270


p<.05) and rule/group conformity gap (r=-.31, p<.05). This finding conflicts with

previous research conducted by Kirton (2003).

 Moderate correlations were found between total motivation and total cognitive

style gap (r=-.34, p<.05) and efficiency gap (r=-.30, p<.05). The same was found with

extrinsic motivation when comparing this construct to total cognitive style gap (r=-.34,

p<.05) and rule/group conformity gap (r=-.31, p<.05). Test anxiety was moderately

correlated with total cognitive style gap (r=-.49, p<.05), sufficiency of originality gap

(r=-.47, p<.05) and rule/group conformity gap (r=-.41, p<.05).

 For correlations between cognitive style gap and student engagement, sufficiency

of originality gap was correlated with active learning (r=.31, p<.05).

 Examining correlations among demographics, gender had a moderate negative

correlation with total cognitive style gap (r=-.38, p<.05). Student college classification of

the student was found to significantly correlate with total cognitive style gap (r=.42,

p<.05).

Class D

 For Class D, the total cognitive style gap mean was -0.37 (SD=17.40, n=73). For

correlations between cognitive style gap and stress, a correlation was found between

efficiency gap and self-imposed stress (r=-.36, p<.05). This correlation was not consistent

with previous research conducted by Kirton (2003).

 Only one moderate correlation was found among student scores of cognitive style

gap and motivation; efficiency cognitive style gap was correlated with extrinsic

motivation (r=-.38, p<.05). There were no significant correlations among cognitive style

gap and student engagement in Class D.