276


Discussion for objective three

 As expected, faculty members who were either highly adaptive or highly

innovative had more students with cognitive style gap scores higher than twenty points.

For example, Class E had the least number of students having a cognitive style gap of

more than 20 points (n=9, 28.1%), while Class I had the most students having a cognitive

style gap of more than 20 points (n=55, 91.7%). Naturally, cognitive style gap mean

scores were the most adaptive in Class I (M=-41.10) and the most innovative in Class A

(M=26.60). Note that every class had students with more than a 20-point cognitive style

gap.

 A two-tailed independent sample t-test was conducted to examine if stress scores

differed between students with less than a 20-point cognitive style gap and students with

more than a 20-point cognitive style gap with their respective instructor. No significant

difference was found (t=-.05, p=.96) between the two groups. The data suggests that

students in these classes with a 20-point gap with their faculty member do not have

higher levels of stress, which does not corroborate previous research conducted by Kirton

(2003). This finding is surprising, but there may be two explanations. Kirton claims that

coping outside of one's preferred cognitive style is stressful and can only occur for a

limited intensity and duration. However, college students may walk into a classroom with

full expectations to cope outside of their preferred style as required to get their desired

grade. Also note that these students were attending one of the top universities in Florida,

if not the nation, suggesting higher admission standards and students with higher levels of

intelligence. Kirton (1994) suggests that higher intelligence may attribute to higher levels

of coping behavior. That is, these students have learned to cope and are proficient in

coping outside of their preferred style. Future research should examine if students with a