Table 4-27. Class F Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs (n=l 15) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total student engagement 47.87 7.81 33 74 Academic challenge 25.86 4.28 14 38 Active learning 11.23 2.98 7 22 Student-faculty interaction 10.77 3.09 6 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 G In Class G (N=110, n=85), the researcher found 65 of the KAI scores acceptable for the purpose of determining students cognitive style. The KAI consists of 32 items and three constructs. It has a theoretical range of 32 to 160 and a mean of 95. Lower scores indicated that an individual was more adaptive while higher scores indicated that an individual was more innovative. The most adaptive student in Class G had a total KAI score of 52, while the most innovative student scored 125. Class G had a total cognitive style mean score of 93.42 (SD=15.04) which was 1.58 points lower than the general population according to Kirton (1999). All construct mean scores of student cognitive style in Class G were less than one point lower than the general population construct means (Kirton). See Table 4-28 for findings of student cognitive style in Class G. Table 4-28. Class G Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=65) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total cognitive style 93.42 15.04 52 125 Sufficiency of originality 40.18 7.67 21 56 Efficiency 18.31 4.76 9 29 Rule/Group conformity 34.92 7.85 16 54 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. Considering student stress for Class G, there were 84 usable responses. Total perceived level of stress was determined with the SSI which used 22 items to form a total