determine the strength and direction of the relationship that cognitive style gap has with

students' stress, motivation and engagement in each class. Chapter 4 provides a complete

listing of all correlations found in this study. Correlations presented in this chapter

include only cognitive style gap associations with student stress, motivation and

engagement; the focus of this study. Objective three conclusions will be discussed after a

brief presentation of the findings.

Class A

 For Class A, the mean cognitive style gap score was 26.60 (SD=18.00, n=58).

Total cognitive style gap was found to have a significant moderate relationship with total

stress (r=.34, p<.05). Efficiency cognitive style gap had moderate correlations with stress

constructs: frustrations (r=.37, p<.05), conflicts (r=.35, p<.05), and pressure (r=.38,

p<.05). Furthermore, rules group/conformity cognitive style gap had moderate

correlations with stress constructs: frustrations (r=.34, p<.05), and changes (r=.33,

p<.05).

 Total cognitive style gap was found to have a significant low relationship with

total motivation (r=-.29, p<.05). Efficiency cognitive style gap scores had moderate

correlations with total motivation (r=-.33, p<.05), extrinsic motivation (r=-.36, p<.05) and

self-efficacy (r=-.44, p<.05). Considering the rule/group conformity cognitive style gap,

moderate correlations were found with total motivation (r=.31, p<.05) and task

motivation (r=-.33, p<.05).

 Total cognitive style gap had a negligible correlation with total engagement

(r=.04, p>.05) signifying little association between the two variables.

 For demographic correlations in Class A, student age was found positively

associated with total cognitive style gap (r=.31, p<.05). Student gender was found