For motivation in Class A, two independent variables were best found to explain
student motivation. Cognitive style gap of efficiency (P=-.37) and number of similar
courses (P=.17) contributed to explaining 13% of the variance in student motivation. The
fitted model had an adjusted R2 of .13.
Class B
Backward stepwise multiple regression was used to explain student stress of Class
B. No significant model was found to explain student stress given the independent
variables of cognitive style gap, gender, age, number of similar classes taken and college
classification.
Backward stepwise multiple regression was used to explain student motivation of
Class B to find the best fitting model. One variable, efficiency cognitive style gap, was
found to explain 19% of the variance in student motivation (P=-.46, Adjusted R2=. 19).
Class C
For Class C, backward stepwise regression was used to explain total student
stress. The best fitting model left three variables including sufficiency of originality
cognitive style gap (P=-.31), gender (p=-.21) and age (P=.22). The fitted model had an
adjusted R2 of .13 signifying that 13% of the variance of stress in Class C was from these
three variables (p<.05).
Also in Class C, total student motivation was regressed with the independent
variables of efficiency style gap (P=-. 18), gender (P=.33) and age (P=.20). The fitted
model had an adjusted R2 of .14 signifying that 14% of the variance of stress in Class C
was from these three variables (p<.05).