students with a 20-point cognitive style gap and the group effect of faculty members'

cognitive style. A closer examination of group means finds that the lowest motivation

scores were found in students with a 20-point gap taught by adaptive faculty members

(M=29.24). This motivation mean score was 2.07 points lower than students enrolled in

the same courses with a cognitive style gap less than 20 points (M=31.32). The MSLQ

scale has a range of 36 points. Considering students enrolled in courses taught by

innovative faculty members, students with more than a 20-point gap scored less

(M=30.08) than students with less than a 20-point gap (M=30.52), a difference of 0.44

points. In the middle score teaching group, the difference between those with more than a

20-point gap and those with less than a 20-point gap was 0.24. The evidence suggests that

in these classes, students with more than a 20-point gap enrolled in an adaptive course on

average have lower levels of motivation.

 Another t-test was conducted to examine differences of total student engagement

between students with less than a 20-point gap with their instructor and students with

more than a 20-point gap with their instructor. No significant difference was found

(t=1.14, p=.25) between the group with less than a 20-point gap (M=49.11) and the group

with more than a 20-point gap (M=49.91). This finding provided evidence that among

these respondents, students having a 20-point gap with their respective faculty member

did not differ in engagement scores measured by the NSSE.

Summary of Findings for Objective Three

 This study calculated dissimilar cognitive style by subtracting the faculty

member's cognitive style score from each individual student's cognitive style score

which yielded a cognitive style gap. Kirton (2003) stated that individuals become aware

of cognitive style gap above 20 points, at which stress becomes apparent.