(SD=28.19) indicating that on average, students' cognitive style gap in this group of

students was 6.30 points more adaptive then their respective faculty member. The most

adaptive cognitive style gap was 84 points lower than the student's faculty member while

the most innovative cognitive style gap was 61 points higher than the faculty member.

Note that awareness of cognitive style differences between individuals occurs at a 20-

point gap (Kirton, 2003). Of the 511 usable KAI responses from students, 295 (57.7%)

students had at least a 20 point cognitive style gap with the faculty member. See Table 4-

63 for findings relevant to cognitive style gap for all student respondents.

Table 4-63. All Student Class Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=511)
Construct Mean SD Min Max
Total cognitive style gap -6.30 28.19 -84 61
Sufficiency of originality gap -4.09 13.24 -35 34
Efficiency gap 1.35 7.41 -19 18
Rule/Group conformity gap -3.56 12.88 -36 27
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.

 Using calculated student cognitive style gaps, the researcher was able to look for

relationships among student stress, student motivation and student engagement. Pearson's

correlation coefficient was used to find such relationships.

 Among all the students, correlations internal to the measurement of cognitive

style gap were examined for the purpose of determining degree and direction of

relationships. Total cognitive style gap was very highly correlated with sufficiency of

originality gap (r=.90, p<.05) and rule/group conformity gap (r=.94, p<.05). Furthermore,

the correlation between sufficiency of originality gap and rule/group conformity gap was

.80 (p<.05). This indicated a very close association between these two constructs and the

total measure of cognitive style gap. Efficiency gap was substantially correlated with