207
students with more than a 20-point gap with their respective instructor. Groups were
coded one for students with a 20-point gap or higher and zero for students with less than
a 20-point gap. No significant difference was found (t=-.05, p=.96) in total stress scores
between students with more than a 20-point gap (M=51.76, n=284) and students with less
than a 20-point gap (M=51.82, n=212). The data suggests that there was no significant
difference of stress scores between students with more than a 20-point cognitive style gap
and students with less than a 20-point cognitive style gap.
The same data analysis was conducted to examine differences among students'
level of motivation. A two-tailed independent sample t-test was conducted to examine
motivation score differences between students with more than a 20-point gap and
students with less than a 20-point gap. A significant difference was found (t=-3.13,
p=.00) between motivation scores of students with more than a 20-point gap (M=30.09)
and students with less than a 20-point gap (M=31.20). This indicated that students with
less than a 20-point gap with their respective instructor had on average scored 1.11 points
higher than students with more than a 20-point gap on the MSLQ.
Note that in objective 2, courses taught by innovative instructors (Classes A, B &
C) and adaptive instructors (Classes G, H & I) were found to have students with
significantly lower levels of motivation than students in courses taught by instructors
with a cognitive style score similar to the general population mean (Classes D, E & F).
Were motivation scores lower when students had more than a 20-point gap and taught by
an adaptive instructor or innovative instructor? A two-way ANOVA was conducted to
examine the interaction effect of these two variables. With motivation as the dependent
variables, a significant difference was found (F=3.94, p=.03) for the interaction of