p=.00). A Bonferroni post-hoc test was conducted to further examine group differences.

Students in the innovative teacher group had total engagement scores (M=51.22)

significantly higher than engagement scores of students enrolled in the middle score

teacher group (M=48.05, p=.00). This finding indicated that students in these classes

taught by innovative faculty members tended to have higher engagement scores.

 See Table 4-44 for a summary of student total mean scores for cognitive style,

stress, motivation and student engagement per class.

Table 4-44. Summary of Classes Regarding Student Cognitive Style, Stress, Motivation
 and Engagement Mean Scores
 Total Total Total
 Cognitive Style Total Stress Motivation Engagement
 Course Mean Mean Mean Mean
 Class A 90.60 52.44 29.31 48.43
 Class B 92.43 55.85 30.65 46.01
 Class C 100.86 54.91 30.86 54.73
 Class D 93.63 52.80 32.42 48.33
 Class E 89.41 42.89 31.20 47.88
 Class F 90.17 49.29 31.25 47.87
 Class G 93.42 51.54 30.01 50.05
 Class H 95.30 50.73 31.05 52.28
 Class I 92.90 49.82 29.86 51.58
 All Classes 93.28 51.35 30.81 49.58


 Objective Three

Determine the cognitive style gap between faculty and students and to explore its
relationship with student stress, student motivation, student engagement and
specific demographic variables of undergraduate students.

 Student and faculty member participants in each class were asked to respond to

the KAI to determine their cognitive style. The faculty member's total cognitive style

score and construct scores were subtracted from students' total cognitive style and

construct scores which provided cognitive style gap scores for each individual student.

Once cognitive style gap scores were calculated between each student and their