engagement. Also, college classification had a moderate association (r=.30, p<.05) with

total student engagement, indicating that a higher class rank was associated with higher

engagement.

Class B

 For cognitive style gap of Class B, there were 46 usable responses. The

instructing faculty member of Class B scored 68 on the KAI providing evidence that his

cognitive style was more adaptive. Cognitive style gap was calculated by subtracting the

faculty member cognitive style score from the student cognitive style score. The reported

mean of total cognitive style gap between the faculty member and the students was 24.43

(SD=15.05) indicating that students on average were 24.43 points more innovative than

the faculty member. A cognitive style gap of 20 points has been identified as the

threshold at which stress becomes apparent to involved individuals (Kirton, 2003). There

were 29 (63.0%) students with a cognitive style gap of 20 points or higher with the

faculty member in Class B. The most adaptive student scored 22 points less than this

adaptive faculty member in determining total cognitive style. The most innovative

student in the class had a 48 point gap in the direction of innovation with the faculty

member. See Table 4-47 for findings of calculated cognitive style gap scores.

Table 4-47. Class B Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=46)
Construct Mean SD Min Max
Total cognitive style gap 24.43 15.05 -22 48
Sufficiency of originality gap 15.39 8.45 -3 34
Efficiency gap -1.59 4.65 -12 9
Rule/Group conformity gap 10.63 6.68 -7 23
Note. Cognitive style gap scores were calculated by subtracting faculty member's KAI
score from individual student's KAI score. Coded: lower score equals more adaptive,
higher score equals more innovative.