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