Table 4-46 (continued).

Construct 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
1. Total gap
2. Gap-originality
3. Gap-efficiency
4. Gap-rule
5. Total stress
6. Frustrations
7. Conflicts
8. Pressures
9. Changes
10. Self-imposed
11. Total motivation
12. Intrinsic motivation
13. Extrinsic motivation
14. Task motivation
15. Control of learning -.05
16. Self-efficacy .11 .44* --
17. Test anxiety .24 -.21 -.36* --
18. Total Engagement .31* -.32* -.29* .27* --
19. Academic Challenge .33* -.30* -.24 .24 .79* --
20. Active Learning .20 -.24 -.32* .19 .85* .51* --
21. Faculty Interaction .20 -.22 -.13 .21 .76* .32* .54* --
M 27.2 23.3 48.6 17.9 49.0 25.2 12.0 11.9
SD 7.01 3.57 6.23 6.81 7.37 3.40 2.92 2.93
Note. Cases excluded listwise. All constructs coded: higher scores equals increased
levels. signifies p<.05

 Demographic questions were asked of students regarding age, gender, college

classification and number of classes taken similar to the content of Class A. The variable

student age was found positively associated with total cognitive style gap (r=.31, p<.05)

indicating that younger students were associated with smaller cognitive style gaps.

Student gender was found moderately related with total cognitive style gap (r=-.32,

p<.05), indicating that being female was related to lower total cognitive style gap with the

faculty member. Considering the number of collegiate courses taken related to the subject

area of Class A, a correlation was found with total engagement (r=.39, p<.05), indicating

that more courses relevant to the subject matter of Class A was coupled with higher