was measured by subtracting the faculty members' cognitive style score from each

individual student's cognitive style score. The difference provided a cognitive style gap

which was used to determine relationships among student stress, motivation and

engagement in the classroom.

 Findings indicated that in these courses, students with more than a 20-point

cognitive style gap did not have higher levels of stress than students with less than a 20-

point cognitive style gap. However, students with more than a 20-point cognitive style

gap did have significantly lower levels of motivation. Student motivation was further

decreased when students were taught by an adaptive faculty member. Backwards

stepwise multiple regression was used to explain student stress, student motivation and

student engagement based on cognitive style gap and selected demographic variables.

Results provided evidence that cognitive style gap did contribute to the explanation of

student stress, motivation and engagement in some classes. However, cognitive style gap

was not significant in explaining these dependent variables in all nine classes.

 Further research should employ qualitative methods to examine how cognitive

style is exhibited in instructional discourse. Researchers may use these findings to further

examine the relationships between learning style and learning process in the effort of

improving student engagement.


xviii