296


was no way to determine the reasons for non-response. For example, students may not

have responded because of higher stress levels provoked by the faculty member teaching

the course. Particularly, non-response error may be higher in Class E given that only 46%

of the students responded. Furthermore, considering the mortality rate of the KAI only

30% of the Class E population was examined in this study. There was no data collected

concerning non-responders; thus non-response error in Class E was a limitation to this

study.

 Whittington (1998) found that faculty members in a college of agriculture

predominately teach at lower level thinking skills. The researcher took great effort in

selecting courses that required the use of problem solving assignments which

encompassed higher level thinking skills. However, this study found that 60.7% (n=432)

had no assignments assigned during a typical week that had taken more than one hour to

complete. This finding indicated that problem solving assignments did exist in these

courses, but not to the extent anticipated by the researcher. If problem solving

assignments that utilize higher level thinking skills are rare in college of agriculture

undergraduate courses (Whittington) there may be limitations to Kirton's A-I theory in

these classrooms. That is, if problem solving learning (Gagne, 1965) was not present in

the classroom, differences in problem solving style may not be a salient cognitive

difference between faculty member and student. This may explain why some classes did

not find cognitive style gap to be a factor of stress, motivation and engagement.

 Another limitation may be that participants were from larger class sizes. Class

size may be a variable to consider in the application of A-I theory to the undergraduate

classroom as smaller classes tend to increase student engagement with the faculty