which included: age, gender, major, college classification, full-time status, and number of

classes taken similar to the subject area of the course. Lastly, students were asked to give

the number of problem sets that had taken more than an hour to complete during a typical

week. The last question was not used in data analysis, but served to provide evidence that

problem solving assignments did exist in the courses examined in this study and will be

considered in the concluding discussion in chapter 5.

 The data are presented with each faculty member's class separated as an intact

group from the total group of respondents. Each class was coded by letter according to

the faculty member's cognitive style score along the continuum of adaptiveness to

innovativeness. Therefore, the most adaptive faculty member was assigned the letter "A"

and the letter "I" was assigned to the most innovative faculty member. See Table 4-1 for

a description of faculty members' cognitive style scores determined by Kirton's

Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI).

Table 4-1. Listing of Classes designated by Faculty Members' Total Cognitive Style
 Score (N=9)

 Total Sufficiency of Rule/Group
 Cognitive Style Originality Efficiency Conformity
 Class A 64 29 10 25
 Class B 68 25 19 24
 Class C 83 40 12 31
 Class D 94 48 15 31
 Class E 95 41 18 36
 Class F 103 51 9 43
 Class G 116 49 21 46
 Class H 132 53 29 50
 Class I 134 60 20 54
 All Faculty 98.78 44 17 37.78


 Kirton (2003) states that total cognitive style scores less than 10 points are

considered the same. Cognitive style scores between 10 and 19 points are considered