209


 As expected, faculty members who were either highly adaptive or highly

innovative also had more cognitive style gap scores higher than twenty points with their

students. For example, Class E had the least number of students having a cognitive style

gap of more than 20 points (n=9, 28.1%), while Class I had the most students having a

cognitive style gap of more than 20 points (n=55, 91.7%). Note that every class had

students with more than a 20-point cognitive style gap.

 For all students participating in this study, 295 (57.7%) students had at least a 20

point cognitive style gap score with the faculty member. Considering all participating

students, 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. The total cognitive style gap score mean (M=-6.30) was slightly

adaptive for all students combined. This was reflective of the faculty member cognitive

style mean of 98.78 which was slightly innovative and the students' cognitive style mean

of 93.28 which was slightly adaptive. Note that number of students in each class gives

different amounts of weight to the mean cognitive style gap when accounting for all

students.

 A two-tailed independent sample t-test was conducted to examine if stress scores

differed between students with less than a 20-point cognitive style gap and students with

more than a 20-point cognitive style gap with their respective instructor. No significant

difference was found (t=-.05, p=.96) in total stress scores between students with more

than a 20-point cognitive style gap (M=51.76, n=284) and students with less than a 20-

point cognitive style gap (M=51.82, n=212). The data suggests that students in these