All the same, this course was still worthy of examination as the cognitive style score

range included one student who was 39 points more adaptive and one student 41 points

more innovative. Kirton (2003) claims individuals become aware of cognitive style

differences given a 20-point cognitive style gap which results in stress. In Class D, 24

(32.9%) student responses from the 73 usable responses had a cognitive style gap of 20

points or higher with the faculty member. See Table 4-51 for findings concerning Class D

cognitive style gap.

Table 4-51. Class D Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=73)
Construct Mean SD Min Max
Total cognitive style gap -0.37 17.40 -39 41
Sufficiency of originality gap -6.51 8.37 -25 7
Efficiency gap 2.06 5.37 -8 17
Rule/Group conformity gap 4.07 7.98 -11 24
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.

 Cognitive style gap scores were used to find associations with student stress,

motivation and engagement using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Examining

correlations between constructs of cognitive style, total cognitive style correlated with

sufficiency of originality gap (r=.81, p<.05), efficiency gap (r=.61, p<.05), and rule/group

conformity gap (r=.89, p<.05). These correlations indicated that construct measures of

cognitive gap were closely associated with total cognitive style gap measured by the KAI.

However, efficiency gap was not significantly correlated with sufficiency of originality

(r=.16, p>.05) indicating little association. This finding may be explained by the degree

and direction of cognitive style gaps of constructs; the sufficiency of originality cognitive

style gap mean was -6.51 whereas the efficiency gap mean was 2.06 in Class D.

Furthermore, the reliability coefficient for the efficiency construct was below par.