than the faculty member and the highest total cognitive gap score was 21 points more

innovative than the faculty member. See Table 4-53 for cognitive style gap findings for

Class E.

Table 4-53. Class E Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=32)
Construct Mean SD Min Max
Total cognitive style gap -5.59 14.95 -29 21
Sufficiency of originality gap -2.00 7.87 -16 15
Efficiency gap -0.94 3.65 -8 8
Rule/Group conformity gap -2.66 7.30 -16 10
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.

 Once calculating the cognitive style gap of Class E, the researcher explored

associations with stress, motivation and engagement using the Pearson correlation

coefficient. First, cognitive style constructs were examined for relationships with total

cognitive style gap. Very high correlations were found between total cognitive style gap

and cognitive style constructs sufficiency of originality gap (r=.91, p<.05) and rule/group

conformity gap (r=.94, p<.05). However, the correlation between efficiency gap and total

cognitive style gap was not significant (r=.24, p<.05). This finding may partially be

explained by examining the differences of gap score means between students and the

faculty member instructing Class E. It may also be partially explained by the low internal

reliability of the efficiency construct.

 There were no significant correlations found among scores of cognitive style gap

and scores of student stress. However, considering motivation, moderate correlations

were found between sufficiency of originality gap and motivation constructs intrinsic

motivation (r=.36, p<.05) and self-efficacy (r=.38, p<.05). These correlations indicated

that more innovative sufficiency of originality gap was associated with higher scores of