Table 4-48 (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 .47* --
16. Self-efficacy .34* .76* --
17. Test anxiety -.10 -.27 -.35* --
18. Total Engagement .46* .23 .06 .07
19. Academic Challenge .41* .12 -.06 .32* .74* --
20. Active Learning .26 .02 -.11 -.04 .74* .27
21. Faculty Interaction .32* .36* .29 -.18 .77* .25 .51* --
M 29.3 22.7 43.0 21.6 47.1 22.4 12.3 12.5
SD 8.69 5.44 10.9 8.71 7.01 3.70 2.56 3.14
Note. Cases excluded listwise. All constructs coded: higher scores equals increased
levels. signifies p<.05

Class C

 For determining cognitive style gap, 56 responses were deemed acceptable by the

researcher. The total cognitive style score was 83 for the faculty member instructing

Class C indicating that she was more adaptive. The reported total cognitive style gap

mean of this class was M=17.86 (SD=14.34). To interpret, the average student in Class C

was 17.86 points more innovative than the faculty member. It is also noted that the mean

is just less than 20 points (Kirton, 2003) at which "clearly noticeable differences" (p. 67)

may cause psychological stress. There were 26 (46.4%) students with a cognitive style

gap of 20 points or higher in Class C. The most adaptive student in the class had an 18