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.