280
associated with higher levels of stress in a course taught by an innovative faculty
member. Both positions are theoretically correct (Kirton, 2003) but require a different
direction of relationship. Therefore concerning cognitive style gap, positive and negative
correlations from individual classes may have canceled out when combined as a total
group.
Objective Four
The purpose of objective four was to explain undergraduate student motivation
and student stress based on constructs of cognitive style gap and selected demographic
variables which included student age, gender, number of similar courses taken, and
college classification. Backward stepwise multiple regression was used in each class to
explain the variance of the dependent variable, stress. Significant findings would provide
evidence that the cognitive style gap between faculty member and student contributed to
student stress in the nine classes examined in the study. Then, backward stepwise
multiple regression was used in each class to explain the variance of the dependent
variable motivation. Significant findings would provide evidence that the cognitive style
gap between faculty member and student contributed to explaining levels of student
motivation in the classes studied. Finally, all students were grouped together for similar
analyses. Objective four conclusions will be discussed after a brief presentation of the
findings.
Class A
In Class A, student stress was explained by efficiency cognitive style gap (P=.33)
and students' age (P=.31) using a backward stepwise regression analysis. The model had
an adjusted R2 of .20 indicating that 20% of the variance of students' perceived stress in
Class A was contributed by these two variables (p<.05).