.05) and had an adjusted R2 of .33. That is,

33% of the variance of student engagement in Class H was explained by the four

independent variables listed above. See Table 4-84 for the unstandardized coefficient (B),

intercept (Constant), and standardized coefficient (0) determining student engagement of

Class H.

Table 4-84. Class H Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
 Engagement (n=49)
 Model
 Construct B SE Beta t. Sign. F Sign.
 (Constant) 22.89 8.45 2.71 .01 7.03 .00
 Rules/Group conformity
 gap 0.44 0.14 .40 3.17 .01
 Number of similar
 courses -1.92 0.93 -.26 -2.07 .04
 Total motivation 0.93 0.24 .47 3.91 .00
 Total stress 0.23 0.10 .30 2.34 .02
Note. Adjusted R2=.33

Class I

 Student engagement of Class I was explained by employing backward stepwise

multiple regression and finding the best fitting model with the most explanation of the

dependent variable. Two independent variables were identified as a best fit for explaining