230


stress scores. This finding conflicts with Kirton's A-I theory as applied in this context.

Classes B, E, F and G found no significant explanation of student stressed based on a

cognitive style gap between the student and the faculty member. The data suggests that in

these four courses, cognitive style gap was not a significant contributor to the explanation

of student stress.

 Considering all students participating in this study, students having an innovative

sufficiency of originality cognitive style gap have higher levels of stress. This makes

sense as the cognitive style for all students on average was slightly adaptive.

 For demographic variables associated with explaining stress, the most frequent

was age. In Classes A, C and I, older students had higher levels of stress. However,

considering all participating students as a group, students having a lower college

classification had higher levels of stress while controlling for number of similar courses

taken.

 Models describing classes that found a cognitive style gap contributing to the

variance of total stress had Adjusted R2 values ranging between .10 and .20, indicating

that 10% to 20% of the variance was explained. Considering all students, only 3% of the

variance was explained. There was evidence that in these courses, cognitive style gap

between the undergraduate student and the faculty member offered some explanation to

student total stress scores.

 For student motivation, Classes A, B, and C each found that students with an

innovative efficiency cognitive style gap had lower total motivation scores. The amount

of variance of student motivation explained in these models ranged from 13% to 19%.