Table 4-50 (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 .19
16. Self-efficacy -.02 .29* --
17. Test anxiety .29* .13 -.37* --
18. Total Engagement .41* -.01 .03 .26* --
19. Academic Challenge .56* .16 -.17 .41* .77* --
20. Active Learning .22 -.07 .21 .01 .80* .38* --
21. Faculty Interaction .11 -.16 .09 .12 .76* .30* .56* --
M 30.8 23.2 47.4 20.0 53.4 27.6 13.5 12.3
SD 8.35 3.55 5.32 7.88 8.63 4.35 3.42 3.35
Note. Cases excluded listwise. All constructs coded: higher scores equals increased
levels. signifies p<.05

Class D

 Cognitive style gap was measured by subtracting faculty member's total cognitive

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

in each class. Calculating cognitive style gap for Class D, the researcher found 73 usable

KAI responses. Reported total cognitive style gap mean was approximately zero (M=-

0.37, SD=17.40) indicating that the average student in Class D had little cognitive style

gap with the faculty member. This was expected as the total cognitive style score of the

faculty member was 94, one point less than the general population mean (Kirton, 1999).