Table 4-54 (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 .49* --
16. Self-efficacy .43* .54* --
17. Test anxiety .15 -.20 -.12
18. Total Engagement .20 -.04 -.10 -.02
19. Academic Challenge .17 .12 -.13 -.07 .83* --
20. Active Learning .19 -.14 .08 .32 .59* .33
21. Faculty Interaction .05 -.14 -.11 -.21 .58* .16 .04
M 33.5 23.4 49.5 17.8 48.3 24.5 13.0 10.9
SD 7.15 4.16 6.83 6.56 5.75 3.66 2.04 2.66
Note. Cases excluded listwise. All constructs coded: higher scores equals increased
levels. signifies p<.05

Class F

 For cognitive style gap of Class F, 71 responses were considered usable. The

faculty member instructing Class F had a total cognitive style score of 103, indicating she

was slightly innovative. The total cognitive style gap mean was calculated by subtracting

the faculty member's cognitive style score from each student's cognitive style score. The

mean difference was -12.83 (SD=16.28) indicating that the average student was 12.83

points more adaptive than the faculty member. The most adaptive student had a cognitive

style gap of 48 points lower than the instructor while the most innovative student had a