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).