Discussion for objective four

 This study used backward stepwise multiple regression to examine if cognitive

style gap contributed to the explanation of student stress and student motivation.

Considering the explanation of student stress in adaptive courses, Class A provided

evidence that students in these classes with a more innovative cognitive style construct

had increased levels of total stress. The same evidence was found in Class D. Note that

Class D was taught by a middle score faculty member, but scored 94 for total cognitive

style designating him adaptive by one point. For innovative courses, Classes H and I

provided evidence that students in these classes with a more adaptive cognitive style

construct had increased levels of stress. The data suggests that Kirton's (2003) A-I theory

was upheld in Classes A, D, H and I as a cognitive style construct gap did explain some

variance of stress in these four courses.

 Class C was taught by a more adaptive faculty member, but the data suggested

that students having an innovative sufficiency of originality cognitive style gap in this

class have lower stress scores. This finding conflicts with Kirton's A-I theory, but why?

If faculty members teach in their preferred cognitive style, as suggested in the literature

(Dunn & Dunn, 1979; Farthing & Stubbs, 2003; Witkin, 1973), this adaptive faculty

member may provide structure for rewarding innovativeness in her class. Note that this

class was on average the most innovative class (M=100.86) in the study. The mean

cognitive style score of an intact group was termed cognitive style climate by Kirton

(2003). A student may also have a cognitive style gap with the group's cognitive style

climate which also gives rise to coping behavior and stress if the cognitive style climate

is different than the student's preferred cognitive style. Perhaps in Class C, students were

not coping to work with the adaptive faculty member, but were coping to work with the