stress scores between students with more than a 20-point gap (M=51.76, n=284) and

students with less than a 20-point gap (M=51.82, n=212).

 The same data analysis was conducted to examine differences among students'

level of motivation. A two-tailed independent sample t-test was conducted to examine

motivation score differences between students with more than a 20-point gap and

students with less than a 20-point gap. A significant difference was found (t=-3.13,

p=.00) between motivation scores of students with more than a 20-point gap (M=30.09)

and students with less than a 20-point gap (M=31.20).

 Realizing that objective 2 findings included the discovery that courses taught by

innovative instructors and adaptive instructors have students with significantly lower

levels of motivation than students in courses taught by instructors with a cognitive style

score similar to the general population mean. A two-way ANOVA was conducted to

examine the interaction effect between cognitive style of the faculty member and

cognitive style gap higher than 20 points on motivation. A significant difference was

found (F=3.94, p=.03) for the interaction of students with more than a 20-point cognitive

style gap and faculty members' cognitive style. The lowest motivation scores were found

in students with a 20-point gap taught by adaptive faculty members (M=29.24), which

compared to a mean score of 31.32 for students enrolled in the same courses with a

cognitive style gap less than 20 points.

 A t-test was conducted to examine differences of total student engagement

between students with less than a 20-point gap with their instructor and students with

more than a 20-point gap with their instructor. No significant difference was found.