259
of typical populations defined by Kirton (1999). Total stress score mean for the class
(M=52.80, SD=13.71, n=101) was 17.29 points lower than the standardized norm mean
of 70.09 points (Gadzella & Baloglu, 2001). However, Class D total student motivation
(M=32.42, SD=3.77, n=102) was 1.96 points higher than the norm mean reported by the
instrument authors (Pintrich et al., 1991). Concerning student engagement of Class D, the
total calculated student engagement mean was 48.33 (SD=7.89, n=108). That value was
15.41 points lower than the national reported mean for college seniors (Kuh et al., 2001).
Class E
For Class E (N=105, n=48), the total cognitive style mean was slightly more
adaptive (M=89.41, SD=14.95, n=32), which was 5.59 points lower than the general
population mean of 95.00 (Kirton, 1999). The total stress mean of Class E was 42.89
(SD=11.28, n=47) which was more than two standard deviations lower than the test
sample used by Gadzella and Baloglu (2001). Considering motivation for Class E, the
total score mean (M=31.20, SD=3.79, n=48) was 0.74 points higher than test sample
mean (Pintrich et al., 1991). The total student engagement mean score was 47.88
(SD=5.50, n=48) which was 15.86 points lower than the national reported college senior
total engagement mean (Kuh et al., 2001). Note that the faculty member instructing Class
E did not encourage student participation by providing extra-credit, as the other eight
faculty members did. The lack of student participation in Class E makes this class more
subject to non-response error. However, no data were collected from non-responders.
Class F
For Class F (N=150, n=115), responding students were slightly adaptive
(M=90.17, SD=16.28 n=71), which was 4.83 points lower than the general population
mean (Kirton, 1999). The total stress score mean of respondents in Class F was 49.29