Table 4-52 (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 .55* -- 16. Self-efficacy .56* .69* -- 17. Test anxiety -.23 -.16 -.38* -- 18. Total Engagement .42* .26* .28* .05 19. Academic Challenge .33* .19 .07 .26* .74* -- 20. Active Learning .38* .26* .40* -.18 .74* .26* -- 21. Faculty Interaction .17 .10 .17 -.05 .67* .17 .40* -- M 33.7 24.2 46.6 20.3 48.3 24.1 12.0 12.2 SD 6.90 3.61 9.04 7.60 7.78 4.35 3.38 3.11 Note. Cases excluded listwise. All constructs coded: higher scores equals increased levels. signifies p<.05 Class E There were 32 usable responses in determining cognitive style gap of Class E. The faculty member instructing Class E had a cognitive style score of 95 which was equivalent to the general population mean defined by Kirton (1999). The total cognitive style gap mean (M=-5.59, SD=14.95) was more than 14 points lower than the threshold of 20 points at which stress between dissimilar cognitive styles becomes apparent (Kirton, 2003). Only nine (28.1%) of the 32 student respondents had a cognitive style gap of 20 points or higher with the faculty member. This course was still worthy of examination as the lowest total cognitive style gap score was 29 points more adaptive