Table 4-7. Class A Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs (n=70)
Construct Mean SD Min Max
Total student engagement 48.43 7.70 32 69
Academic challenge 24.79 3.76 14 33
Active learning 11.90 3.09 7 20
Student-faculty interaction 11.74 2.82 6 21
Note. Engagement was measured by the NSSE with 24 summated items. Possible range:
Total Engagement (24-96), Academic Challenge (11-44), Active Learning (7-28),
Student-Faculty Interaction (6-24). Coded: higher score equals higher level of
engagement.

Class B

 From Class B (N=100, n=72), there were 46 KAI responses considered usable by

the researcher. The KAI determines cognitive style with lower scores signifying more

adaptive and higher scores signifying more innovative. The KAI has 32 items with a

range of 32 to 160 and a reported mean of 95 (Kirton, 1999). Class B students' total

cognitive style mean score (M=92.43, SD=15.05, n=46) was 2.57 points more adaptive

than the general population norm (Kirton). Construct scores of cognitive style were less

than one point more adaptive than construct norms reported by Kirton, except the

construct efficiency which was 1.59 points more adaptive than the general population

norm. However, all construct mean scores in Class B were consistent with a total

cognitive score of 92.43 (Kirton). In Class B, the most adaptive student had a total

cognitive style score of 46, while the most innovative student in Class B scored 116. See

Table 4-8 for results concerning student cognitive style for Class B.

Table 4-8. Class B Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=46)
Construct Mean SD Min Max
Total cognitive style 92.43 15.05 46 116
Sufficiency of originality 40.39 8.45 22 59
Efficiency 17.41 4.65 7 28
Rule/Group conformity 34.63 6.68 17 47
Note. Cognitive style measured by the KAI with 32 items. Theoretical range: Total (32-
160), Sufficiency of Originality (13-65), Efficiency (7-35) and Rule/Group Conformity
(12-60). Coded: lower score equals more adaptive, higher score equals more innovative.