266 motivation score differences. However, the value differences may have little practical significance in the classroom. Nevertheless, the findings indicated that these students on average were less motivated in classes taught by more adaptive faculty members and more innovative faculty members than when taught by faculty members with a cognitive style score approximately at 95; the general population mean (Kirton, 2003). Kirton readily cites increased stress as a result of a large cognitive style gap, but refers to motivation as the affective component of coping behavior necessary to bridge the cognitive style gap when it is required to work with someone who has a different cognitive style. The evidence suggests that in these nine classes, student motivation is inhibited when taught by an adaptive or innovative faculty member, which makes coping behavior seem less likely. Educational practitioners that are highly adaptive or highly innovative should be made aware that they have a different problem solving style than many of their students which may inhibit student motivation. More research is warranted to determine effective coping behaviors that faculty members can implement to increase motivation in students with a different cognitive style. Three student engagement constructs were utilized from the NSSE to determine student engagement of participating students. These constructs included academic challenge, active learning and student-faculty interaction which were summed to provide a total student engagement score. All construct mean scores of student engagement were lower than the national averages for senior college students (Kuh et al., 2001). Although this study used freshman, sophomores and seniors, there was no significant difference in engagement scores in comparing these groups.