was 0.68 points lower. Of particular note, the construct academic challenge was 10.94

points lower, indicating lower levels of student preparation and use of higher order

thinking skills in Class B. The student with the lowest level of engagement in Class B

had a total engagement score of 33 points while the most engaged student in the class

scored 63 for total engagement. See Table 4-11 for findings specific to Class B student

engagement.

Table 4-11. Class B Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs (n=70)
Construct Mean SD Min Max
Total student engagement 46.01 7.47 33 63
Academic challenge 22.24 3.63 16 31
Active learning 11.81 2.73 7 19
Student-faculty interaction 11.96 3.21 7 20
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 C

 For Class C (N=90, n=71), there were 56 usable KAI responses considered

acceptable by the researcher to determine cognitive style. Lower scores signify a more

adaptive cognitive style and higher scores signify a more innovative cognitive style with

a range of 32 to 160 and mean of 95. The total cognitive style mean for Class C was 5.86

points higher (M=100.86, SD=14.34) than the general population mean determined by

Kirton (1999) which indicated a slightly innovative group. Cognitive style construct

mean scores were likewise higher: sufficiency of originality was 3.59 points higher,

efficiency was 0.61 points higher and rule/group conformity was 1.66 points higher

indicating slightly more innovative students. However, all cognitive style construct mean

scores in Class C was consistent with the total mean score (Kirton). The most adaptive