communication can often lead the two individuals to focus on the new problem of

ineffective communication and not the problem at hand which is completing course

projects and assignments (Kirton). If this occurs in the undergraduate classroom, students

may dwell on the inefficiencies of communication with the faculty member instructing

the course and may not be motivated enough to engage in learning. The constructs of

student engagement include level of academic challenge, active and collaborative

learning, and student interaction with the faculty member, (Kuh, Hayek, Carini, Ouimet,

Gonyea & Kennedy, 2001), all of which require communication between the faculty

member and the student to be achieved (Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). In summary, the

faculty member determines the amount of structure used in the course, but students may

prefer different amounts of structure and find themselves unmotivated to effectively

communicate with the faculty member, thus impacting the level of student engagement.

 Kirton's (2003) A-I theory may contribute to the explanation of student

engagement by identifying the relationships between cognitive style gap, stress and

motivation. An increase in cognitive style gap between the student and the faculty

member causes stress through working together in solving problems or engaging in

learning. If the student is motivated, coping behavior is used to operate outside of a

preferred cognitive style and employ a cognitive style closer to that of the faculty

member (Kirton). As a result, student and faculty member are operating in the same

cognitive style which may increase student engagement. However, student motivation

supplied to coping behavior only last for a period of time and at a limited level (Kirton).

Consequently the student reverts back to a preferred cognitive style which may be

detrimental to student engagement. For the student to be successfully engaged the reward