<%BANNER%>

Dissimilar Cognitive Styles and their Relationships with Undergraduate Student Stress, Motivation, and Engagement

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110209_AAAABY INGEST_TIME 2011-02-09T10:35:03Z PACKAGE UFE0015620_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 8281 DFID F20110209_AAAVBZ ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH friedel_c_Page_048thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
6bfe9069c6517eaf2f42189fb624ca7a
SHA-1
2d3dcebe32737fd4f0de2fb40155d57596917de7
25957 F20110209_AAAUXJ friedel_c_Page_199.QC.jpg
058cba911e8fdb500263a2f3ab569f60
1577ce68df11a2bfa2f4311d52b4d76ea1de6422
2285 F20110209_AAATNF friedel_c_Page_149.txt
0b19151bca4f0033fe30728c7c978e59
6c1ad9482146263a5dca4011c3e1eeb344927e86
47471 F20110209_AAARTS friedel_c_Page_302.pro
1503e14588cab98c44bd3572a533efb4
2b817e9bd4c674325211017c4bb03122a3709084
8423998 F20110209_AAASQM friedel_c_Page_129.tif
3456576e47521be48dd2ad177166b40f
f24c69253e646b73ce636886da822e04c1e16e29
16537 F20110209_AAAUXK friedel_c_Page_200.QC.jpg
09aa97a71c6be1bcb3b2712a34d69ec2
704e533ea88783d4e3c7f6148462842358eed6c0
2081 F20110209_AAATNG friedel_c_Page_151.txt
a65f69d601c90922b2e70f975fb14a7b
86f1510cbae5962f4669800f93eb7c4a934c7ebe
31011 F20110209_AAASDB friedel_c_Page_166.QC.jpg
4bca6c0b639d2982e7b5088c3aa07e3c
e1ce33f398689bf792e0741f7d5229dfaf6b28c7
94445 F20110209_AAARTT friedel_c_Page_239.jpg
2112aef0c38a3913ea3cc36efec435d1
4f8e24e350792d78ef6927b40e13c01d72a40aa1
1050787 F20110209_AAASQN friedel_c_Page_278.jp2
6aa198a13419a96d2ebaa39e14834b70
294f504bd38e2b720253a22857e093575834c176
23701 F20110209_AAAUXL friedel_c_Page_201.QC.jpg
ac78da8878911e77ecd1856802d122c1
3ddd63468b5ce8369c4740c660d8c66c532cd2fe
1051968 F20110209_AAAUKA friedel_c_Page_061.jp2
4e8d0c5d8ad88a604848f705859d1587
e6eaadbca89df75a2776cc90f11e86715833ec8d
2282 F20110209_AAATNH friedel_c_Page_152.txt
70e5cf244ff7c58fed3542a07f9710e4
b91f8fe5fafa1224b69c9f63bb1778a576b02379
641579 F20110209_AAASDC friedel_c_Page_328.jp2
fbe61e6606c30ba3bb5042ae27805f07
c41558b1cdd03c0ef27f5a480d17f8f48f272354
7338 F20110209_AAARTU friedel_c_Page_263thm.jpg
0cae90deada7c1bcc8e9bb36d36ef551
6ff1b318359141742a6869dbb17b2518ba94bd46
32787 F20110209_AAAUXM friedel_c_Page_202.QC.jpg
12704f66c762a99ba38c18a1d361a4b1
60d9964d9911d516bbc89539b68ba0588e1faafe
F20110209_AAAUKB friedel_c_Page_062.jp2
02e742099ea8699abaece3013f3190ce
0b78fffa4b8cee8f8abb834d40547dab3eb471cf
2340 F20110209_AAATNI friedel_c_Page_153.txt
84b30b6e2def05b9c8542f12e790946c
75cb5d727af28c96619acb391c319d95bd7248b9
1051928 F20110209_AAASDD friedel_c_Page_106.jp2
39710120f96758cf9b5e259e2ceceeb5
f1d2acb65a33609c5605c5bc21d8e3117fd22d85
1769 F20110209_AAARTV friedel_c_Page_222.txt
49c30e73c4b8c32915d402988afdd90f
1dad0923e43793f4e9eb24a3621f427aacb4f5cd
101508 F20110209_AAASQO friedel_c_Page_151.jpg
698f1941338d557b936e44b4b927bb1e
77935226ff11b5149a95d3440e4fb3a89d3ee1d2
31470 F20110209_AAAUXN friedel_c_Page_203.QC.jpg
c443474b145dba87ee4deb6345018f90
d0a25c5539c01ea11f1ebfd33154d92fd84030fa
1051962 F20110209_AAAUKC friedel_c_Page_063.jp2
d1dfd5d8113f1e5e52b5b06cb36859af
76cdb2be8cdfa241067c52255f43baf197764687
2401 F20110209_AAATNJ friedel_c_Page_154.txt
ade57da29425d0be3dbfedb53c057359
ed81aac4a7c9074c3cdc1330614583e35ba08580
1990 F20110209_AAASDE friedel_c_Page_283.txt
ea7e915bbe9a0f23e4e35b023331e0e0
d474c11289d8d468514cda694093b20915ee0dd7
30905 F20110209_AAARTW friedel_c_Page_333.QC.jpg
d49074a9d4c60c8eadc5732071d3bedd
502699c821df0e3305e45818640a8ead135ef2b8
1925 F20110209_AAASQP friedel_c_Page_229.txt
adfa9399a65c950caa634ebe552304b8
2a33d48b2ade7e8dd5a6f4fc9017a6609964f2ed
32123 F20110209_AAAUXO friedel_c_Page_205.QC.jpg
dc4ce976f92a212fa60ac0d7506903d4
07fcbcfb41480339bf6eab4105c64dda1bd57b45
1047719 F20110209_AAAUKD friedel_c_Page_067.jp2
ba2ea145eaa415efe193fbb4001c507d
45924d291aae2e57bb249c7dc6cd878552ec5fc5
1051953 F20110209_AAASDF friedel_c_Page_151.jp2
6cceb4cdc36c871a1c27c08301f188d2
efe8f8711fe29404e8df2bcb653c5b873a03ceb4
42712 F20110209_AAARTX friedel_c_Page_270.pro
16b49440aef127fd43dcff315a7a1e1a
74ec6c763ac0ff902138bb97d7b39fb03f7157f6
3036 F20110209_AAASQQ friedel_c_Page_014.txt
4331e0ad592040dc3914ef281214c39e
8582f2c3d066181ba12050cbabec8133c94d0640
16433 F20110209_AAAUXP friedel_c_Page_206.QC.jpg
63b5dab053eb8b8609fa5a3bb5f4fbd8
955c863347a1c12f87e42f3ae249b4383907a852
1051971 F20110209_AAAUKE friedel_c_Page_069.jp2
7f3fc55efaf832aa64c9cf012ff2d399
5b378e5ba584a45c925fe0c30a325ed34ced1378
2201 F20110209_AAATNK friedel_c_Page_155.txt
479cb1eb0b3b3e18360d8a688679bb9c
484657ea9b9a2037731efa44c86588e680acf349
1037628 F20110209_AAASDG friedel_c_Page_275.jp2
fefff9db4b92ab60e02c83e4f788cc34
1fa32382c866a7a04dea68c9da234d04aea91b36
1051954 F20110209_AAARTY friedel_c_Page_066.jp2
28075b9281b73923f98e21e5b6ee9bdb
6a234dbe183406218a477cc54fa12272f67316d3
1897 F20110209_AAASQR friedel_c_Page_172.txt
cfcfdd239b137da97a76d87214b0024d
49e9d7dd221dfb19bb4fc486ac751d53b30f690b
24566 F20110209_AAAUXQ friedel_c_Page_207.QC.jpg
0c6843298ce36861022f2304c5fe52af
24d6d96462ae47f97ad5e8bbf54a9bf7c78e90c2
1051959 F20110209_AAAUKF friedel_c_Page_071.jp2
b7f01d19000beebad30feba6f16b974c
615aebd4abdbff9768fbd178767cefddbe4031c9
2398 F20110209_AAATNL friedel_c_Page_157.txt
e39b3f6f8ce7702344c4daf9ff9afc03
02425324a58194003388b24ebbf19669ed2ac4e6
32126 F20110209_AAASDH friedel_c_Page_310.QC.jpg
2c5213017472dc525738e9021c29c6ca
3aeb1dbbea62d21f1368d5f0e842d884886e3b0e
F20110209_AAARTZ friedel_c_Page_257.tif
ec3ebab888f6d875bfbe57162063d0e3
6d2e6e5fe3ba45709fd50266ce4612fc3253f869
32736 F20110209_AAATAA friedel_c_Page_065.QC.jpg
0a29551119338b57e06ddc2c02e78d09
376f870f810b534c2b53dee03a1a82e299691f19
98249 F20110209_AAASQS friedel_c_Page_238.jpg
d3c064cbaf452a3a815991fa86e7634e
b716fa2b9db2f0e8b5eb4c910a0aab39e1532920
19016 F20110209_AAAUXR friedel_c_Page_211.QC.jpg
058714cfcf29e92b57d8587f53763f6c
2577789010dd998f94e74e650448554ea445114a
2496 F20110209_AAATNM friedel_c_Page_158.txt
4bd4a9c39577085daf4dbd8564a83ca7
b4926fe5b46e3f48caccd6861b3416d82eebc4d8
99630 F20110209_AAASDI friedel_c_Page_232.jpg
5a9b8cf28d6eacf42ad99e038346e4b2
038f1905075fb9bc4f6fa3e6d70f53a04d64d499
50146 F20110209_AAATAB friedel_c_Page_068.pro
ff82cdb9154fc864d90f04a929904db5
d22678785c2a5fc8212c97d09a52aa69d24142be
F20110209_AAASQT friedel_c_Page_241.tif
c1dd993226c0eb319ff23301cf563a92
09def434ff8b14cbafd79f6fa319c4d2a422160a
8409 F20110209_AAAVHA friedel_c_Page_282thm.jpg
303b6ccb87134a6c5ae34fd44635d8c0
243b41c7f80d03f872e4ca8be422383bae05dc11
16592 F20110209_AAAUXS friedel_c_Page_212.QC.jpg
e9565af5e0a5649025440a0059b10496
5a71d021070bf5d61f6a1980f92e4482a088e4a3
1051982 F20110209_AAAUKG friedel_c_Page_072.jp2
5b02f307d1587993370880f74bd1c073
d3bf534dd58d8d6b0ce0d699dced1ca9287a6931
2035 F20110209_AAATNN friedel_c_Page_159.txt
53d59e232fc8d4cdf0e2f3ccf6449aa2
e7b4bf517f50a670d4c7494246d99d581411d0ba
101445 F20110209_AAASDJ friedel_c_Page_073.jpg
7d1e919879a91ffca9f22efddf32243f
cd1899c79556455993b370a5847d700528bd54ac
357 F20110209_AAATAC friedel_c_Page_321.txt
14a451651839fecec8b872d562338164
210f9e1c699c76b3429f4e3ff3000fd83bd5e7ea
9057 F20110209_AAASQU friedel_c_Page_035thm.jpg
3615cbebf45c5fb98e88af72e5b01822
68a395f5ef5483e687c3fd8439c724f58d453256
8255 F20110209_AAAVHB friedel_c_Page_283thm.jpg
3052c5015892bca49fff5866ec8873e8
e8abcd4cc1e96d9da56b2ca29c825a9aa50b49af
1051984 F20110209_AAAUKH friedel_c_Page_073.jp2
0a9316f9b84f1ffe69625f56d21587d8
4e9f37b05a47c7711ab48e2d570a1b4b5b3279c9
1957 F20110209_AAATNO friedel_c_Page_160.txt
737ba2c35c18eef5360137f300024615
d6f1754fae152fe07eb54f48bf0cca4680f99e4d
56888 F20110209_AAASDK friedel_c_Page_046.pro
e1918e9dc6c3ec8262a64cf23f4d8542
56e508b3280baf2688889823eaa7d0f715a9da2f
31887 F20110209_AAATAD friedel_c_Page_039.QC.jpg
2b094147d538e1ef5bbf609f4e496872
b9288e1b831887fd6ccebdce3ee2d7184912f973
29680 F20110209_AAASQV friedel_c_Page_268.QC.jpg
e5788951a1589dbbcbab699123308ee9
14ca685bd7451275dae019be90dbaa34e9a34664
24995 F20110209_AAAUXT friedel_c_Page_213.QC.jpg
8936008960a4694cc28996a589d41679
e46a307b70365d657664b861f00f350a57cbcb5e
1051970 F20110209_AAAUKI friedel_c_Page_078.jp2
451f1b3360c42a28a74e6f3dfb28e40b
7bf2e92506b7b5ea89b89da8d38f29cbd539c42b
110465 F20110209_AAASDL friedel_c_Page_139.jpg
e7a8558e8ade0c0f86b8a939098379e2
db9b11b44ecfd5897d467f948abb2ce8b586aa66
47531 F20110209_AAATAE friedel_c_Page_144.pro
e2cd5235d9324398d33cb0ad39268cd1
69fcebfb04f315b4d169bda2a58c4764aecb2f29
60031 F20110209_AAASQW friedel_c_Page_133.pro
f57286da8f845d28edcf5db6be0b5197
6931441c0c3de27c4757383935d494325e631502
1886 F20110209_AAATNP friedel_c_Page_163.txt
af4e1ef425fcdd976a5da3924eb93162
3ed4db331ce5d24c5d5f37b08dbddd269237fd2b
7984 F20110209_AAAVHC friedel_c_Page_284thm.jpg
608e9d621c2224663540b5f21a73397c
3759d7412fd9720d5b8d6d898aa3131073f439b0
34540 F20110209_AAAUXU friedel_c_Page_214.QC.jpg
3a30d56cf0eac026ec8b14145639f7b0
eed1a9ee9b1c87482cea802076c9e4cc25df9b4c
F20110209_AAAUKJ friedel_c_Page_079.jp2
ba30d7fc119979a13f77d28aaf55cc09
e1f4c4e8fe5bb009bcde03b7da19df278011b1f9
31122 F20110209_AAASDM friedel_c_Page_334.QC.jpg
5b39c4317780c8f43e55500b8bf4eb89
96376b4fc8adb49d12ca8ccba8ffe9be6f272a96
F20110209_AAATAF friedel_c_Page_233.tif
55ff9666512ac8b5dc45cb23896a97f1
cfd1004e66f11bd10b62a8d32cb00266421ba2d0
8324 F20110209_AAASQX friedel_c_Page_226thm.jpg
d1af12696e27bb40c11287560344be35
7cc83d72b78af9149734e690a46d28a43c25387c
1935 F20110209_AAATNQ friedel_c_Page_164.txt
54acf8e49cdaca729adb9d3228538e26
2049890804c0ef42ae1beb9bce7998663dd8f3c9
8546 F20110209_AAAVHD friedel_c_Page_285thm.jpg
42549c14952a0b5d2f15e510ac255304
c68b7ee4fd340f902b172cbda3eb69de8b2e990b
34149 F20110209_AAAUXV friedel_c_Page_215.QC.jpg
a1f46394b22c239ee68ade90a53f1bf4
40c61499ae14b73c96bf2f46aa0441f94ee36e5b
1051937 F20110209_AAAUKK friedel_c_Page_080.jp2
0522693001aacd281f898e1d8fa9e9fd
06e78373a78d430b542562ce791658bd60e79acf
31057 F20110209_AAASDN friedel_c_Page_163.QC.jpg
5fc250a30000144b0749f5c10a156a03
1b7093dddef2183e09e5b025871f2cf96ca16426
4238 F20110209_AAATAG friedel_c_Page_010.QC.jpg
13db222bc7821e93698f00bfeb4da7a3
1d11131ae63fce188a0e939894c5e17be0f3151e
1733 F20110209_AAASQY friedel_c_Page_185.txt
b39546f80bafbae19d7e2c869cbaca7a
11773c28a20a10ebe24617970353f946dd30525b
2302 F20110209_AAATNR friedel_c_Page_167.txt
eac055b01d11ec9a38b6874c9468141f
68d517378de161cfda4b028a7566413e47d866a8
7972 F20110209_AAAVHE friedel_c_Page_287thm.jpg
af317bd2268b81b1376a2fa9b0f7f122
cd7954698d1014e21681b0546e033a59e8f07f33
31462 F20110209_AAAUXW friedel_c_Page_220.QC.jpg
853aa2d1a48bda58bdc834bdc041e375
a7e7fa8bc0141e8e75a007a3246b5e2375c41198
345794 F20110209_AAAUKL friedel_c_Page_081.jp2
5c80051dbfe7eb274a8c5689c5c1fbbe
9155d64b5c8f832acfef284ae816a8fde58a265b
1051972 F20110209_AAASDO friedel_c_Page_260.jp2
4766687cf8767df5cb841c9b2e2b1b42
33fe8fa804a97b71c8f35788d574548003c20e95
96144 F20110209_AAATAH friedel_c_Page_169.jpg
beaec01bf61446d16c9a8ece72a33530
33675aefb1327a0d4a359503a60ae3e5935ce301
F20110209_AAASQZ friedel_c_Page_115.tif
7e01a7df3c12f2eaddb6b2de40319e54
042221b09e0046bd0b9b2903a780ab0e7cc09c9a
1944 F20110209_AAATNS friedel_c_Page_168.txt
c6c5b29dbff1e9759cca60ea4b51f107
8702d90e054e50fbe9991654f72fa359ad10acd3
7407 F20110209_AAAVHF friedel_c_Page_288thm.jpg
ae03824f4ea965a2e550ea8842e8e118
97e9e16f12e1b54da6a756e89b5f5c1c8edd0e62
28679 F20110209_AAAUXX friedel_c_Page_221.QC.jpg
5aa3d7f9868d138520e4d9628158e353
28dcd8f789d54fb055379e40caca2e8d345ff0af
985230 F20110209_AAAUKM friedel_c_Page_082.jp2
a57680f1039db44da6e829f4ae50bf34
a2371fc6ad884d072ddcf0b43c3daf7ef44bbf8a
F20110209_AAASDP friedel_c_Page_041.tif
de5dcf7bbaae26821811338aa80feb6c
33c7a61edf6c64df931db2b332af91b7d6937b2f
32902 F20110209_AAATAI friedel_c_Page_038.QC.jpg
23a5d247a9f5bfcddb85c3a306efc19a
129e32ddff79d27a8e00335594fe626faef3e840
1596 F20110209_AAATNT friedel_c_Page_170.txt
9ef8772f43564b93f462456fb2002f88
4f590afae836466447e09d12a00f1225f38e466b
8275 F20110209_AAAVHG friedel_c_Page_292thm.jpg
a89eb59a6551071c51a68be0254f25f1
01a0ec895da0b1e91a4ab4c124e7b79d5eec7851
34530 F20110209_AAAUXY friedel_c_Page_226.QC.jpg
0535a043cb2d68eb0343cf105878a63b
0b7df28efcf229ff9081b46acf779259fe6e59f4
1051979 F20110209_AAAUKN friedel_c_Page_083.jp2
7d5a23b7d12cc3372a584a12830775bc
81475d18862b4c69143d209c0891c93d415a19bc
F20110209_AAARZA friedel_c_Page_311.jp2
8f2a32a52e30b49325462de4791f7407
238401d562f9283f0792cb95b6d9cef5a3124f48
50523 F20110209_AAASDQ friedel_c_Page_246.pro
7527e7d11b82f76ac2913642ab9244eb
a26fbb4eac0db6770536d9abe1c274d3f2771f49
1780 F20110209_AAATAJ friedel_c_Page_004.txt
e83e54b19bde74b82020cae8b5e196f8
b27b52dc38fec0ae83640af86ad794e6380b32d9
2437 F20110209_AAATNU friedel_c_Page_171.txt
d23f7ce43cfee5732099f5cd26c154d3
f4cf24432c0e52770ac776032f11ec4055a10107
7623 F20110209_AAAVHH friedel_c_Page_293thm.jpg
98abfff5d80b2971aab564c7efc605cd
68e7e05c73ad0f9952da7b8b7c7c436bc02d6724
30996 F20110209_AAAUXZ friedel_c_Page_227.QC.jpg
3ae73563dfdad5b3d2ac2e02f1774de6
468cfcf8ec7ad9476f15af2d9b50857f204e5ea1
1051949 F20110209_AAAUKO friedel_c_Page_085.jp2
f222504994b41fa7cf460457c025e431
929bfb6e7dc0a3549324b64a4f63ba106285ca74
2219 F20110209_AAARZB friedel_c_Page_137.txt
ebe4eccf1024d5f1496f970e500ab762
7679566a044cb23835d7938c0b61af4382ebe9d0
1051921 F20110209_AAASDR friedel_c_Page_187.jp2
d8a42886ccc1b5595e4ea0432629bc74
a29de76c480cbf23be86054f4ba1a3558f5d741e
2057 F20110209_AAATAK friedel_c_Page_061.txt
68fe18ec7d8d0c94a0c40626a50dd583
80e2e7b10d392d459f82886f7348aefbeec0452a
2055 F20110209_AAATNV friedel_c_Page_173.txt
e8453d2556dcf51fdc6bd89782cf1c3f
c41ce641e9a61f3ee1a7ddabb473132e6878e038
8489 F20110209_AAAVHI friedel_c_Page_294thm.jpg
9cf151384f73aebc17a8ba6672c62fb2
1e00893d480be6b6c963cb07c525ca2324dc0e59
1039040 F20110209_AAAUKP friedel_c_Page_086.jp2
0e5d5efbac0f53c03d8cc2a9a3d83e09
36d030b637a6cb5267111841cf903707d5809d63
33503 F20110209_AAARZC friedel_c_Page_304.QC.jpg
5aa3074c6c00b275d0ddaf1e8040dd84
ad2f6c7fd30e11f87790dd6a437080bfc26dca7f
48675 F20110209_AAASDS friedel_c_Page_109.pro
8091abd4f56e34f0330ac574c810ff2f
8d2bb6b21af8059b94337a5fcca41d8ccb17d6c7
1051934 F20110209_AAATAL friedel_c_Page_155.jp2
f22703934ea626a2432b5b675a52ae23
b06dedae1ea6e0fa91383fcae6fd4195e39eb8c9
1898 F20110209_AAATNW friedel_c_Page_174.txt
3baa00bc5197e7ca52bc95e0caa8de9a
02062131346b77501069fb293d1d4d6930d1a8af
8420 F20110209_AAAVHJ friedel_c_Page_295thm.jpg
7b396860c0bc8717ee66756827c62b16
c7e0402706cc93340f5f04e12d8e7fd41e737b26
1049432 F20110209_AAAUKQ friedel_c_Page_088.jp2
15fd7b57be74ec9d05bc02da142207f4
7487262245c044ca0692be5cb69c3d5b9fd27c25
34071 F20110209_AAARZD friedel_c_Page_147.QC.jpg
ec7bcf714361c2e9ea5fd84871b6a901
f387150e16360146fcdff69d2354119894f4b941
1984 F20110209_AAASDT friedel_c_Page_055.txt
5a3e0f19cc70864a7c987f3a272ee7f5
f49736878e40f2b73447e354bf0ce4d9d38ce9d3
F20110209_AAATAM friedel_c_Page_174.tif
7e3bdfd28ddba5f4ebb7f5573d1525cc
38171cfb47df2de5e59f236ce8fa3b4260e5fc86
1998 F20110209_AAATNX friedel_c_Page_175.txt
2586735ddbb7e6cff52693dd05f8d2fb
037157f721fce5eeea2e311b824da470ab337c9d
8221 F20110209_AAAVHK friedel_c_Page_296thm.jpg
05ad47044598326bf19381014208269c
46bef170bfc02b80aa4490338c8b2f5923bf5a0f
964428 F20110209_AAAUKR friedel_c_Page_089.jp2
033995022c66aae4dc7c8e3a6b60278d
5273cf6fd5ccf5d84c7ee7370ea62680de43f150
F20110209_AAARZE friedel_c_Page_029.jp2
263311c24430415a054a63405708ce88
a3966b226955bbbdd0daefdaec535734ac8fb0a0
F20110209_AAASDU friedel_c_Page_066.tif
14180f1999d5d7b840c98130254bd772
4e5cd4e70ee17f3480bb28c46e0e66c21cc640ca
51051 F20110209_AAATAN friedel_c_Page_050.pro
1b7a4baef60e0715fbd65bbedad4ccab
f8387aea8bcb8ee3080667ed4ed7c28e3ede0e01
1931 F20110209_AAATNY friedel_c_Page_176.txt
312e6ab94c1cf48a417c68013f38f517
3d1a710071ad37660a5b30abb190b76aeac474be
7522 F20110209_AAAVHL friedel_c_Page_298thm.jpg
88a044e562003b14d609cf93f7d74879
65ca412fec647c78d5a771df8cec6df2d710e2da
1051975 F20110209_AAAUKS friedel_c_Page_090.jp2
3b6842d5504165343e1d373eab54792c
bca12b87c6dfbccb26a8d1a3a00f5d76b7c41726
8425398 F20110209_AAARZF friedel_c_Page_217.tif
2d869d4fa644a7c8d5039a0bd2dfa9c9
f68d3ad77e6c2e6eac025e4f9aac653a1be90361
5408 F20110209_AAASDV friedel_c_Page_322thm.jpg
ec28bb904a5ba26057a892f9ee982f66
1da7a14195a6f8558e9854a5e5d87c3535cc3802
20118 F20110209_AAATAO friedel_c_Page_009.QC.jpg
fc13b67c263a814e2f5e53c4320fcc30
d114efcdcd02f747ca8e308386f30974b2585827
1124 F20110209_AAATNZ friedel_c_Page_177.txt
181cdf24922e67e14ae70c41b387f816
8a56252d98965c69d782ef516ab7d6f8b8e4f331
7106 F20110209_AAAVHM friedel_c_Page_299thm.jpg
7bdca0797497318de0c60600541ff208
a0c5612c996b3293ab083a1a226dbbb2c329b891
1051974 F20110209_AAAUKT friedel_c_Page_092.jp2
e44d4af2627d2f2ac37b70a60eb24455
ae76593adb990a5cc378dce8cbd0c023d219821c
2126 F20110209_AAARZG friedel_c_Page_234.txt
06cb788070829d0f24b36a4bb4afcd8e
3b085004b5280cd3610c89ea36d2be10bed313f7
F20110209_AAASDW friedel_c_Page_170.tif
bc15479158755148ad0ce786f1737855
e56d9aef4e1f29e707f07e0fb0dee18f0bbfd96d
2957 F20110209_AAATAP friedel_c_Page_317.txt
e382172e78474c8d2528afe05340b5e7
22b9deab48055af18bc54ed8e885c6493e201c7e
7975 F20110209_AAAVHN friedel_c_Page_302thm.jpg
7104a38dafffa3b68af686035873d16b
6725ca98a1a2cf77a5201e728f46489e785928a9
F20110209_AAAUKU friedel_c_Page_093.jp2
7c40223678c609a598cc2527a1bef04e
b5f10616b1cf383f8fa60dfedffe6f64fdf6ba76
5671 F20110209_AAARZH friedel_c_Page_328thm.jpg
11ec93556c243f53fb52f595f10d37d1
564e7f9eb3631d3937aced7ee5accf2285415293
1051926 F20110209_AAASDX friedel_c_Page_119.jp2
4c3a5c02c7c378639a9f103874ca59f5
ec7ea9a872cd6c7d3d194142c62e7d8c9146609c
31264 F20110209_AAASWA friedel_c_Page_230.QC.jpg
5876a46fa44e37f6086e380811bba6ba
c245b7e646a5c0564b7669b935b828197f7f226f
8473 F20110209_AAATAQ friedel_c_Page_228thm.jpg
2517eda215e2dbec21640a16aedf6ccb
eb89fdf68b842ef5391499d663912129bdab097a
8192 F20110209_AAAVHO friedel_c_Page_303thm.jpg
6db198107c581d0039b110c5fa3c5cb7
279ba93884b621808b7e049df82e18fe973a8424
1051909 F20110209_AAAUKV friedel_c_Page_094.jp2
0bb0520580e27cae7cd4261c35b6db53
b2c0aa0fbe66286e5e683a51d9ea4a5749e46d95
F20110209_AAARZI friedel_c_Page_256.tif
093181b50e664332c24d5702f23b924f
2410f8756ab8a86f9926804dfd4cf7f9893d1a9b
F20110209_AAASDY friedel_c_Page_063.tif
9db8db57247c901ad5fa94342563d710
acb5fb94920fb8342f40344e351cf20992e221ae
5004 F20110209_AAASWB friedel_c_Page_002.jpg
9d1f310e05049535e2f9c58d491d7338
e3068c68d63b571e803dc8975394d361bc8255c0
102716 F20110209_AAATAR friedel_c_Page_267.jpg
1e170fd0778761fa68623e72080164d4
9f00145da15eaf100518ea6005b8e035ff8552d6
8381 F20110209_AAAVHP friedel_c_Page_305thm.jpg
692d73dc645f9527247a288bd9eccf42
0686b0f03bf8a4709ac6c772749c167a5d89751e
1051960 F20110209_AAAUKW friedel_c_Page_097.jp2
9414c60ceb194c27b6041ef48ede81b1
e42519ac458669b9b455ab7c9ac081ca05913b7a
98878 F20110209_AAARZJ friedel_c_Page_096.jpg
9d584f05261aff5c234b49f43537eddd
d68f5cd59411703624eb114455b5895fea4e42ce
1051983 F20110209_AAASDZ friedel_c_Page_165.jp2
5bf22c27c2ba898995b7f22146fe16b4
e2fa0d03a59004a096bc660aaefdaada9ab5bc18
33336 F20110209_AAASWC friedel_c_Page_337.QC.jpg
d76d732470fe2f0e0adb7e53ed81db20
358880cc3009cc834190af78cbc3190ec5fcac6d
30662 F20110209_AAATAS friedel_c_Page_229.QC.jpg
484ae8f6ead890b7b5b1ad3631d88d11
0a9b26325d3936d3d56bccb15f672dcfb83e883f
7431 F20110209_AAAVHQ friedel_c_Page_308thm.jpg
e46aab534b6d9de146887b86cc6a5eb5
6cb7237e0bae710cec741cf23b013df66c8aa0ae
1051981 F20110209_AAAUKX friedel_c_Page_098.jp2
2ded7a5271784e5539341ddb1cca9f47
64a397caeebd06ec8eb92acfebe56e1007c4829a
F20110209_AAARZK friedel_c_Page_091.tif
99624b86bbec6c24d53dfab6bbbbd592
d88cc8dc862bf3234d93c9be91b75d0112692a4a
42947 F20110209_AAASWD friedel_c_Page_041.pro
c487f0ac937059b85670d5ebff664b0c
912e1194561cb8a784ce1e716968d58889e0c06d
51481 F20110209_AAATAT friedel_c_Page_225.pro
052ffc113fd064a37e47b921b05aaf27
bd87940f38630d2aa94dd80edda21e9bd5873497
7540 F20110209_AAAVHR friedel_c_Page_309thm.jpg
1523541bb2bc6bbd95af11ba57da1e6a
31ff38c6ab0db7f6d5d2a9f393beb4d9f59a6e8b
519771 F20110209_AAAUKY friedel_c_Page_100.jp2
cc5d5171d08cfcad1f46e6ca68e7ec9b
3f98c9764b5841bad8e3a698dc69d3979693ac29
94186 F20110209_AAARZL friedel_c_Page_259.jpg
4a28d742a91b938918bceb3c37b42a1d
98ff0cb45e2f43dfd095a2e02e16b91e495d9cd2
126585 F20110209_AAASWE friedel_c_Page_010.jp2
a586298f2f3d6fe9895f566203620bbb
d6bf1b84a444236bf0e62e84b415f2f0aa4c7176
F20110209_AAATAU friedel_c_Page_110.jp2
659dfbe29b6fc8e48775f4057fa8df0a
e9edf47a17a94f972e3999e85f3898b056791d90
7901 F20110209_AAAVHS friedel_c_Page_310thm.jpg
b5843dc231a8b84922e8d0adcf1ae810
36c96b9f414e34b339f3e5a72cba596d29a8ea7f
1006903 F20110209_AAAUKZ friedel_c_Page_101.jp2
fa6e2130862eacc4b24f43b9be6d6a46
ff4a47bd53970f637c43104947c337e87c2ac668
52279 F20110209_AAARZM friedel_c_Page_057.pro
e2ebc9aa1e01b67c648eeda03aa58e8a
9da2d84ece9066413c83024afb2afbd743c20cb8
F20110209_AAASWF friedel_c_Page_075.tif
4a96b16d741621c08cf45d1b36a9d31b
5ebdb8aaba18f573a684f1b0ae744195ffcf90e1
8509 F20110209_AAATAV friedel_c_Page_304thm.jpg
d47da38aaafbb8ab5d23a5d6daede64c
fcdf1eccdab8c13b14d1754aab577165286f3c8a
8477 F20110209_AAAVHT friedel_c_Page_313thm.jpg
41191c3dbb1c01865a57a88be5a61a1a
d207c546424c1d19958131c3f3d9573178367352
110562 F20110209_AAARZN friedel_c_Page_129.jpg
bfd667ec2952e2803ae29ad3b862ac4e
fe85557fbd46ff13b3960ea7ba00e3d46c28fce3
1036768 F20110209_AAASWG friedel_c_Page_113.jp2
0a78f11bd456b90438f1158159ec6a9e
1c0a5cfd41c08739abde7f9960820623f01edcad
1051950 F20110209_AAATAW friedel_c_Page_108.jp2
7d14f8e765a928f4ac26741b3d34ba18
5fd2f4eb2aba064b4899fa4d8a00bc97d0c21755
8110 F20110209_AAAVHU friedel_c_Page_314thm.jpg
b9c1db3a6bcc9d50544a672541ce3dd7
57e149fe787239d32a128da1cc477c77313c458d
32281 F20110209_AAARZO friedel_c_Page_181.QC.jpg
c8042b8bb23eec44c94d963be938a049
2ed6b69225c2768b6b62cdb47035a2dd15efec42
46487 F20110209_AAASWH friedel_c_Page_080.pro
e556347dd8cd4c3e954157dd51faa6a1
19dcbf163f0cabd92ae66ed2ae7cc608fbb7a5a3
1863 F20110209_AAATAX friedel_c_Page_278.txt
ef3b52ad2f1de7c9525046563f4ee9c5
33d81633b94462d6073403884f0d877119eff9e9
49681 F20110209_AAATTA friedel_c_Page_056.pro
676aa8c6bc99e729469398caecd8c8c4
b088cd5759c4a0440defd26502e43783e152ffad
8253 F20110209_AAAVHV friedel_c_Page_315thm.jpg
38de04eb9fef2a150c664ea7a919897e
ca96528e6255bca3158a49bb72985be2cbed90cd
F20110209_AAARZP friedel_c_Page_164.tif
7a539830b113caad9f06ec02b38fb30a
5874951250f7a54c30eafb89fa6405e0bc7eef88
2149 F20110209_AAASWI friedel_c_Page_031.txt
e42c755fe44fad68b64463c189f35015
adbe7345a114cee8c3bc039fef61cd60769bbc12
90204 F20110209_AAATAY friedel_c_Page_004.jpg
aab2a1e0b5c5a4bed7dc84cb27d67b19
5a7e26baa60ac6f6e5e09b34b645427141492ce8
49843 F20110209_AAATTB friedel_c_Page_058.pro
b08e7a7a96e7ae2373c2b8b6c91bdf05
54077ad18dbff4ee53f9f297a36066fcaeded095
8652 F20110209_AAAVHW friedel_c_Page_317thm.jpg
9ed72fd134755613f5f827140fe841ae
2ddf95686a9bfbc7e267c83e5339b57a1b5f15de
1926 F20110209_AAARZQ friedel_c_Page_108.txt
a884127517743e62cc1b8b2a9c647fc1
a9fa52766c11c7448d262beea831ba908fe41b12
94672 F20110209_AAASWJ friedel_c_Page_067.jpg
fe24e7411d4d860c5d135a7865f00bdd
049051477fc00825e4af548b8944eb293d734ad9
F20110209_AAATAZ friedel_c_Page_011.tif
d05931ef7d9ca8e982ab682dcdcbfb6f
69b85d0498a5e238bba4b5335cb2ff220e05a1b0
49132 F20110209_AAATTC friedel_c_Page_059.pro
9ec0e5477c25b250bd77c338fcea5385
e1b06a67bf981368f2b65c834fe9e0385c4cb8eb
6015 F20110209_AAAVHX friedel_c_Page_318thm.jpg
145fc52daab819209eeb468080de8553
40f4d2dacd0e45c3feb56ab597c35d8e27a69ede
45350 F20110209_AAARZR friedel_c_Page_240.pro
2a4bef74b5ade74f156e1cb03c674997
89f11220a6a36b314251210217471509f67c0eee
33102 F20110209_AAASWK friedel_c_Page_143.QC.jpg
4bd8eb36ff93756d4679deb8c1d3f7e5
a6dee74f292ec74e2b5ee51bf9d7a92ec59d6f11
52057 F20110209_AAATTD friedel_c_Page_061.pro
c63ceaf93a1f31fc6fdaee4be14ee0f4
950a8e36e4f6e72e87b8c9ada8682df96ff8146c
7731 F20110209_AAAVHY friedel_c_Page_320thm.jpg
ed44b92923129dd956b3be96eb956fdb
a5386e012bfd21a0fe67cf038c757d2d3aff06d0
7671 F20110209_AAASJA friedel_c_Page_031thm.jpg
d2a1a539f9ce6a138b51f2ae91692638
ec3314e26a27bbd6d186bb4a06223410d0fc4670
22088 F20110209_AAARZS friedel_c_Page_036.QC.jpg
4ad73eb3e28b91979c310c4a7ee27f2f
edf34ce4f935154a48e9a96cffe2179f4c9166dd
F20110209_AAASWL friedel_c_Page_137thm.jpg
4ba5358dc242df2aa74ef678f2c699db
7bd22f78bdfce540f114c0b17860b2f610144ea3
51820 F20110209_AAATTE friedel_c_Page_062.pro
77dfc983c156e097148ea146ca1ce355
4ef824f083d117eb3562afd8ec7cc0470f39fe68
5348 F20110209_AAAVHZ friedel_c_Page_324thm.jpg
17a378ccdc8ca49ed4005562168ac136
6fd8b97c355febedbeb037b048b8cc6a7fb5d6e2
52294 F20110209_AAASJB friedel_c_Page_028.pro
e17b055234ebdf45cd9577482866e077
0cbe54f09e7b2bebe351c19650d852897177d454
F20110209_AAARZT friedel_c_Page_194.tif
81cad2fc48153c250c06bf87d955f747
e84205930ca52660ac4ce63359e0ab2cdc5e29c6
8010 F20110209_AAASWM friedel_c_Page_075thm.jpg
eed05de95056cc5b03d4a28580bf21a8
15f4a90f6b70760932c3f41ed0c7be73a9e68f29
50209 F20110209_AAATTF friedel_c_Page_063.pro
94e69dbc66a9d20ec089000fc5723453
997b16a4d7ccd7dd5ff7fa270d67fa8c06e221f5
45439 F20110209_AAASJC friedel_c_Page_330.pro
bb043a44d292a20a3557f64cb6589789
faef82a8c07cd235696b2b7b246636e9ae0dcc9e
39232 F20110209_AAARZU friedel_c_Page_035.QC.jpg
434e5928da47b2312a1b7702dcaea02b
7fa627e62b10a644d1eab2eb58f2233b1f05045a
F20110209_AAASWN friedel_c_Page_077.jp2
fd649459a0840685df15a855d37e4a4d
f001658a97af80219d6be6be7fc97a1835bf295e
51650 F20110209_AAATTG friedel_c_Page_064.pro
177ae0b59aca1b38d94914f46e22ee4f
b72c8e773e3dd4e6cf93677572dd2e6cd83a7164
893450 F20110209_AAAUQA friedel_c_Page_299.jp2
f99df5d779cc3c3e519810694392eddf
6f1235f25eedac0d1b14fe44284a75bf6b785e64
28806 F20110209_AAASJD friedel_c_Page_243.QC.jpg
784247941288a7a8c8bbd79cd2237104
9c06d9aafa809e39dfd3fcd5dbfc3058628bce89
923374 F20110209_AAARZV friedel_c_Page_269.jp2
976484358c0dc1b2e9ac4fabd7e7b2e4
dbaef5428b1682bc4ee06f35906b1f983ce7403c
1051919 F20110209_AAASWO friedel_c_Page_055.jp2
6684a9f955f599af831539a2fafb2e9d
e8643be007b1ea10f149c93cdd71130edc632ba1
49344 F20110209_AAATTH friedel_c_Page_065.pro
cce9b435dd26710b903a1a1a9f939c8b
44818a99f9d74b8c18c93c56a40aea92aaf5d1a7
934314 F20110209_AAAUQB friedel_c_Page_301.jp2
29d133e4cc9c61829b517c350ef1de34
0d131e28a2ace491397f608457185b5be7a4751b
53205 F20110209_AAASJE friedel_c_Page_217.pro
e17a029db35b6e6e6e44bf70cd1c4647
447efddfb048fbfdeabb60dec2a863b60cba7706
F20110209_AAARZW friedel_c_Page_130.tif
df52ed8dd39513cb77c94f690acc80d2
822bee57e5ebfa65f6e2bddf53751a879723be70
7871 F20110209_AAASWP friedel_c_Page_229thm.jpg
05f7a961976f3d3d8c16e1322d819c01
66c07b92dbaded4af0dc660142efa0b8dee06027
46906 F20110209_AAATTI friedel_c_Page_067.pro
c67a981591cdfd47c3e567107e34a82d
ae024d2e0794e72c7295369a723fb1692f6ed23b
1051924 F20110209_AAAUQC friedel_c_Page_302.jp2
479fbcd3d15774d5323b8156261eda2b
bd86277b53a6f1adb9d5d2503e9f2388e236272a
1051966 F20110209_AAASJF friedel_c_Page_064.jp2
1a0818bdfc40d16f59819f9254917f2e
3939a358692fcba167b04099ac77e8b7be1ccd13
1921 F20110209_AAARZX friedel_c_Page_220.txt
25093f16c55b3d03c36f39daa6f8d65b
b6f22dca585884f65858e56bf100a75f357b5ee1
1051943 F20110209_AAASWQ friedel_c_Page_130.jp2
2a79b2bb4a5f557f65a89dbb6fac1f00
15313e6bb7ed75a93c08369ecad735befc938fdd
51046 F20110209_AAATTJ friedel_c_Page_069.pro
d719e90ddf1116a6d87d85e6f2bb1ecf
1f38ab435e9612757c1e54903cde0c881edb66ba
1051895 F20110209_AAAUQD friedel_c_Page_303.jp2
ce6be36aa63a1849731f2f4a785dc708
4c72cf27dba440e2306be00534efa513607d6553
2027 F20110209_AAASJG friedel_c_Page_265.txt
62bdab26a2a180f0b5cb373bf0aa1482
ee0c2abc16c94963295effda5af800d0b4c8cf5f
1051936 F20110209_AAASWR friedel_c_Page_047.jp2
574a3a0c3e4963708e34fd224834dad7
fdbc7c3b9cd7800a5477f512ab644f424cdebd4a
44981 F20110209_AAATTK friedel_c_Page_070.pro
cb32866a70505b1934c0aa371ff93ce3
f10d79facaf7e8553181c9aa049517988ce9fc2c
1051985 F20110209_AAAUQE friedel_c_Page_305.jp2
b2c5552d0edd8ed56277910e88535812
1f6ccaf54c949a0959a074bd2b421e6221a2ab68
50089 F20110209_AAARZY friedel_c_Page_314.pro
69fde88d95c300d65a47dd55870d73a5
6452c5ab252691d25bce004b1bcd60472c0c6c31
F20110209_AAATGA friedel_c_Page_190.tif
16f2a09c32d795ad3bdc72d06eb3acb6
156d9e1f3d86c134d598f624ac6e01c1932644a9
7895 F20110209_AAASWS friedel_c_Page_271thm.jpg
c9fedd95b4137c35709b35fec7be5a60
fcee71766c5159112c13062fe2f084cecc06c189
50842 F20110209_AAATTL friedel_c_Page_071.pro
0ebde93e11b76dcad15d0dafb846ee11
139b5cb078845a87deb85e7d1393d51bc7f30c52
1051935 F20110209_AAAUQF friedel_c_Page_306.jp2
1b7a0a1a07456253c23e46e5fa363b6d
d63982af24d00729edb3b884cf09382a9b503365
90755 F20110209_AAASJH friedel_c_Page_300.jpg
630909570ff39e1f358c87e7f492da4c
71c53945dc8720b93ea2e90ebde8980f912b1f18
101679 F20110209_AAARZZ friedel_c_Page_048.jpg
025e9be94698e80866adae134083b0d1
128e5d76be9f6c2f7de2c96a13b201ab347a87b6
F20110209_AAATGB friedel_c_Page_191.tif
587fcf9ca387b1bb87069a700dad786e
52ff2e26cba4413586d94d0a072572e784e4e38d
100802 F20110209_AAASWT friedel_c_Page_244.jpg
5d214005cb7737dbcdd3d0829317ae85
5c738bf27a89bde36063e682a9854177b4ceb6bb
49750 F20110209_AAATTM friedel_c_Page_073.pro
9ce63840a2e31d532553ef83ad1e3c69
6fa26f35d1ba71940c6f0d69aeb0d9562786d784
968916 F20110209_AAAUQG friedel_c_Page_307.jp2
154744ace8cffb34434506670cac60c8
94fba351b014f8cd1f6f1feec1ab1b61441a83e5
2289 F20110209_AAASJI friedel_c_Page_135.txt
69633ecd09999996f274aa29f3ac6c65
32166fcd2dd7a1505d8652d4486394263612d6b7
F20110209_AAATGC friedel_c_Page_192.tif
1e10274c8e96cff08f82e9980430a0b4
7026b38869a46871f5380dde4e092a5797329123
48319 F20110209_AAATTN friedel_c_Page_075.pro
e56e695999f7de31ff47da68b63d63d6
87ffe04cf350b623160add1bd1372d4bf4ed1bcc
1020238 F20110209_AAAUQH friedel_c_Page_308.jp2
21ac49155f39d817ec66ec50b97b2ebd
843d394fbfad8fbfad292006db86324bc1db609a
44476 F20110209_AAASJJ friedel_c_Page_221.pro
0076a4b50205f6e2b4fefb1d49f6bc71
a7d0e7f5d0e172cb8dcab71c571c387e2a9e0eb5
6569 F20110209_AAASWU friedel_c_Page_017thm.jpg
90f957081711ebd619ac0fad862a5d06
1df65c84622ed419656d6bf759907c75cbefd73e
49433 F20110209_AAATTO friedel_c_Page_076.pro
201275752e4aeaaff626646d30cb66bf
8db081c80f7ad89419a5b8a6d138d5896de1a2ba
1048757 F20110209_AAAUQI friedel_c_Page_312.jp2
bed0cb151656adb3ec90357b97c2ea51
6004aa5949ba6fcf20e25703f335cddaca4571b3
99230 F20110209_AAASJK friedel_c_Page_059.jpg
d5ca6a40a1db1121bdb28df5e74b2253
3ba6d6d065de9273a9ea8c3d7181a2976cfef803
F20110209_AAATGD friedel_c_Page_196.tif
9398638da2e69bda01511d11608c1fe5
cc6f13d8794f10f0f15789c94b7072de053548ef
78323 F20110209_AAASWV friedel_c_Page_005.jpg
5862f9dd1c54c0bf4cb1f6d00a865a0e
39d23bba05a0bd333a4c51549a451af975fc1280
49566 F20110209_AAATTP friedel_c_Page_077.pro
75a5ffd5bf36e2b8e9717555dcd60e82
3d35483872872482d4e51e528d16ee2535e25ae7
F20110209_AAAUQJ friedel_c_Page_313.jp2
d79c2c8d26cd48bdc5efdaffbf13c787
137a5697176e6e6aff867bed1b728a3519a4fb48
1013122 F20110209_AAASJL friedel_c_Page_070.jp2
898948f814565b3b03fcbbc5379ce7a5
4154d57da31e00c5608786b45a5d5d071cb76879
F20110209_AAATGE friedel_c_Page_197.tif
eea935295bb1c7b1abd5344b3b9df162
72d9622f578e3088ff14751a099933c761af214c
49803 F20110209_AAASWW friedel_c_Page_247.pro
0f95393a2fe7d3b56fa651a5b4ec4777
893d23625647489ee572d7a8cbbc7ddf79ea7d4b
F20110209_AAAUQK friedel_c_Page_315.jp2
ab6838961e2a8780bea283558e414e14
a4ecb43f19ff13d87ad35cca2dee73821c8e403e
51479 F20110209_AAASJM friedel_c_Page_044.pro
9818f5b2dfe0348c885b45a7b8ce94cf
5d93d629685e611266930a1a460e68817872a073
F20110209_AAATGF friedel_c_Page_198.tif
30f3df27be7af23c2244bb0ecf31ed2b
ca9b1bb6bc5f7a87f60e3e9e047d857c1152e764
6936 F20110209_AAASWX friedel_c_Page_330thm.jpg
dee551813d804a104a1f0501e45601f0
5caa6d1bc0421517411f7664f0955d267b3ab50f
49317 F20110209_AAATTQ friedel_c_Page_078.pro
d13c4d2de56d070fd9f5cd51f125acdb
5dcc1b208f0910c9baacb17f37910452f5d5e9d7
1051868 F20110209_AAAUQL friedel_c_Page_316.jp2
b05feb43ec9f6241f5f192eb7bd0749d
403180a047e20b81bc4b94062fd79c7c7bc4a9b4
101591 F20110209_AAASJN friedel_c_Page_175.jpg
636a6820e833fdba52ae350a52ac851e
639a21de0b6c4b074e9173d51227a46f0e5337b9
F20110209_AAATGG friedel_c_Page_202.tif
f1f6e1ade1ecbd2c0f6d5c439fd4f4c1
8f55160847fa403de16e3316c6c344e123c513d3
F20110209_AAASWY friedel_c_Page_022.jp2
96ff0a6f4dd62905bd257629d65238b3
77925dd3d25d3e221749bdfb9cb7c0bae9329f81
15258 F20110209_AAATTR friedel_c_Page_081.pro
8950efa55d1a62a8b3a726d6959b1a29
12c0773510ddb788ab981881d5eb132d4bfc633f
8292 F20110209_AAASJO friedel_c_Page_281thm.jpg
28e7aca8322418fc679bfe5d5f670c28
0cfa7f9dd654539334075a55b56e141b55f617e0
F20110209_AAATGH friedel_c_Page_204.tif
c3b8f8764005f6b564ef630d6dc8c085
a0d8bbfae5f986cf65a3977c007ec01095700b85
8298 F20110209_AAASWZ friedel_c_Page_146thm.jpg
3b774034a9c300c9d0f6541f06a42a4c
d12e5229813060dfad59eca3f12e889e2c4d4260
106266 F20110209_AAAUDA friedel_c_Page_125.jpg
a6f81687d7fc8b145bcd8475c8bf41fb
55f2858bbdb6269fd7c62c444930451fa85f3e9a
43958 F20110209_AAATTS friedel_c_Page_082.pro
3f731cee9bea6998e79998f605311b96
a4dfc889857525e8acfdae2baff05a66e9012e29
1051980 F20110209_AAAUQM friedel_c_Page_317.jp2
06656be1037355a6a25641f027e89096
1bc8375e8d568561d908b5608da6358bb086e88e
F20110209_AAASJP friedel_c_Page_258.tif
257f13a164947073d56345ab841271fc
948d99b8a18f79217bd5457d0692486a775667ae
F20110209_AAATGI friedel_c_Page_205.tif
9f5458d5ac5d1aee367bb973d9d75573
3f0fde5d067cf0a52d6dd15d37892eb95cfd3f06
105043 F20110209_AAAUDB friedel_c_Page_126.jpg
df039cd5be0ebba8d4d41738f1ab9a2d
729802f2cc884bc3270236952a23624e544d66ab
50121 F20110209_AAATTT friedel_c_Page_085.pro
d76a3e910f6fd5e289688a334e28d261
d616ddd42604484f2941d70dbbf351f98784b1ea
876015 F20110209_AAAUQN friedel_c_Page_318.jp2
5fcafd327fce419e355c245399c83cac
90e695c3f16b7961de3e7983b7e84fad37a08852
8590 F20110209_AAASJQ friedel_c_Page_138thm.jpg
6ea57ddd006e2f4fb6497aa8e264b8d1
7d9d6aecc48cddcecdd6d12ad6d2e9e8efd5c112
F20110209_AAATGJ friedel_c_Page_206.tif
4221d90901f45c730d01004cbe63b944
01aba9afa05fb210797d0901b7a6825d585191f7
106756 F20110209_AAAUDC friedel_c_Page_128.jpg
cf0aa1446f079ef6068077a8f7c23fa4
e0a7dfd1679939fdac86132e59aa2d1c823a2b09
50055 F20110209_AAATTU friedel_c_Page_088.pro
cd8f9b1da1d8dfcbe59a4b71e4cf2b78
a4995af27518b906eeaf85bac1e73aed7534ca9e
628933 F20110209_AAAUQO friedel_c_Page_319.jp2
bbd290bb8562e29f65a7a978b2d77ef7
d4f260121fe086c4d59ee580807167ca4a6c3388
48777 F20110209_AAASJR friedel_c_Page_120.pro
d72a07d3ae56f12c8963a205df3b9649
e35bf5628859726ea5cbab1ab131853fe5422812
F20110209_AAATGK friedel_c_Page_207.tif
c5a23b06506822d12253258bf8e0f9e9
ee72e177f4fd9c17028c387d73aa664e8446a559
99629 F20110209_AAAUDD friedel_c_Page_130.jpg
122e357ac8bb7231c53c968cad32d5e2
19c5458117dc8f5fd6a5861365e5a9b859f41a72
50031 F20110209_AAATTV friedel_c_Page_090.pro
3ba2d7b2966ed3b476bf86f31c8b2a3e
244565740441d4af4db25abd43d3ba99c340f4cc
F20110209_AAAUQP friedel_c_Page_320.jp2
c59b19206d9daaa62d2719b90fe38da0
83c948211248e03c630816111c4740d7901d57a8
33364 F20110209_AAASJS friedel_c_Page_141.QC.jpg
1d45d8aa69e59a6138ca424173a1637e
74533e6cd313f3e8f24080861a1f62dfb3159fca
F20110209_AAATGL friedel_c_Page_208.tif
1162fdb05be9c9b604929def0710cd95
cacb7c7d172407b2d43924986e0af54729f46bc3
103815 F20110209_AAAUDE friedel_c_Page_131.jpg
db7caf46dc6231f2fdc94c136d438654
89585a1442e8b4d97fda312b9e0ab0daa7bea0fa
54651 F20110209_AAATTW friedel_c_Page_091.pro
8a3914ae14e3c5aa6d37be8dd0d6be98
1459712bf2a5a437c306f77b138d3271bddaabf1
225189 F20110209_AAAUQQ friedel_c_Page_321.jp2
3f40a6358f606ea27c371bec64efb67e
3e74e0e1cbe58cd7f8fe192765d93c10bfa58b20
2244 F20110209_AAASJT friedel_c_Page_141.txt
d83353be7114ed39fa03d38ab0a6a8f9
e5032dc8b6622f09ab92a348c9185fa63d65470b
F20110209_AAATGM friedel_c_Page_209.tif
980d3860a87ec17cf55498a29ec18b4a
576febecd49a0695753efc0b9c80523b934ba33d
112368 F20110209_AAAUDF friedel_c_Page_133.jpg
8a71003ba2aa383712fdb1f2341fbbba
098df198caf467e51b5057999f6a68abc84f765f
51604 F20110209_AAATTX friedel_c_Page_093.pro
1e15644364e5dbcb04e2366371c1cc17
e1e79e80471f3a7968339a983f994c29dbcc2aa9
761978 F20110209_AAAUQR friedel_c_Page_322.jp2
8651b2d6f8bf570584b12e65f5fe6a8d
9aee5bc47fae0e73baa1ab7f8b4a65968e3d82bd
4141 F20110209_AAASJU friedel_c_Page_195thm.jpg
e87123567f5c43c3b79badfb27f77039
829207d66253178b9ec4fcbfc7897649d2977b6b
F20110209_AAATGN friedel_c_Page_210.tif
7472ac41947c36bd58e67c2c9884f37f
dc7a5204b699730cc05d93fe1924a16b7e7fdd0e
100504 F20110209_AAAUDG friedel_c_Page_134.jpg
84153b069a5a04dbccb7b2c945290ed7
d2bb58c67ca3717491f9f65801ca6cfb6fa28e28
52198 F20110209_AAATTY friedel_c_Page_094.pro
78a02603903a135897141705ed9e09fe
35dd31fcb5bd7ecdb1d5183ed07a1cb6be49d2f3
30281 F20110209_AAAVAA friedel_c_Page_309.QC.jpg
e5cc85c88dd2d0979db0e83f796e48a7
3af0dbb61c63dd39c38d2fec83f3cd00dda65ccc
520607 F20110209_AAAUQS friedel_c_Page_327.jp2
78919187275d16932bf106245e9bca4e
225ab7b7c67d3bd24784f1f04b9b2a9d41945cb9
1022073 F20110209_AAASJV friedel_c_Page_309.jp2
5d33f64e24c08bb3173de2d8518775fa
66e9e6ec1ce76e025072c883e33def24f45ed980
F20110209_AAATGO friedel_c_Page_211.tif
ce2cae4abb7ba2562af0ff38ded4c134
a8863f34bc36bd80082e3fd42c1ace4327f1ac15
102775 F20110209_AAAUDH friedel_c_Page_135.jpg
bcad624c257a854e38b39329e8c600a6
d55bdc42b0a4bb1ef3d1bb25b06ce81fc444316e
51615 F20110209_AAATTZ friedel_c_Page_095.pro
0c93c1fb62eb7597b78ad429c3fc4c32
5bbf8bd28fd5ca23e33a62900f439d1c33d78f5e
34145 F20110209_AAAVAB friedel_c_Page_313.QC.jpg
d6e0d41983daf08eae3474045ba3324b
376a5f3daf717957701d870f66fe61d57929bfb7
537910 F20110209_AAAUQT friedel_c_Page_329.jp2
22b9ae3a2e15ccc1667105b59bf237ab
1a79e50d30672cf1dad37100e436eec0dc459447
99816 F20110209_AAASJW friedel_c_Page_040.jpg
2468c6b07d403c817a10a25d51e0883a
3626ea454a532698d55e1390e1009a63557592a3
F20110209_AAATGP friedel_c_Page_212.tif
1d08794c162e5d56dc6b562c450b1d68
06b40b8cc61ead6fb45d59ea61e02816a4060672
103362 F20110209_AAAUDI friedel_c_Page_136.jpg
784c2c05b805142440c950252a270c53
0f3c3b266dc6bd966c443a7f7eef168ec4ebd91c
32278 F20110209_AAAVAC friedel_c_Page_314.QC.jpg
7ec19868e19f950ad7a11c6d41c2b00a
0b9dd6d40c99516b5dfcdc3aebce2e2a4f9d77e1
1029809 F20110209_AAAUQU friedel_c_Page_330.jp2
b09cc1dad457e2708308274f51254822
d0f49a47c747d1a56ba1edea19730629528f72ab
8374 F20110209_AAASJX friedel_c_Page_110thm.jpg
cb075011b6656ea79b8286c83de5cc6a
6a3a5343d1f7250e64f6f6366c72e3c5c01ebf66
F20110209_AAATGQ friedel_c_Page_216.tif
c90ed5de13e4690f8391aa9cc0207776
af2b4e82d783d7a9c126ef09682ebec69242a0d8
107007 F20110209_AAAUDJ friedel_c_Page_140.jpg
777dcdafba0e6012a1daca9904f2823a
27eec643c49564e3a7a45682aec8a7fb4904a4cc
32036 F20110209_AAAVAD friedel_c_Page_315.QC.jpg
c0d0d4058be764f9c39298c24ee084b1
b630771b1a530757d4bf05c8890c92387fec0d4c
F20110209_AAAUQV friedel_c_Page_331.jp2
1281d8cf56ddc72cd943f62d9e629968
19e6e10c9d377e562e4434b6ed1b2d0f081b07ed
1712 F20110209_AAASJY friedel_c_Page_041.txt
3f106127ecad88183771d82ba175a62f
07eb7fd59018c9ea5fd2338e04390ec0f922e7a5
F20110209_AAATGR friedel_c_Page_219.tif
ea851170a1e9a99507201e2c3534177d
7dd29c1bfedc50b35657e365c268f48b4b2016ea
107542 F20110209_AAAUDK friedel_c_Page_141.jpg
eddf10d9d3c0759824563dd286282df7
d4e14ca1f9dec7984f37ea66980f5b5e57279270
34644 F20110209_AAAVAE friedel_c_Page_317.QC.jpg
716ed1829f13425de409e13eeedd1520
a926d612c5c2ad01f6ad6e5c2cc1e3dae4065ab4
F20110209_AAAUQW friedel_c_Page_333.jp2
a66e93053dcaa57b969573ef6a649d14
edb30b2467a7e6ec3061e98a3a9183da22bf5900
F20110209_AAATGS friedel_c_Page_220.tif
375e2dc30a238d11c45aa4719f0f30b5
0857cc062044072303630aa3e40cd840dfe35fab
103239 F20110209_AAAUDL friedel_c_Page_142.jpg
035f529e15b88e9839b5e38f9f63c40d
f6638b35b580bf2727c0b9107deae4bcc53feaf9
1734 F20110209_AAASJZ friedel_c_Page_002.QC.jpg
1be6575a04757c39c0068cae3597aaaa
82c6602709bbd9d9dba99ebdb1ffecf9d9a88af1
23216 F20110209_AAAVAF friedel_c_Page_318.QC.jpg
656737e46503ac206e7751e04ed7d307
9ef09313d704a1e17537ab6faceafb43ba7f9183
F20110209_AAAUQX friedel_c_Page_337.jp2
95e3b3c243d5a82e18c41a5d72c33680
5bffe415443b3633a8982d753ae872eae8744c16
F20110209_AAATGT friedel_c_Page_222.tif
a3188319d2ec383608c9ace4de1aacd8
6984331c1d758679bb1130dd8f94a8388a181c81
93474 F20110209_AAAUDM friedel_c_Page_144.jpg
cff4e58d126a26550a90d3f6302d8d02
0a7ff2bfef1fe0a1d2249ea06048c9fd089e4102
17817 F20110209_AAAVAG friedel_c_Page_319.QC.jpg
5a45e9862204368e5bcfe75b8e099814
95ee5ca229f945c32ca07857190495dbd811a955
F20110209_AAAUQY friedel_c_Page_338.jp2
16c6091e935751d89a856c96a1f894ee
ebe6460b8168762f0a92cbc12d2f09a06ebd9973
F20110209_AAATGU friedel_c_Page_223.tif
23d5b1732dfc72f4f324c4c2406122e8
8d8aeab7ea312db02a653c06ef5d59afff5846f5
113040 F20110209_AAAUDN friedel_c_Page_145.jpg
9af1a74c8eb943463f4a6656800d0f1a
3743460663c4038d5d3b055ad1c23dfee19cceba
33763 F20110209_AAAVAH friedel_c_Page_320.QC.jpg
ec20816f4b53068f553e6b5816b2d369
56ab8fa73fd94e9c1deac18f7601934b16961d84
1051986 F20110209_AAAUQZ friedel_c_Page_339.jp2
e52f85c713a8b5b26678d26b05c73aa0
3332a15db434a7864ee4283e4f225a9374133b6f
F20110209_AAATGV friedel_c_Page_224.tif
2634d49ad30b1289b67f1b3ffc3c60df
277a0cfb15020d683c2db4612ac459beba13b56d
110398 F20110209_AAAUDO friedel_c_Page_147.jpg
2adee880cd248b50f9abfff1716e5e56
f013d2e534f0b7e1e4373981445ceeed3aea7efb
7977 F20110209_AAAVAI friedel_c_Page_321.QC.jpg
574047a9bed7ff8c4b48152bc00302c3
fdce6a84eb3771ea752a7057548bae2dc48c6c45
F20110209_AAATGW friedel_c_Page_225.tif
08b135ecf30653bfc9832f59b346a370
e0348a7cf14dc5b57ae877d9d49f7fbdd91be150
106856 F20110209_AAAUDP friedel_c_Page_149.jpg
350985f1698fbcfad8de77c4bdd405ab
e4fe0c1a3df88e374986d3cb15979f20d2b0a5a9
6393 F20110209_AAAVAJ friedel_c_Page_323.QC.jpg
8a81ac5c5ca5a287ed35b10163b9d07a
a12ba2c66de4839633d0ade790d26b03ac4932d9
F20110209_AAATGX friedel_c_Page_226.tif
cd2acb2e08044d252994f70fbf4b73c6
c33324bae1849b3adbda1acc3ff86111cbcf2edd
47944 F20110209_AAATZA friedel_c_Page_287.pro
e38e9b7c6919fac2562c2298342f84af
791df3ff5e16670e29de0c206ebca9d10e3d589e
107485 F20110209_AAAUDQ friedel_c_Page_152.jpg
b6d5dee0b23edd7cd2df5f558cd76b5b
ccc8f1b6fcd37f00b25834d972f7fa87354d13f6
21630 F20110209_AAAVAK friedel_c_Page_324.QC.jpg
f43c659e52354a1940ffe4baec92b740
f86c18174198f0c3bd34fc9cb7d54502c6496cbd
F20110209_AAATGY friedel_c_Page_227.tif
7da2341c846380b9fd42e36ad859ecfb
c4095c27bfe0410718625847b5e6d40694981784
42209 F20110209_AAATZB friedel_c_Page_289.pro
098fe2d194e9cf5af2d164ab1c34cdce
2e4de0fa61ae88a1c8665fc6e486ddc6d89b573e
108296 F20110209_AAAUDR friedel_c_Page_154.jpg
80e7d0bc0f59c236c06e12970b912f63
9aaff65f1a0a7bc8191d0661cc208a875bb97798
13492 F20110209_AAAVAL friedel_c_Page_326.QC.jpg
ae53a8437f3281f19f4c74963cb500c2
4074c1b42bf4f96c670181fb68ec580369273ec0
F20110209_AAATGZ friedel_c_Page_228.tif
b9d009bf72e1877fa1b8be432ea3c1b4
7f6b563170b986c93f06e88a260d5e99bda801a8
42568 F20110209_AAATZC friedel_c_Page_290.pro
6ca4157ac019f13f8ebd0bfa4e8b15a1
34d200cf820f70082378db2bd6dbec3bac53b058
104404 F20110209_AAAUDS friedel_c_Page_155.jpg
c17d02d1c4df7d820acfe500a789d67c
e3105f38b00cfc064b76ecb6d39f53cb03ad6e6e
16095 F20110209_AAAVAM friedel_c_Page_327.QC.jpg
cf314b1e25ed7bdbe269700eaa143b31
bee8c812aa467693eb27c797ca453618134b6d72
45814 F20110209_AAATZD friedel_c_Page_291.pro
633757ef19324ee0b5eda0d8fa9c26eb
ea8db233feb14fb8809e480aac29bf15e5fd8288
108555 F20110209_AAAUDT friedel_c_Page_156.jpg
793c5594175b7e141310f98a1808c3c8
5de7d6375f10842382c85289f696dc10f4b3b6d2
21030 F20110209_AAAVAN friedel_c_Page_328.QC.jpg
22737477a7e6e45922c45505391f0adc
3062a6c68d1c162bc826be0c9976f9dac38d1597
49916 F20110209_AAATZE friedel_c_Page_292.pro
52e3cc436aaa1605990caecba905ecf4
02f19c3c77d4cee85698d1756893bbac7c1b5800
109740 F20110209_AAAUDU friedel_c_Page_158.jpg
988af80fecec3cddc8199517edbe61dc
97773909cda8e1a0f4192aceda9d7163971bed7b
35045 F20110209_AAASPA friedel_c_Page_051.QC.jpg
0c2606ba1c835d4a33052fe7e58d900e
e001c699d311990a779a8a36694c728a8127bfe6
16975 F20110209_AAAVAO friedel_c_Page_329.QC.jpg
2c9a7804a93cec416f009f00c8bccf08
7503336c76586501b9bb5dca02a8bfbd5e24d9aa
46348 F20110209_AAATZF friedel_c_Page_293.pro
c81c17881efd4f63e16b715fa99a8806
976f61ea67b4d5fcecd9e51eda8ae0d4517a3a80
101549 F20110209_AAAUDV friedel_c_Page_160.jpg
0d669d2c22e4a9cda36eb54bda6bf18f
3e9a81e0ea7935509ee8673e89991610452ebd92
7793 F20110209_AAASPB friedel_c_Page_182thm.jpg
339ce595965d6f88b84b31e66cfdcdc2
77ce6ce1409b9f84a594aa67ddfc5b9b8baa3cef
26194 F20110209_AAAVAP friedel_c_Page_330.QC.jpg
17d31e697299bd1fe4b069c798a1f8b6
1a978088b0bed5c9034e543327f33223e2089311
52678 F20110209_AAATZG friedel_c_Page_294.pro
855d0bc2adbe7d4650eb5ec5c3ef901c
25bc1afc68c535d690f37aacdf89efd1cb3eec6c
105889 F20110209_AAAUDW friedel_c_Page_161.jpg
ffdde2e3b369de151a242a158ee012f7
48d7810ce6ab9542a6fd070cf52b334db076d67d
25428 F20110209_AAASPC friedel_c_Page_325.jpg
157aec27eec2d532e6af01eb338208aa
f84069cb06372eca83014ed2bb8d497200c40f4d
32875 F20110209_AAAVAQ friedel_c_Page_335.QC.jpg
7e395c3e7bdc5ddcd48da0cf0667c958
511d6bc47749ece7691cba990849262ec83496e1
34205 F20110209_AAAUWA friedel_c_Page_139.QC.jpg
0e2c25d96cecaa791dd65679a2cc9a14
9764a031c9f61a10f1e1305b329daeb56e9d86bf
51870 F20110209_AAATZH friedel_c_Page_295.pro
6e46c2da96b76b09bab67fb50453bf21
c9d0bfae3ceff0bd49fb2e89f33511749b081843
95977 F20110209_AAAUDX friedel_c_Page_162.jpg
2d1bb14c5af107cf1c76831e56f63e25
99529ea3785a32e3abee2c5deb277394758bfc3a
34934 F20110209_AAASPD friedel_c_Page_025.QC.jpg
8ceb4c24f39f81f7c3a1f2f118db02d0
2def366dcb06b5ccd300ac45ea7885ad373f292a
31531 F20110209_AAAVAR friedel_c_Page_338.QC.jpg
7f945ab2dbdca4b38216b822bb568e22
1e847f7b774e0f1b5b618bc29da53e9e104839ac
33311 F20110209_AAAUWB friedel_c_Page_140.QC.jpg
fc0ee99f242ae43009568796138648f0
4acdd75208673aefd3602a0654b925f479a56e5a
50990 F20110209_AAATZI friedel_c_Page_296.pro
a80419e52b28bb77302cbedad652aae7
735dd9f5ef4a45ae8b12f9392b41f0fed773bcb3
99209 F20110209_AAAUDY friedel_c_Page_164.jpg
4dc47884511b18a81a7992be58178ab8
5b1839f85e6e8b78c6def8016df35ace388b5a45
51640 F20110209_AAASPE friedel_c_Page_083.pro
2405d9318177306ed690db35cf82e5fe
6906982c05099052b230a7011e10ab2a38469c3c
31620 F20110209_AAAVAS friedel_c_Page_340.QC.jpg
5fae31ab05f2ca509ee5c1549524e63d
318d3c473f0b227563fa4e0f6ed00b7b43e02484
33462 F20110209_AAAUWC friedel_c_Page_142.QC.jpg
cd0ceb7a7a8b20b77376e25a53fd8ab5
276143900ea5d7801fbafd1c9ff03ae0da3345c0
39935 F20110209_AAATZJ friedel_c_Page_299.pro
63d9ce0763e606afa55cbcd15e69b4a5
7fa29d986dbaa5a350f7052e3acdb6058596bbf4
96913 F20110209_AAAUDZ friedel_c_Page_165.jpg
a189bbbd120706059675186b88ca969f
c80618e95e49f078b7b3071c3955b7f48a3f8bbf
2506 F20110209_AAASPF friedel_c_Page_127.txt
dea69a735054c6309508e7ded3bf691c
8dd75527f1dab6a909ba475ac4939c144bd9fbc2
31808 F20110209_AAAVAT friedel_c_Page_341.QC.jpg
a384c291dea5654fbf2356e1583ef3ac
c633cdf1912079f2dcbfcfeb4d88807d7c2883e0
34678 F20110209_AAAUWD friedel_c_Page_145.QC.jpg
7e4c189c9412abf8addf889fa51300fa
bff737be15154b6145d4cd2913b729513977d47f
41534 F20110209_AAATZK friedel_c_Page_301.pro
ba1522ecdcf6609e9535ea4eb9bf85b7
187c852aa86c9a414e58e60cd3be5e64b418f071
F20110209_AAASPG friedel_c_Page_061.tif
e6ada962488d7962ea3a0370956d2b90
8dec9ea9188a753978ba8efad06b1107d886e7d5
18452 F20110209_AAAVAU friedel_c_Page_342.QC.jpg
018c41ba8de79c206381a6075362f6c7
2899cd2c9d0c448014ff3588287c82834cc896d3
33597 F20110209_AAAUWE friedel_c_Page_146.QC.jpg
908f7f4e30e61e6999767faccaf3e40f
715f8fccfcbaaef871c09ed94fed849a3eca1151
2582 F20110209_AAATMA friedel_c_Page_091.txt
9e0ad61bee075ecd2f44225dedfbc0b5
036231ad37a5d2861677be2168a2e0c9adebd90f
52792 F20110209_AAATZL friedel_c_Page_303.pro
74c3ee69c30234ac09cebe710d1634b2
7398c9d94182615852e52e406e47b27feb0c7f74
97087 F20110209_AAASPH friedel_c_Page_112.jpg
ae1829c4adb569be05cd675249dde571
557df12d9574bb23a8a5cf7602216b8137df80d7
26416 F20110209_AAAVAV friedel_c_Page_343.QC.jpg
1e0d8988487f7ba44baa51a649ef1bfb
a2551be7773f261bfe6fff209df02c4d77a1ac63
32221 F20110209_AAAUWF friedel_c_Page_148.QC.jpg
d5db9365a15ab084f5b61f01bcb01963
a8ec70db1b43acf96b0751471f04217f940f7ec1
F20110209_AAATMB friedel_c_Page_094.txt
5ccac189da30ea212ff8104c765a86d7
d27573da94fca1a633072a9d8fe755d84d9f108f
51948 F20110209_AAATZM friedel_c_Page_304.pro
31447350846fe4f50f13d642e616cb21
76c48c87f7952acb1e46f65d6f57e79e7dbaa2b2
37438 F20110209_AAASPI friedel_c_Page_189.pro
894bcb0dea2a8e4ad02490e5f976b62d
4b21e2dc05a75afc2166edb78b29fc96dfbadaba
634 F20110209_AAAVAW friedel_c_Page_002thm.jpg
bfb89b5d101ea2ac4cf5110280c91def
08abbbb91b67b27dc9eb705867a6d204d5113e77
34436 F20110209_AAAUWG friedel_c_Page_149.QC.jpg
2165b82bd59784fca09886ad983f410c
f106de0101e1e0722c89b13e7f48198e964e55cb
F20110209_AAATMC friedel_c_Page_096.txt
1f6fc4137c9fe02cac002c21162cf66e
3c71e94ba9830b0e243d9f1f0a21c113a0808fc5
51557 F20110209_AAATZN friedel_c_Page_305.pro
acda9e61048d7e12a670174e3bd21777
3c17c72d13123512b8552fe9c9d0549635439277
1958 F20110209_AAASPJ friedel_c_Page_076.txt
ed11f8a4718161550628a5c5ceab26ef
b70a8db6cd2e001b69f44b38f0b48107260c97f7
795 F20110209_AAAVAX friedel_c_Page_003thm.jpg
44c91498e294ab7961957f2c181610e7
71b8fe45ecb3054b977f7950d1397753077fd7f9
32613 F20110209_AAAUWH friedel_c_Page_150.QC.jpg
2117a3274bb17f7a0e2d4eca37ca3f4e
1e4055f977b06514f2da022ddb4e33f6ef4934d1
F20110209_AAATMD friedel_c_Page_098.txt
62eeb2dc145ea4f1c02172c13c2819a5
366f85d64d2289e922b958b570962071103fee30
46677 F20110209_AAATZO friedel_c_Page_306.pro
f2b5418d0c624b33d891e185f53b81cf
5c639b7401549924e98426ab9a11ca3364e9924b
103253 F20110209_AAASPK friedel_c_Page_153.jpg
add61fccd30cd43dd95ad64c3ece16cc
c16264a8812e5c454f0a3c9ba8c90efd06ddef7e
7452 F20110209_AAAVAY friedel_c_Page_004thm.jpg
8dd6e615e3598b60a5bf17cff1025c44
dddb615c38971ae02b276ff3b6e397c3d42fc85b
32774 F20110209_AAAUWI friedel_c_Page_153.QC.jpg
14ff68c046cb9e75ada5a670d5836665
3d9b233a85848298fc5a05158559d08c050d4003
2001 F20110209_AAATME friedel_c_Page_102.txt
b82b77d2f7a01bfad806a9a57968e953
75992c835aa4b774c033724085f2514203ae5e71
43208 F20110209_AAATZP friedel_c_Page_307.pro
5d582105dbfd9b6bdb3e64768c21e7f6
fe4a30a5cc5224255f1286b29b77c5314aa5cffb
7929 F20110209_AAASPL friedel_c_Page_085thm.jpg
52d2a9d4f7be6e4dfba7eef677595664
5e4db9f3a8173365fdb2be4414e4a3872c400a25
4144 F20110209_AAAVAZ friedel_c_Page_005thm.jpg
e102514580707c8037de0d2937eb4888
ce0b3049a9918b09a7aa3bebba16726211d2c5b5
33350 F20110209_AAAUWJ friedel_c_Page_154.QC.jpg
73d55b4f60ef4f183f44d0b6bb651fe2
40763edd9bb03fe67c1c71de76f395349e21ba3d
F20110209_AAATMF friedel_c_Page_103.txt
955f99bd1ace5e7106e35f2d2521e687
4f8ef8c6d01587dc457a4a3ae72d905241551469
30724 F20110209_AAASCA friedel_c_Page_174.QC.jpg
8b8ef3cffc1a9452f67766ba1252cf95
2fecdfad3eefef8b37d45a97252b0a6bdf2fc259
45446 F20110209_AAATZQ friedel_c_Page_309.pro
b6e471be1d8f9a3065f7cc125b9b26f7
aba42911bc6df07b63c7f19f7bc7b9a1fc4ad7b5
8218 F20110209_AAASPM friedel_c_Page_149thm.jpg
617b67d081a9b9a28545ea352ad9e495
2caeafa6bc05eb9246ea0c2e321e63fc7e47c3b7
32762 F20110209_AAAUWK friedel_c_Page_158.QC.jpg
763c9884db68413da6200eea45574ec4
7cc15e26d6f0a1efc10c87fa4ac3b7069585db81
2344 F20110209_AAATMG friedel_c_Page_104.txt
7f67401b537ff0ff0305566402a7e770
501adeaa3a5ef4a744c2a797b331db1d00b999eb
F20110209_AAASCB friedel_c_Page_163.tif
32ac5748f33f9249a41e0e87d3a9da08
25644e7c1903b848def65c708f6fb3c38fe5a20b
48441 F20110209_AAATZR friedel_c_Page_310.pro
7e7273e71453018ace74b543545096a4
93cde7ffc0b8e4cb193c026f878741a50a70fcc2
33997 F20110209_AAAUWL friedel_c_Page_159.QC.jpg
8c2f73d90e95170d7d90ebd861320a7d
d3811bb9d583e1f8f28f4b7064d9943b237185e1
F20110209_AAAUJA friedel_c_Page_020.jp2
aa0ec33d1ec3408d8d5825ea1920e501
0fff7e4ba93726c19c7bae203d82d62dd28e763e
1968 F20110209_AAATMH friedel_c_Page_106.txt
db3326d7cd3193c546920a488c23d5fd
713470cf5824d2317c14583fa63524ec09cfe78a
2039 F20110209_AAASCC friedel_c_Page_235.txt
01d945a0dc8b996219cf2070cc154213
af1af3be0914395c76e4ad17934a9913ae174d85
51513 F20110209_AAATZS friedel_c_Page_311.pro
0526f9aaaff9337e401494b497ba4f49
d59ba0578c0f11ba7ae7fe06417cfb94d5c52cb7
978465 F20110209_AAASPN friedel_c_Page_288.jp2
1e1d71c26e3ddfdc36fab5fa327489f2
96ca3ee0054b29db4f9dacd36fc4b25e6148e012
32951 F20110209_AAAUWM friedel_c_Page_160.QC.jpg
095af028cc8360073324c23a6bd469c3
422b01dac5893cc27a8f30c62ee07457f55debed
F20110209_AAAUJB friedel_c_Page_021.jp2
9ab047751ca3615ea26e02f7b6a54efc
75e6e8131014c55df67eba57871548af21b37ba9
1839 F20110209_AAATMI friedel_c_Page_107.txt
7506f1462bcf8400e2997e36c9e807a8
413713d8c590a4fa4c81611e35e8c3efdadb9d97
102391 F20110209_AAASCD friedel_c_Page_049.jpg
98b07c1cca6489e897ece1f47a875bbd
5f2f7f37ed206469b9590e00b6b656172dcf907d
46951 F20110209_AAATZT friedel_c_Page_312.pro
6b25a5b9cae237344fcfb4b8ed5b018d
f5f6f05bfad81fbf0289832530255b854613ce18
29905 F20110209_AAASPO friedel_c_Page_198.QC.jpg
8d7a5e77a8baa4da931d30e1d828087f
f4c42da3fad3bba304c741f6d781bd42ff99eda2
30676 F20110209_AAAUWN friedel_c_Page_162.QC.jpg
1ff259e5a9ea9639e5c6aa75e4d0760d
ef913144f54cb6e9145acdfb3367cbf9831ccb44
F20110209_AAAUJC friedel_c_Page_023.jp2
6625d8aa60c57159906fb83da437cc79
e40f712ba3a06b9f3b243046a4efc8159dce4b71
47732 F20110209_AAASCE friedel_c_Page_112.pro
f21b9cc3b2efc800e9ef982bbeec8aa4
3e750469c53efe1281393faeb12310fcd8a86944
52677 F20110209_AAATZU friedel_c_Page_313.pro
659243155e1373a4b7bb0a986f96d0ec
a993f7ede1e207b57cd1a8052555205cee149336
F20110209_AAASPP friedel_c_Page_133.jp2
6e7759211ed7689b0332a31dcc69650b
f3d7fe22a306faedce3014072e3bbdcce7823a82
32188 F20110209_AAAUWO friedel_c_Page_164.QC.jpg
c467b2008cda0af2172e43de176ffe99
1379a495f0d7cf174367f364db96494d62102567
F20110209_AAAUJD friedel_c_Page_024.jp2
ced5c4d6e7afa7244b4c34729520057e
9f683541063a99432537adc4fc041a36dd189e91
1922 F20110209_AAATMJ friedel_c_Page_110.txt
7b7afc81bd06c24f477d628f4e69e047
66e52f2eaac1c5a1bc7c957b3b3346da135fef2b
852321 F20110209_AAASCF friedel_c_Page_207.jp2
54518a15b2e6d14b60a0446eaa496d8f
f5eaa5dc09c7f62dcca75ce26d57832c68686ba4
49929 F20110209_AAATZV friedel_c_Page_315.pro
020dfca6a8e235d6a941d590bb285e30
a3cef74dd570cd4f1d85a27ade3159344d2f5981
55634 F20110209_AAASPQ friedel_c_Page_167.pro
fa392c5657daec1ead5e2da3791b8087
a2bcd2e991d2ee663ffde084a07f48f5418b0ffb
32361 F20110209_AAAUWP friedel_c_Page_168.QC.jpg
ce9955867b002159c46d11cefcb86958
a018f80a8ed16e30b9da44ccbafb5218530a0688
1051945 F20110209_AAAUJE friedel_c_Page_025.jp2
5ecdd583f4137819a1694363996d201e
138310ac40d2d49a01ce2cc756c2b79ab18ee0d6
1901 F20110209_AAATMK friedel_c_Page_111.txt
35d4df9ccd585f06337da3480fb1aad6
0edb232ac1cface69c56a7801150f330c71ef3ec
273120 F20110209_AAASCG friedel_c_Page_001.jp2
ae1e8e734a2b70e87d8764254339e5e1
3b0acae33482f575d0cd8293abc3eae163395c16
104536 F20110209_AAASPR friedel_c_Page_025.jpg
a523d9ce0f3d82beb55739afc45a5c7e
e37e996735bbc679d7b8a1bbe794a5c409a799d7
31712 F20110209_AAAUWQ friedel_c_Page_169.QC.jpg
267020a0ab436aa067551c4e76dc3aed
bb1000efbfbde3fd04a7874719aff6edd287087e
1899 F20110209_AAATML friedel_c_Page_112.txt
234fe680e87dd38a36a2101ca2dc14a0
bbf8d12f89201aee8c5fbf463b1779f3f5eb1ac5
F20110209_AAASCH friedel_c_Page_238.tif
2d42d264a233f6205aae462ea2b2b984
74d6c0ee75e0c16619200a0ad1adabc08f5ab140
63445 F20110209_AAATZW friedel_c_Page_320.pro
d2ed6c8881dd5ca06b8817199fd589c4
f1280d6cecbbb8665aa0c18223e35b580e04c366
71608 F20110209_AAASPS friedel_c_Page_317.pro
dd044b7c0adfb8cd16c21db3634b8666
9bb7d1344ce02f51cd6f66e5669d6dff943a6fb5
26872 F20110209_AAAUWR friedel_c_Page_170.QC.jpg
a834804780c00fee2c33d9f62943bee4
ed1f99c017bc111c4ade255ca49d4a688ee90180
F20110209_AAAUJF friedel_c_Page_026.jp2
23a8eadebd3fa227baceac88b85cb12a
461a7165649cd834f70fd2a64f1e5a4c1c6fb7b9
1817 F20110209_AAATMM friedel_c_Page_114.txt
25379b9eb4aa8801cb1ef0a147347c0d
fa520026399f0ad2364d4533253b0f21e8943e54
F20110209_AAASCI friedel_c_Page_230.tif
373624646c4338ee9489c4a16e936580
5a7b5a536ab640efcf4badaac0de4325fbdda897
40783 F20110209_AAATZX friedel_c_Page_322.pro
b90e491b14ae851d36ca1d928bee1719
96574373842467262e100833397471deeefb0600
7854 F20110209_AAASPT friedel_c_Page_220thm.jpg
f2c6385bbd662cd1cfbbcf44d18f4505
207ffb6394a5d279c203d0d8c33067b9a93de37d
8437 F20110209_AAAVGA friedel_c_Page_225thm.jpg
f9e4486e606f47617399df2097ede7dd
6a9ecc53c67e1cc6aeb487abd02e8af8bf7dc382
1051898 F20110209_AAAUJG friedel_c_Page_028.jp2
a1691d5ba022a793b14b95e7d6153b89
c25fa4ee8476c86565139aaf80deb816da5c19df
1866 F20110209_AAATMN friedel_c_Page_119.txt
6fb8a086944c66c1695deaa4e0069532
f6ffc08712d9459e21d9a58b2574b5799389771b
F20110209_AAASCJ friedel_c_Page_137.tif
33e3269af0f09173220ba29d7fe99b97
62c807d54bbc3d44e7f0d3ef4ce094777cb367f8
10457 F20110209_AAATZY friedel_c_Page_323.pro
e62c4ae84e7bb5aa4068142be03c5be7
a6e38f29fa0155aa1fe6fe18b0ffa26e75ed78a3
32100 F20110209_AAASPU friedel_c_Page_260.QC.jpg
611f30b3ae404bea91f3cb6bc8b38c1a
34248fb41e02a0a00dc8eaca58af40111a968001
16617 F20110209_AAAUWS friedel_c_Page_171.QC.jpg
3c350969151b529023bcc8202ed1ec8d
758729e51bc75017346421a2cb3dbc957342771f
1051955 F20110209_AAAUJH friedel_c_Page_030.jp2
e87131699cf47eb616c808aff12b6b73
f0f167a8d2f89cab02e6e4577c3928e4253003c6
F20110209_AAATMO friedel_c_Page_120.txt
7fd94ab146b19d991fa6600b7e871d50
24a37d70c0de67a3fe1bd8bef1ac9ba393dc10a0
101224 F20110209_AAASCK friedel_c_Page_148.jpg
3c622f5e48baa83cce603bbb1c2b88e8
3a9c1cb6f8439a97f9498280457cdeacd5f7a41f
47089 F20110209_AAATZZ friedel_c_Page_324.pro
75d0df1fb7e2fd2b2ddec26377d3308e
2ec06956df20d074887718d4915ce1e712c4fe8c
35226 F20110209_AAASPV friedel_c_Page_161.QC.jpg
057735f1448f5248a396c2a3fcb91d06
d1b66940efd9a4fe8d18ef6b97a64dd8e1d00123
7800 F20110209_AAAVGB friedel_c_Page_230thm.jpg
60bf63dc08aba1df1c369e23bf3c1af4
76a538eb095fa8aabd5c32c96b3dd485a1bca847
26097 F20110209_AAAUWT friedel_c_Page_172.QC.jpg
f77c3e90fc185c829588c1ded361c7f1
85afd7a0f4c79bd201f9cbacbde31c51eef10208
1051904 F20110209_AAAUJI friedel_c_Page_031.jp2
550ccce02666ca0c52433b58b946cc03
25c158eea3ef820baeddb8d7426d43efd673a297
2407 F20110209_AAATMP friedel_c_Page_121.txt
15cf2e9ce9430f0e966efe255b7bdb69
086097c41c9569ac98b291c9fc9a89c6ea5b08f0
94370 F20110209_AAASCL friedel_c_Page_116.jpg
91a1d5fcef33e046b593b1eb97083d03
5c9a3228d996dbe8578e77ad5ef08aa75c1ad0b2
30254 F20110209_AAASPW friedel_c_Page_012.QC.jpg
aed4eafd6318d0e0a3037ae9bc64ed9f
d5dad23cd74dfa8cc8162cc9c8dd8783915fa2d9
7768 F20110209_AAAVGC friedel_c_Page_231thm.jpg
42893b1509cf23adff00c0456064b812
9243c1158bb59a084ff778d8a7007277275448a8
31643 F20110209_AAAUWU friedel_c_Page_173.QC.jpg
d6f0f55db3aaf88e4be6ca1ec4f4f652
6d55743eaecc948f35f098e1fd1d6f6c044fde0e
1051977 F20110209_AAAUJJ friedel_c_Page_032.jp2
6030ef57d6a952f208b612a830a06dac
e8529a459b09c56b91be92004b257149544fd831
2527 F20110209_AAATMQ friedel_c_Page_122.txt
c425ff5b157c9305582c49dce183560b
cfb6af694de76de512a16bb25b98d4c4e4d8b5ab
8258 F20110209_AAASCM friedel_c_Page_154thm.jpg
10ee12ac08ef981d970e836778694fd3
3088998c4b4a8c833a2973583ff5a86d89c1aebd
7567 F20110209_AAASPX friedel_c_Page_340thm.jpg
15e893a947989ce9773a410dd385bd0d
beaeeaed759b031a80f9b14b97738d1a83f99f0c
8194 F20110209_AAAVGD friedel_c_Page_232thm.jpg
f85035e0cf5f9a7418b2931a14d5f9f2
2de7b9bf0d78a22082b5467f247c445c2ef0cfe2
32738 F20110209_AAAUWV friedel_c_Page_175.QC.jpg
810efc9cd29badff841e93b9df1480ad
7e275b2143505ebd609fa1567fd1307afc8d47ff
F20110209_AAAUJK friedel_c_Page_033.jp2
039663574d98bfd7a93a10aa837e33fd
6dffe83edb0c5dd406e814f4d482389f94d25bd7
2274 F20110209_AAATMR friedel_c_Page_124.txt
4df60511194596c378b3c47209134eab
0bfd1cd5704736f55dfcc8c327afbebd3ae9fb66
32107 F20110209_AAASCN friedel_c_Page_097.QC.jpg
825fa6939edfde5503fa0438b06582df
4c1978ce13b000b47249ca0e71224c7e077d356e
49393 F20110209_AAASPY friedel_c_Page_238.pro
e064b4f8f6911ee613f44cbeeaafc58f
6c20fa8149f857ebbad498e1b7907d7471922b50
7915 F20110209_AAAVGE friedel_c_Page_233thm.jpg
783660041162a6b526b76e6c961ad1e7
3770398297384d027863d51100caef306ee3db39
31888 F20110209_AAAUWW friedel_c_Page_176.QC.jpg
8da84ce27619d470956276c6d83b26e1
c66c0920ce6ccccb0546549becc49a0cea34634f
F20110209_AAAUJL friedel_c_Page_034.jp2
33aa1e682d5bbcb18c6d3288606791f6
a6d25fca2a96000a63e56d2e53866628edf3a76c
2287 F20110209_AAATMS friedel_c_Page_126.txt
d467c5b31bdd9938c8e9809d2033219b
329599e9318399dfc0becd5e1b0c78bb09b22e6c
52486 F20110209_AAASCO friedel_c_Page_250.pro
06938915022fcd0f8fc7befd88580ae8
098e0b700fc390eb432aa4e3377c72ae4bd7730d
7446 F20110209_AAASPZ friedel_c_Page_198thm.jpg
eb3ae6f2ceb55af3bc6a9519dc51a2d4
411c3983d2d3a0ae1f66c0554bc6f4c604e45fbc
7837 F20110209_AAAVGF friedel_c_Page_236thm.jpg
5d42611b38be135a63d5f8dba8297ab4
ecd82bdef710ad5acc52adf4a62ec94cd4a4bdc7
32326 F20110209_AAAUWX friedel_c_Page_180.QC.jpg
b333c8caebac30b678786340f13c50a3
d01f05a0d9a9ad38787c17ca70f72e2dcac3bab2
1051888 F20110209_AAAUJM friedel_c_Page_035.jp2
0d0c2ece02fc69707651ebe592ebb4f8
70365bab69b79963df9c090ebed033a525c17a7a
2402 F20110209_AAATMT friedel_c_Page_128.txt
75271a3d237ee4e89b9f7a78ff7dd431
a6ec6fc1e3f727386c4eefc977cedc6696059fbe
2439 F20110209_AAASCP friedel_c_Page_206.txt
95d3bb2dcc91fc7399fe01aeffa43955
dc22637d1a773f076a232f9538da719826d84ab5
8391 F20110209_AAAVGG friedel_c_Page_237thm.jpg
fe9eb93c47e58ff52f087d7d0dd9c371
d20b9072468374419ac3d41a80eaac562d5a0ed8
31106 F20110209_AAAUWY friedel_c_Page_182.QC.jpg
c9a7ef50e465b328aba752ea24077632
c58f050728bb0a63a0da272dcb0ea11a80b36c31
788888 F20110209_AAAUJN friedel_c_Page_036.jp2
9262e4a846e83e26430b0f90a3d78905
a896243674be40c72c8590c4a8ef0b1857e673fa
F20110209_AAATMU friedel_c_Page_129.txt
0bdf2bb87c21e747e3ce5299cf1337cc
b5ae72834f69182e175011eced056c04fc339da4
2101 F20110209_AAARYA friedel_c_Page_321thm.jpg
be3cfdc021e6bda0e0d082f323263dca
01d1edeec82dab7c57c0ccb67348abf2c25df7ad
F20110209_AAASCQ friedel_c_Page_271.tif
11aa41e929286bc246f4819f45d73ced
b3b3e1fff70049c852825321fc1754e2b8c469f0
7684 F20110209_AAAVGH friedel_c_Page_240thm.jpg
2b448e8be9fc18c369e30638e734aaf6
4f2ee2976c0d3d6eef5fd38176e09bfdadac7e7d
28958 F20110209_AAAUWZ friedel_c_Page_183.QC.jpg
fb1dd4584af933ae40f68077bed1e391
5121560d2378546e94385d615bc9042824841f06
949161 F20110209_AAAUJO friedel_c_Page_037.jp2
8d7dbf35bef19afc63c9d85242705f87
58cb70a9fa3ab68fc12ef51b2b979afa9a1442d9
2233 F20110209_AAATMV friedel_c_Page_131.txt
8a25637fda3436abe6e4fdaeb5dce49e
0978efd7abf5e5569ced78d956cd1fff9995bd8a
34832 F20110209_AAARYB friedel_c_Page_053.QC.jpg
0bdbc2fee7550761c25335737b6e8668
59e9a7ddf7193af97139db60041bfff2f4683858
1583 F20110209_AAASCR friedel_c_Page_199.txt
93dde1b0763be344e5cf86ad3e01692b
3785aea1c94c75f28fff10493e2d2b50e0de8c36
7887 F20110209_AAAVGI friedel_c_Page_242thm.jpg
037c4232b9556dfc22d7186b799f8024
bd57278cb560fb3e8a56a005db6f3a4698a2a1c6
F20110209_AAAUJP friedel_c_Page_038.jp2
1ce4f188cf576f899c40867f6f02db48
076f09d179a32e17f5ca03fad25bfaadc7fe9458
2620 F20110209_AAATMW friedel_c_Page_133.txt
a51e566deef6da88d5db217af7ec2971
3b453ce074a9d6bca27c17660b7e0a8dae6bead7
886009 F20110209_AAARYC friedel_c_Page_171.jp2
400263fccbe582579a3d3a4b1b2a0aae
6c812ad6c071da44759001830b90987623d8fc72
2478 F20110209_AAASCS friedel_c_Page_331.txt
1b34c83a381522e7ce09db476afdd937
078f63d297201632f5e4f3b8fafc616da4817792
8279 F20110209_AAAVGJ friedel_c_Page_245thm.jpg
de0675944c192e609116ec8ac8a888c4
519d5211809efbedf75184bc26497b517d9786d4
1051941 F20110209_AAAUJQ friedel_c_Page_040.jp2
f6d3a0d6845ac3d1b88a25e274b5e58e
0aa96302d1d17404456512d0aa594debf8d8d825
2144 F20110209_AAATMX friedel_c_Page_134.txt
e7f6fdfb4f63b995cdc9ba19d0ec8f82
507dead31bf0a34279bd2cb71aaf001a01fc363e
F20110209_AAARYD friedel_c_Page_042.tif
5348b72c7e1e87fbbf56a130a0558eff
6361ac43b7c0a183cbde2e4d7750f52e360a9782
33790 F20110209_AAASCT friedel_c_Page_073.QC.jpg
16c82dbfe57dad296a5a58010e2c0dbb
9c7d1a3dea813c624af817ba4ba1707c7885bd27
8316 F20110209_AAAVGK friedel_c_Page_246thm.jpg
13ab7376df7dce2d5f1aba29027f65ba
3bea27aebb5c93fddb6bb75e0054568f90ecb1d7
968543 F20110209_AAAUJR friedel_c_Page_041.jp2
6648b31ef88fb8208e649ba2d2da5301
ee3d751c25bbbb530dbd9a06072a370c4e64fa79
2314 F20110209_AAATMY friedel_c_Page_136.txt
a1738ec90d4628cd39dbe3a924a18f67
b525a0b330a43ac07fba9977d52e749100c62a01
1051978 F20110209_AAARYE friedel_c_Page_096.jp2
868f37679a8beb4522b557669d7566f6
ddf602fc6a82e4f3f5775c7df41c5dabf9770db4
33883 F20110209_AAASCU friedel_c_Page_167.QC.jpg
7e525e23baa042e9659e442d37d60193
5bc29c5e5e2788467c4f8bddd2332a04cba306a2
8532 F20110209_AAAVGL friedel_c_Page_250thm.jpg
556cb5ce66d151100a2aa94110762f8d
85bef3484b015120f4134a347da1ad007719d1a0
514091 F20110209_AAAUJS friedel_c_Page_042.jp2
4959706353501c2a4b62ff4a1f300309
f97a7f3c73c49f0a6d6eca1c852114ff0c97c490
2430 F20110209_AAATMZ friedel_c_Page_139.txt
f78e22ff3b3f221b316d814bd1ad5926
ce92f56ee2bd7af619d9b396caf953bf5b17817b
8073 F20110209_AAARYF friedel_c_Page_126thm.jpg
39241ed5d9b495722eace749d0856aac
e0de24f8a660a3ecfea35e493256fcc6030c48c1
F20110209_AAASCV friedel_c_Page_248.tif
8e1dbf0fafff2d2573d36c2748ae2741
ead23b21cc0879348454656d9b4dbdab816bceaf
8305 F20110209_AAAVGM friedel_c_Page_252thm.jpg
c69f776d511272f869218950d1d0b029
7de553217a43913af83ad0e7393d2147a511c9c6
F20110209_AAAUJT friedel_c_Page_044.jp2
38dbf4dc817038a257d378ad98fc8314
c46f27d285a1c0ab3a039017eb4aa2db76fe1003
2012 F20110209_AAARYG friedel_c_Page_050.txt
7f0d3b650b1298607fb56926047b1124
d4885c3070fd785a9418435e5da6d4933edff160
31185 F20110209_AAASCW friedel_c_Page_204.QC.jpg
bd3e7a793f28c8d5168fe409757011d8
1be84e3c7d31f144e8868918cc4afc11ff237ce1
8011 F20110209_AAAVGN friedel_c_Page_253thm.jpg
c6aa123eb681e6cb39177d9678393fe2
9e04223af45e9c59ef28053e19ad7f0ea2a9aa25
712918 F20110209_AAAUJU friedel_c_Page_045.jp2
77d3f62643fbb6fea8b96325f4ee4652
ab394b65f7e0d1b65f9ec07918fb4c1df090cfcf
23960 F20110209_AAARYH friedel_c_Page_218.QC.jpg
e8e13a5f05d3afcc51503080ceefafef
e7c64ac2d86ca09f8c439d08ae25d26f2ea1af20
96268 F20110209_AAASCX friedel_c_Page_274.jpg
d8585c726af3e7266744ae8afe7e412a
5edd091858dd2c83e0c398b16c89e0e43c6808e8
103319 F20110209_AAASVA friedel_c_Page_090.jpg
c7a112f4f500ed633b812663ada21fb6
53a9daad0f1c4dd9aaebd57f1af522ccdcdd6c19
F20110209_AAAVGO friedel_c_Page_254thm.jpg
2a2ea710b3ce204792a71753a26a7a5b
118d8ea52bc8828a7808217dd6b6dad24f388d9a
F20110209_AAAUJV friedel_c_Page_046.jp2
1bcd837f186d88dd92c7397db7f3d78f
c7b0a5ab4a66851616dc26621bc9ae0e1a0369c4
1038136 F20110209_AAARYI friedel_c_Page_286.jp2
a73fcab927aed8127d4bc2dcd3210f32
10b04351d5dfd7e427389d7c3ab3f5c5532ad7ba
F20110209_AAASCY friedel_c_Page_121.tif
531b9995657b861bfad96882f42aea49
7a6b38239e631cab8e3b5ea00a5fbc1b36f31604
101798 F20110209_AAASVB friedel_c_Page_105.jpg
221c2c462978f8580fada11a72051da1
8a70d1cd6207b80971a7d933392ae33a26ace1fe
8079 F20110209_AAAVGP friedel_c_Page_258thm.jpg
6e9da7d03726aff385ba5e03837c4aa1
1a3f1810ada89e85b12f7e575217a9a0df6e8957
F20110209_AAAUJW friedel_c_Page_050.jp2
e20aa5906233d93dd7b514ebcb1f35dc
45e673e579135f6745883d4327240e852e9a238c
7881 F20110209_AAARYJ friedel_c_Page_291thm.jpg
9c6ecf161e9ac8382f140e3597fd27df
afe7e87ce3f8ecd275569b3a4ab472928ef6d1a0
28643 F20110209_AAASCZ friedel_c_Page_144.QC.jpg
4f04b8dfecdc2e32500ee63996c54b92
b35712b90eea70fc2e4f1db683efc50d06d51407
47453 F20110209_AAASVC friedel_c_Page_072.pro
8434b6b52423c03d1f9de3f83ec0101c
a307487b7adb9d6d45f4fbf90f1df10d146e41b1
7678 F20110209_AAAVGQ friedel_c_Page_259thm.jpg
e7e51d7c3d98e6b176debcc0671b9755
2c6cab0b879ba7ad51dbded54bc33e8e1cc04fe4
F20110209_AAAUJX friedel_c_Page_056.jp2
72e61ca87c09ec9cda1eb9fc06d66855
3fdce4aeab2099d20cc7acce863cf3838df24316
2326 F20110209_AAARYK friedel_c_Page_138.txt
dd92c6b8a92e9ae93a2d0b7f383fce9e
df48fa84c3ed22bb59937eba8bbc91831bfb6bf8
F20110209_AAASVD friedel_c_Page_287.tif
8952ef2ecd4f7d0eba6c3581702c5b89
463d39a298d952a2ff9a6f99eb739c32e38f5cfa
7891 F20110209_AAAVGR friedel_c_Page_260thm.jpg
a20ce6a010c6219334be57a207f6ed17
35f49daf0e6f181279e2198dce5af4a176262c61
1051947 F20110209_AAAUJY friedel_c_Page_057.jp2
89a37184252e93423071fe76cd0dcb4a
12422ae67a86a31ee05bee4f116c4a171613ffd0
51339 F20110209_AAARYL friedel_c_Page_244.pro
e0a0649c85f01681c31a151f40f10891
d37ff3e2753a2edcc984e3a18ffb7d73e663291e
54336 F20110209_AAASVE friedel_c_Page_190.pro
42f01f9fff27c1008ce7661f26436b95
2f03fcd3bb3bf0aeee87b52cb4cab2a0c36b2f0c
F20110209_AAAVGS friedel_c_Page_261thm.jpg
1041be2bd6832f6776740ac485258dc3
67b9c2df5febcf6d20993865fe815556b610b9b9
F20110209_AAAUJZ friedel_c_Page_060.jp2
6c84f87dff7635f24019420c34e5b146
4e8f16e9e9f18d1fe27627082551e2da822feeae
2442 F20110209_AAARYM friedel_c_Page_165.txt
d8ff0bf89c5120204c5ee13e68565af4
60d06bdebbba51feca34d98c1340e2ae735d8c30
8177 F20110209_AAASVF friedel_c_Page_062thm.jpg
ed9e309d46fe486aa09cf95346a958ac
8d8c4d99e217dd8fa996d26feb13f8df3819e255
8225 F20110209_AAAVGT friedel_c_Page_265thm.jpg
51be7eb848c78788d491b2ac188c89da
1b5f783c0d900da0b7aa30172d6b41eb6c9c9ad4
2425 F20110209_AAARYN friedel_c_Page_195.txt
8a861d4591e7d1560f9b4a78e80ef19d
ef474221fdfb6b51adda62263dd76b24d4439243
56490 F20110209_AAASVG friedel_c_Page_138.pro
21633c76cb3040416f05be9f99257865
1a31c30273e12d7d8c390670c6590423d1cb54e2
8205 F20110209_AAAVGU friedel_c_Page_267thm.jpg
1a0de051b9490703a65278b1e342c3ff
38bba77036fe2f818d3c688b48d79d4ee90cb471
1804 F20110209_AAARYO friedel_c_Page_207.txt
9f8f9b008f288b82b01c28c8f9f22cd0
9d33f9d8c9085ab3ceb7d3baaea3b5245e38a222
32750 F20110209_AAASVH friedel_c_Page_060.QC.jpg
e114eb8fda737db8ba95087b4b829554
1729c03ffd2573f8632dee57cf4e03b8965bb78a
113090 F20110209_AAATSA friedel_c_Page_008.pro
becaa14dca9d53a38be612ba9a5695db
4f9a966a6ec577eee82f40aa7f72b89e15feb1cf
7507 F20110209_AAAVGV friedel_c_Page_268thm.jpg
9cac2a5d54168f0b4134c251c0e0c366
a6f96e811f7dd016ab803f2ebb8b6445a68b616b
81708 F20110209_AAARYP friedel_c_Page_191.jpg
228fe29c4e655c1fd6fedb9c22f42e19
f33836bb00b3603025865aa033fa852b3e82633e
1877 F20110209_AAASVI friedel_c_Page_286.txt
89dceb9cb5d6dbcd68a3ef8494ff6736
1297c35c8923189a2fd7ed4bdcc1c3764245a2d6
93503 F20110209_AAATSB friedel_c_Page_009.pro
4f01e861287e0ffcc1aeb89d751e6476
aaff2acc5f8ede38bfbfacf98e81c3f87185d9f6
7252 F20110209_AAAVGW friedel_c_Page_269thm.jpg
6027cf777b9fdba3f2630e6fd236858c
59044504ab12cf17f8fa4c0c56394b13ffb45a06
101987 F20110209_AAARYQ friedel_c_Page_078.jpg
655ca7e683a8ff7ed6e13c4a0c73b3f6
228d5cafd63fe84992f29e3db74340efb1585219
1129 F20110209_AAASVJ friedel_c_Page_329.txt
3ebb4780d3c45a0e2d1b75372000d616
c1d407e7da570a7d2ec0f19848147206a42dfdcb
11217 F20110209_AAATSC friedel_c_Page_010.pro
11fc3daa654e1d5bd20896f36a62ddee
3926fd9303a09121ac190e5ec6d685add5d12a5f
7583 F20110209_AAAVGX friedel_c_Page_270thm.jpg
1cbba37092d28e38131952c577468bf8
6acaeebd46f09ee9a1c9e96d0483e914f1e7a4af
54498 F20110209_AAARYR friedel_c_Page_136.pro
8619dfa5fd5fdb12f3358f72d23da964
7f8894e7ef49e6ee0204a494f81c700109a5fe9c
6366 F20110209_AAASVK friedel_c_Page_218thm.jpg
bb6aab9affdbbfdd86f2359ab8ac235e
68c03d0140f365b19f4411c12697abc7e6b18e7f
62502 F20110209_AAATSD friedel_c_Page_012.pro
d197472da04e9b39fec6984547327012
4ec919cc3fd63822b4ca33ce77a808edd989e0d9
8076 F20110209_AAAVGY friedel_c_Page_274thm.jpg
701ddbca1dedfd6849d8f557fa219dec
fe70ac8fbec0288fbb822b964ab6a1ca5043935d
F20110209_AAASIA friedel_c_Page_221.tif
de5325c80e0b9035f558621ea250d566
6adb7eb57813dda0f2cd32429666e8a23155549b
1824 F20110209_AAARYS friedel_c_Page_116.txt
f68c6bb7cec5a19a90e20daddcc761f3
b6a42633c85603b41a306543240f671e9aeae725
52569 F20110209_AAASVL friedel_c_Page_206.pro
aca277d5bcd8828338fa3a3370e07eea
fc93bd40d9fd9f6cd61b6d4eddc043bed8479912
68594 F20110209_AAATSE friedel_c_Page_013.pro
2f2f214e22a8da4747a75c1aac531f67
2839e25bf52fb8ef02bf5a8cb643b88b3c9bc221
7905 F20110209_AAAVGZ friedel_c_Page_279thm.jpg
143486736e47a8173ced41485fa42f1f
c5d69243d670413999c3f6d78a773105eae3b6eb
973543 F20110209_AAASIB friedel_c_Page_243.jp2
8b37ca22d951379a81c4c85208f93ab8
1664a85e0338aa5739113b53f37bfee375577b52
85155 F20110209_AAARYT friedel_c_Page_330.jpg
b19730a4ed53bf3516cec8ef72846880
32e6fda2f1f45e2f8d8a27ddc7d92d5f70af2d4b
31511 F20110209_AAASVM friedel_c_Page_302.QC.jpg
beb8bed1698bf1cb47f91fe2e49a3ac6
6b173e6a0fafcf0ee3353cedebeba4826d560ad6
46004 F20110209_AAATSF friedel_c_Page_015.pro
25e46bda7ae333a032ed4f79ada7bcf9
77a5c814c61b85be24e2813566fb02a02edd3c37
6478 F20110209_AAASIC friedel_c_Page_343thm.jpg
1c5e4893649bac0929f668c24e564a19
52c54e14cbba141aad067a757164bf748d5957ff
F20110209_AAARYU friedel_c_Page_149.jp2
c668080a7ea682044ac4af524c07d5e0
4fdbe52be56b3c291adaba697d6bcb04ad18d372
1842 F20110209_AAASVN friedel_c_Page_293.txt
dfc1bb0f9870ecf83a674d512f4f43b5
31e6cb6eb2ea0c2923fda0e13edac1a203cf3724
9279 F20110209_AAATSG friedel_c_Page_016.pro
e22f265647193dab85411b94fd733d0c
d672c5b0258b5c58c4670fd0098bec9fc831fd36
1051951 F20110209_AAAUPA friedel_c_Page_261.jp2
ea4bb7c0bb8cfdee172c3eee68e1e0f4
3f28a5305a7b557678469af2f3a973165135a419
49543 F20110209_AAASID friedel_c_Page_173.pro
cd158f1cb94732a928bc1c3a6d405e84
bfd1c14fe6fcfa70794385e0bcccb24d86ea56c9
4442 F20110209_AAARYV friedel_c_Page_007.txt
16c9885fb3ac8accbb7984d0593a3d69
bd8de3e400601c8a9987ba1d09ac38bd64a4878f
31723 F20110209_AAASVO friedel_c_Page_209.QC.jpg
0007f269ffee916059df08b3923eb640
dbe98af93de3369fbdd5dd7a136cb9810ce17154
37504 F20110209_AAATSH friedel_c_Page_018.pro
af8b3ff42a5b7bd64eb18a07eb814df4
7b9db8395ab05a2f863c57f97ff81af0456bf667
309101 F20110209_AAAUPB friedel_c_Page_262.jp2
2f76ee21738c5894b15deb8e5517bd60
9b8949060035094bf0c0dc1eaf83d49c70b475ef
27915 F20110209_AAASIE friedel_c_Page_037.QC.jpg
d080dc3ef79e2fdc791328a9ed217ace
ae9597627343bddb4a139b1b5a04d655a4f46f28
F20110209_AAARYW friedel_c_Page_140.jp2
5312f0fbe419c238b9cb33aab6d8bb7f
66083b128b74c19ce6fec9104641b54e235682c7
1505 F20110209_AAASVP friedel_c_Page_018.txt
d0d32a58796f045a4fcdd215f8c3b68a
19bedb6307db06e8fcc1cb9ef42c9f082123c91f
56538 F20110209_AAATSI friedel_c_Page_021.pro
7163feb96a3b2cbdcd82b68c006c823a
05ddf3ee2a2e000bd9de1aa07ea046000a387c55
997384 F20110209_AAAUPC friedel_c_Page_263.jp2
94294ffd433b892e0f495eda97bd408b
b2abb28f31d3ab6a79be6604365eb2b33c04750b
F20110209_AAASIF friedel_c_Page_007.tif
4d27412c28cae9733a04ecab5a546036
11ceca8342151da8dabfe64a292894ce300e0db3
F20110209_AAASVQ friedel_c_Page_253.tif
f6b6165ea215cef6bfd3f1f92fdffc46
497efc1400bf19f9250b4f6eb1ca441b078f9004
50513 F20110209_AAATSJ friedel_c_Page_023.pro
9d3ab10a2b60af91befd84f6d315be8a
866574b67d647e60e85246b0f6d3b0aaa77be698
F20110209_AAAUPD friedel_c_Page_265.jp2
a13ddd3bddb514a6e9c23bbf8e9546cf
38bfe8dfc372df81d969dac9025348bed4e7dbfc
960612 F20110209_AAARYX friedel_c_Page_183.jp2
a438ee42328c46c8a8cf194bf7e07efc
0c32d48075a0ba7dedb9790c5fd899a092836544
77643 F20110209_AAASVR friedel_c_Page_201.jpg
4ee28a41cd554b902d998722a75a83ef
4a53fab56f78d724740322a4be5edf070143f470
52080 F20110209_AAATSK friedel_c_Page_024.pro
d28ced43b1cb4dfa2df054cb364698e7
18e733ba80b5caf39bc8310f1a9473b30db4eb8e
1051964 F20110209_AAAUPE friedel_c_Page_266.jp2
989ed736f875775b0e7db63ca36afc59
d77f4321c96f2ff070d472b1384ee828e2253e9a
7934 F20110209_AAASIG friedel_c_Page_123thm.jpg
4437219e08ab79d874b0ba99513d5150
5c2221a0df2374cf4d729cf5b29dc9f2e4d10ee4
100777 F20110209_AAARYY friedel_c_Page_077.jpg
037ce3327b39e84c513f7e7f965c2712
724064d12edcc1eb6711e0afdc3aee7e762a0c4c
F20110209_AAATFA friedel_c_Page_151.tif
9fe8b1460dbcd64a4dff9238c7e627a8
3d01a74ea0dd5e25546527af41b2ca66bc46d504
30469 F20110209_AAASVS friedel_c_Page_336.QC.jpg
eff130190ff0ec61104ec2156e0c06d4
d581bde6184dbf2dcb2a533e1a6996cf679c35f6
51567 F20110209_AAATSL friedel_c_Page_025.pro
9fa60ceac6dc3a0083703fdcdf4f870b
715fecaeda9424a09d241dea025daa7d0023f54d
F20110209_AAAUPF friedel_c_Page_267.jp2
8514df804bda6f877c16f03191f1c779
482507fad578487351fda33324c3269be2da23ab
F20110209_AAASIH friedel_c_Page_160.tif
c64f9aa33eaf0d801cb4754afa505457
726df6e23b41e8f165d86f6c18cf6584b3f07cbf
113148 F20110209_AAARYZ friedel_c_Page_332.jpg
851d249a939c027384cbabb703585129
1d3c9a11297ae77ac9363a665e95dd80daf4c577
F20110209_AAATFB friedel_c_Page_153.tif
c75c70193a98b4d4361db456d73aafa4
5bd9a54e316d903c2c94da16f01c9fdee3ee103f
52111 F20110209_AAATSM friedel_c_Page_029.pro
85e72c918829e1dba80ca1cbe5160563
9e8a60c05c81cda5b15a2195a91ff21c8985671d
986903 F20110209_AAAUPG friedel_c_Page_268.jp2
a8b1ee8ad3382625c1d98e706e04c2b4
bdce03a28fb485f0be24124f8a6fbda3396e9a15
8294 F20110209_AAASII friedel_c_Page_316thm.jpg
ba6d5e9df712ecae406a709196509945
e2038536092d11d710adbb8088a2115b78bb096f
F20110209_AAASVT friedel_c_Page_004.tif
d31be48a9c0c5f6489d583154066e24e
919436a75a976caf65782dc7a82b39e3c990f255
53188 F20110209_AAATSN friedel_c_Page_031.pro
9685df10cdabadcf6b1ffa3326404741
f39e1b299d2cb8a595fd7d358eca30de1c329bf6
963526 F20110209_AAAUPH friedel_c_Page_270.jp2
eb7e9d315166a9b0b5481be01ab44c66
ca8fbe2c009d0b9eb0a14685b2828352fc89bf95
100548 F20110209_AAASIJ friedel_c_Page_315.jpg
9b77dc90784984ce4d9cd4288ac8e8e5
77070bd7db350093832c3bd25a04fcdb6a2fa4a6
F20110209_AAATFC friedel_c_Page_154.tif
60e9ffe5651c1bfb7327dad285d80a3e
c0e84f448f7f7cd1d2bd24a5a7a13db6a144001e
7723 F20110209_AAASVU friedel_c_Page_243thm.jpg
2685c6d4423c9b7ebcacd17649f54ad1
52b624be041f38b3c876d42e7f996a43b7a8ad50
47917 F20110209_AAATSO friedel_c_Page_032.pro
c527812482f2b57ef42d1bffc5f14fa4
521e4767fadd279e38683f3f160518cf3182179b
1030417 F20110209_AAAUPI friedel_c_Page_271.jp2
52a5bf4b6f40c368038128a65f4590eb
c640872b52d82a9968668a2525776c24f44e54ba
F20110209_AAASIK friedel_c_Page_237.tif
ac6855244dbf9986d328b49435277ead
8f1b01916228224862feb0a4cd53a7a64660eb7e
F20110209_AAATFD friedel_c_Page_155.tif
5828635431c65d058ad9cc127cb780dc
32bfe23109cbc6ec191ff13f5c1b2a96a5c32d7c
8030 F20110209_AAASVV friedel_c_Page_249thm.jpg
a07ede753883befb7e263fc9c74c7642
1e10c2acaa1ec3a965dcabb52907f5843de300e2
1051965 F20110209_AAAUPJ friedel_c_Page_272.jp2
5be63cb3e2fb1123d7c8a23048dd2853
e6d44f5322e94ac33c0c3ff13327bb9c4251dfc7
F20110209_AAASIL friedel_c_Page_169.txt
51dc837e613e6e195fd486a5ae128b77
bab4bbfb48f2129feeeeb2d272517d340cc1191e
F20110209_AAATFE friedel_c_Page_156.tif
52934f99629a8b32ccdccdeb5c3a46f4
04f4810e8e27cf64f28c9c3cc3f85b64ad7b8872
50884 F20110209_AAASVW friedel_c_Page_089.pro
3a848e920bc6dbc21136209e8b44bbfe
fe2dcd8420a1d704dbd1970d9b51cc65445867de
52997 F20110209_AAATSP friedel_c_Page_033.pro
ea2bebe46f992ad3e895ce1d3551e2fd
784fd9f1fa846af778a0679961b845defd61c158
F20110209_AAAUPK friedel_c_Page_273.jp2
9f5932eb11fdf89189fe93765bf19abc
b4ff385bbab527386db0407ab9735f575e8959b1
55801 F20110209_AAASIM friedel_c_Page_132.pro
774c26da65879e7c581f525aa8dbbe41
68303d6fbbd1aaa1fb9f142680926f3dfaabb174
F20110209_AAATFF friedel_c_Page_157.tif
2ea63e4593c3faabe90da253edc63c8d
d23de901cf1b97ab56b0bb914213c4fd9513804d
F20110209_AAASVX friedel_c_Page_089.tif
917cc9aaa4ecbe0947a3f71d33de4cb6
f74f2ea59867b3b2402292cdf0f223e50180d445
42035 F20110209_AAATSQ friedel_c_Page_037.pro
a366362418c2431b3b318ceb5b96f2e0
b6d05ad12e99770127efe36cd3ba5d6618d6d107
104313 F20110209_AAASIN friedel_c_Page_095.jpg
aef223f75573316d8fb11dbf45b06e15
d8965308b188da16935434d36097402ffa3764c5
F20110209_AAATFG friedel_c_Page_158.tif
996f6e5ae03ae1f40d9b9b659e65bc31
90d5386d87362abc72008cab01770bb695168d4f
8449 F20110209_AAASVY friedel_c_Page_159thm.jpg
b46250d33dcc8536618bc3bbc07ce6ad
9e302379dc76704085793efc989a81c1035c32e2
48874 F20110209_AAATSR friedel_c_Page_039.pro
3d4b18bb623ceac28d2a45513e8e0c68
5d4f96a6f8bf4a621cb4f9ed6ae6ce42a3c2160a
1051914 F20110209_AAAUPL friedel_c_Page_274.jp2
310fefddc876a0c7886c93c2a590f582
ab0b30d565389b087e2aa3d5a9e9054a7333df48
F20110209_AAASIO friedel_c_Page_280thm.jpg
642444b524b2cca32abd5213c85a0238
2c671bcb62a88d8900ac85e10448b6625dccdbdf
F20110209_AAATFH friedel_c_Page_161.tif
fa67abcdb65bfedefb2dbad419fda052
80db6912f53daeba358bccefd617e4a6762460ae
8301 F20110209_AAASVZ friedel_c_Page_051thm.jpg
f2585164efad76f49407a591d37a9bd9
bda6cca33bc3d754c8b020920a40cd81f56cbb01
33634 F20110209_AAAUCA friedel_c_Page_081.jpg
c45267ae2e54b65fff7951996c9c1956
e52a52874b17d58e7e1ba56fbb598d23c0074b35
48493 F20110209_AAATSS friedel_c_Page_040.pro
448ca4c2eefe4efc3ce4febe6f423144
c54ea2d21798922d444928e829b43044f9061ebb
1036541 F20110209_AAAUPM friedel_c_Page_276.jp2
b3fc5abc9b2e6d5adb578b8d67e3f3a1
ecfd42bbd546951a11362884b4c9a729a2a3fd48
8106 F20110209_AAASIP friedel_c_Page_084thm.jpg
f457836e301a70e577680713bf2bb820
a96faf1437b98974b782ea2840fad8ab2fa7e1ca
F20110209_AAATFI friedel_c_Page_162.tif
7b3cb76991bf434b120992fd8288fdf0
e5a1fb15a47fa847157253c568ec3c4448ed1018
90226 F20110209_AAAUCB friedel_c_Page_082.jpg
719ad9f6876b0d4d89549327d5fdb386
3086c5e1d99d11006e06cda7f8d4804d25169f7e
51296 F20110209_AAATST friedel_c_Page_043.pro
ea1e08fc35ceb1d0a57685d5a021d3d5
bd1d7c08713b4594eaa6f1cdcd856e11b0c40598
1051958 F20110209_AAAUPN friedel_c_Page_277.jp2
764699e09fe5537eb8a0049c5b885497
fea05a937b983425e6f52d4f0bcd48af95274188
87828 F20110209_AAASIQ friedel_c_Page_307.jpg
ab8f38751e7c158d57a9f237986407ac
9366ca42834d7839aae398af47a7b630503e66a7
F20110209_AAATFJ friedel_c_Page_166.tif
649e7a28b2034bd41496ca7ff3bdba1b
4c7c813355cfd08cef16eaa44afded24a3f9ee5f
106159 F20110209_AAAUCC friedel_c_Page_083.jpg
0963e492741a889fea37cbd5fc82d9f6
9ab6002640829128e24a654ca2e0112b8a3112af
53006 F20110209_AAATSU friedel_c_Page_047.pro
52561542a1dd8787cce19e72dc470e04
fe423df0d70f872f668e94a70b1f33ae6b89091b
F20110209_AAAUPO friedel_c_Page_280.jp2
c63349826ecb5993ab4ec6b7b87ca099
947b1be0f147dc6e58fb03f2cee7133b984361e3
F20110209_AAASIR friedel_c_Page_052.jp2
eca9ee36b1af748279a01a5625abe03e
1885dd05847072722c1d0ce8b0e9a9cc124e4f62
F20110209_AAATFK friedel_c_Page_167.tif
d67758bb8e0cd90ba131de45937a3394
81e2be78556a568ca5b6d09cb1e4dcf07c8946e3
102316 F20110209_AAAUCD friedel_c_Page_085.jpg
ab03c603f62e5e9ab892c561fd92f349
a35a00004c12992d4b690c5e7a38c847a1f9e2ec
50838 F20110209_AAATSV friedel_c_Page_048.pro
ddd0220a55892e965afb4ecc21a7b592
6e011d562df60e3c660f83d104b3b8548eea87f1
F20110209_AAAUPP friedel_c_Page_281.jp2
a3a7cd9cb313d0567984e537bc04c98e
4706b8459cea007a2614ee6660d2064208e8c0cf
F20110209_AAASIS friedel_c_Page_084.jp2
b2672a05b9ac2b6f71e3e8b8fe00383a
663227b51158813ccda3989abc55a757aa179ada
F20110209_AAATFL friedel_c_Page_169.tif
a6ef9bafd8aab6530e009fa99e58f029
be9e960b3760dabe5dac1a7847dcfcae1868738c
94619 F20110209_AAAUCE friedel_c_Page_086.jpg
dbc394bcbcfddd9a0a2ccc073855c4cc
e25c222d0fc544a96fd4c9f7d161f488b1642a0a
50908 F20110209_AAATSW friedel_c_Page_049.pro
5a73c86af7b9c63b645d2ff66c11496b
9c555176fe788e9f31fc43b2af6fb103fbf98425
1051915 F20110209_AAAUPQ friedel_c_Page_282.jp2
b207414ff58fbca24194091681bb923a
cd9176736030b37d5d0325ad84270d0e130755ae
2200 F20110209_AAASIT friedel_c_Page_093.txt
4b9e6bbae37b1881ca91032b0f8256b3
57123b95763f69e99be31662fbb09a69cc68c065
F20110209_AAATFM friedel_c_Page_175.tif
92ddf79ca6c03d5fe725d4159ca3cdbf
b3ba76cc9d1be1e8672d8264baf4ce740d880c02
96577 F20110209_AAAUCF friedel_c_Page_087.jpg
fe479d9c1a3008b27edca409da00ab33
3c87590b49b3eedddd16319d28ec2a25b18da949
51407 F20110209_AAATSX friedel_c_Page_051.pro
737d034c6f65021ab5e8b444399541b8
12dd2b69362aa3a039db9d78fe8838dd67af2cca
1051913 F20110209_AAAUPR friedel_c_Page_284.jp2
fb0e5924a0174aa7fe2d17a03c233dfc
5f99defc989d009b0146c954e76156993410a4fb
46986 F20110209_AAASIU friedel_c_Page_092.pro
b36cc2cf093b0d6f1e47dd7753ce8c51
60fa2a253c0b2fa671704a902fa92b31a8450388
F20110209_AAATFN friedel_c_Page_176.tif
08c9a09d957bdd63017241b7f04adece
f49d95f821760856dc6603d23a056dca28182973
95940 F20110209_AAAUCG friedel_c_Page_088.jpg
57dd0cabda2686da9a9a600b6bbf0e10
b76ad0abf3f9be901cee3f143d02925bbf9fb5b7
51450 F20110209_AAATSY friedel_c_Page_052.pro
e78558d3d6190729b506254d98b74fd4
50c7a8b391222e9cb1bbfe39ae02d6acdd8fe434
F20110209_AAAUPS friedel_c_Page_285.jp2
0d0119cc646a7230748bb60acc63f772
132f6ac264a1ecce4bce50a7023217ddfed38c9e
105761 F20110209_AAASIV friedel_c_Page_226.jpg
bb792521e2f00740cde85952d549b61e
5c5c6d0bd6d33cfd6ed39178497d3e57924147cb
F20110209_AAATFO friedel_c_Page_178.tif
0b8a7966e9f3b82d4e0a0983d89eaf11
e84e28074a2c790865f17f2e0a55d6c0089e8c22
88965 F20110209_AAAUCH friedel_c_Page_089.jpg
b6b5cbd9497c8b9627ee5a0c62c703a7
f16dab9ba0cedf48b121757cb5e7e60c6f434318
50604 F20110209_AAATSZ friedel_c_Page_054.pro
66f7193468f79aada9c4c0c08c69c1ea
d29e2fa6eeaff7e2321343883866bb5413a96e71
F20110209_AAAUPT friedel_c_Page_287.jp2
55908d9ce6edc8d50a152b8f95c47b7d
1829d1640f29961eecf83362d6af2a26faad5af8
1822 F20110209_AAASIW friedel_c_Page_271.txt
d376ce1d1ac1206bab2bf8feb297ca3e
9f8ed117bb222098072456ebbf84a05d033cf26e
F20110209_AAATFP friedel_c_Page_179.tif
066a81c64d509262214a5f0cfef3674c
c9da410d76a0c141745ef40b0bcef02d5df557df
93329 F20110209_AAAUCI friedel_c_Page_091.jpg
4487f5a41221de512338e5fae4397244
f6513b997c499bdf0f6c8b0a2a26d7168098e38d
958922 F20110209_AAAUPU friedel_c_Page_290.jp2
c3f48628c93bee227f3796cf06e38e83
90ef547440989e7bc440a74c89687afbbc471811
935109 F20110209_AAASIX friedel_c_Page_255.jp2
4ac93744c5b4f330efd6b1ffb82a6013
c1235a2abf55eb25919d284104a09543ff863326
F20110209_AAATFQ friedel_c_Page_180.tif
f06a1fdac492698eb66bc4868bbb3fa1
15ef6b81d0920a77a115fd79075a6f0c11138865
95651 F20110209_AAAUCJ friedel_c_Page_092.jpg
a583dd26cb1ae474e7ca567acb3f6959
398aa82c616cf595a9c112c62d59952b31c94a19
F20110209_AAAUPV friedel_c_Page_292.jp2
d308d7f4474ffcfe1e18421a832519ca
66d964232282c15f0ffd584f4397b69a175d00b3
7164 F20110209_AAASIY friedel_c_Page_301thm.jpg
a60a838351a8bcb844fa7b1dc0b243af
38af5710d5ada60caa878747af3c600f0f6fbf07
F20110209_AAATFR friedel_c_Page_181.tif
d53e75321a5a58713772a75de9e805c2
41d7fda0d95b5e6888e9cf294dcba677be96cc98
100342 F20110209_AAAUCK friedel_c_Page_093.jpg
afab83bba54aca9e860ed6f10587501c
009e4b5d26bba0efb97321c585f50df3f63a30cf
1051961 F20110209_AAAUPW friedel_c_Page_294.jp2
ecc191c9d38fd5cde8f7f48c7996d7c6
afbf7c8594412174198a5397b30a23fe012f0162
F20110209_AAASIZ friedel_c_Page_234thm.jpg
e0549d898eb5120da9395f4e15032536
fc1d17034e8839f3cf5cce90dea37217f530f49c
F20110209_AAATFS friedel_c_Page_182.tif
5cf39fcc844144c20d725bce317a6b5b
64d2b5c26c649e45806ac36a0d3fe2a481ebeaa9
98245 F20110209_AAAUCL friedel_c_Page_098.jpg
df11a1ec2affa5c7900ad3088dd655e3
938622549a70ae2377f2e5aaa9c06a2a8d497c38
1051852 F20110209_AAAUPX friedel_c_Page_295.jp2
650ab14ff0a90c780c8a3515edc0aa73
ae0aacaa8bf563a9fe439a04303b02439ad0a186
F20110209_AAATFT friedel_c_Page_183.tif
1e3bbe2b0b80a19235153f340d4ef2b0
9955a0aae6b4e26f78876b70c4434029ba59c438
97499 F20110209_AAAUCM friedel_c_Page_099.jpg
0589f72ca1327402f6c56b47437bcc89
e803b59b8df73512cc08f2ba8af4570f8c5afd7e
F20110209_AAAUPY friedel_c_Page_296.jp2
668526da6a5ae065be7c0fc4c0ef9631
165f910704ae1967396163ec3965278312cbe89f
F20110209_AAATFU friedel_c_Page_184.tif
d694728fc0ef3596ff73536e10028462
5dd324776e9789067e0b0a0cfb4acd92ac43bb56
91121 F20110209_AAAUCN friedel_c_Page_101.jpg
a3918b765f0c537fd27b9bdbd17c6a83
8b0cdee1d2f88cc05a672ef486fe9aa426b8b23a
1051920 F20110209_AAAUPZ friedel_c_Page_297.jp2
0720984844e26fc973f37a96863a50ce
d8d752b29293da478ec0132f34ead1d130942981
F20110209_AAATFV friedel_c_Page_185.tif
54a6beabd7c4711d5ae2da1b8fa56a65
e8ac3699c3ca32d4ac16c066d03683a6a13017ac
100461 F20110209_AAAUCO friedel_c_Page_102.jpg
87ffbfe272f6702346f0334a8109cbb8
3e8f27e55a97fb8b6ea15eafe369538a44866e10
F20110209_AAATFW friedel_c_Page_186.tif
2d81bf5d1ba0d4066fc5b20cf1efd513
0473619fe5695544d09b57477350788031f3a017
99989 F20110209_AAAUCP friedel_c_Page_103.jpg
ab83dbd1c18561aafad821237ee30c11
b2a945d3ecfe8c2d5332c452078d058ce65e70a7
F20110209_AAATFX friedel_c_Page_187.tif
de7108b2e3d3419abc17130506c51cda
ca34f6bbb08528596ab8114b92cf5ea94d7508b4
44907 F20110209_AAATYA friedel_c_Page_248.pro
0e6f4c9998dccd722a1f6af34b3a911e
918c9776ad79c077f7cd0174ae779bb5210caeb3
99430 F20110209_AAAUCQ friedel_c_Page_108.jpg
be97137f64e3de5d7c7b5d8a530f2b4f
086fa242ca8eb4f4db5488f4ffad03f1fc60921f
F20110209_AAATFY friedel_c_Page_188.tif
4074f8313c5f2207fb8a0062a538f3d6
cb2ca77e26600546302947c9bf750ed634d70e9d
49413 F20110209_AAATYB friedel_c_Page_249.pro
76f33e15845241f3e5c29aa46f4e33aa
082a864c00d160236b762e8404802ae169073d41
100122 F20110209_AAAUCR friedel_c_Page_109.jpg
340d47353d0c81d25c30ff52fdc68c79
9688c6cd2697f757c782d196b6350a429983e25f
F20110209_AAATFZ friedel_c_Page_189.tif
2628f2c097d3fb837ce59d077f97fa0b
ac8ade9a223bc85d5c135a201836a320594da6b0
47750 F20110209_AAATYC friedel_c_Page_251.pro
ee9ef64400fcf31b3f28f0308d11c93a
7e00201279bf2135f8607497a1a827991a7a1727
97702 F20110209_AAAUCS friedel_c_Page_111.jpg
29f530deab006fa675abb93306def122
198f66557d785eb4190203615b113b98795fab04
43240 F20110209_AAATYD friedel_c_Page_255.pro
8c556032782b942d5c1b3583e297b702
df8e23171d0cb5d0d1c3497c8b439a962225b2c7
95066 F20110209_AAAUCT friedel_c_Page_113.jpg
a5b945dd81237535e16d9bde6b5a373e
2dc89603908fb22e231dae9ea62a951882c1d32b
51080 F20110209_AAATYE friedel_c_Page_256.pro
e13c514c877cf97b89d0e5b365d8c34c
af6354a4930f8f7f5561b6d7a9e2641b6604c46c
93477 F20110209_AAAUCU friedel_c_Page_114.jpg
1699cad3b6698873c7988a20140459e7
bda9c9cdc7ab69568117abfc6855018d9928e785
99457 F20110209_AAASOA friedel_c_Page_097.jpg
cf174535d1be95d60d221e940e8d00f3
1473e79674bf59d393d34b948e5e09ffc4913012
47420 F20110209_AAATYF friedel_c_Page_257.pro
d2b33d01619fb9e8408f6d4da60275c7
b5b93b29a434449b5fbea3afc483b9fab1243e6c
94545 F20110209_AAAUCV friedel_c_Page_115.jpg
ed2f88174d48b14e95103c45c04b856f
0bffd474b6e333814e53c4a983f94b2b1c6c575d
2059 F20110209_AAASOB friedel_c_Page_259.txt
920a8559350bed26e092133427f7a6a3
ae1219d115531ee4b03a8aeacc892d3a7e070ca6
48100 F20110209_AAATYG friedel_c_Page_258.pro
a7f694bbf69234494b6faf25b76cafc4
6740ff79744477ae68a731a0be4f7c0fee36f87d
92546 F20110209_AAAUCW friedel_c_Page_117.jpg
9d72fdb1280420852d4b828d3d42009d
c452fa733690bfe66fed683d2d6403d335e22325
33145 F20110209_AAASOC friedel_c_Page_267.QC.jpg
1e2e1ffa2292c91d7bb8a7bc2bf074d7
53e8a2bfe27a82450374332ebaeab6029841535f
33541 F20110209_AAAUVA friedel_c_Page_094.QC.jpg
e5f9ae85711c2b7cf8f99ddd55f80614
9e414112c0057710c56c967f27893214164a2144
47425 F20110209_AAATYH friedel_c_Page_259.pro
b43982532240688b39800f5bac7b2e0a
858fa0d5ff553ff4c97feb62bedafb2da113e337
91582 F20110209_AAAUCX friedel_c_Page_118.jpg
6f1b3d573d79aee7ed20e79b6cb9bf45
b87518e1f144b81570bfbb83b9a8b39594b2f156
100170 F20110209_AAASOD friedel_c_Page_110.jpg
c5aac195ce9c37d853afe2e33f9a172b
cc0cc32d7709c4c3233834a796142d7cb34c05c1
34019 F20110209_AAAUVB friedel_c_Page_095.QC.jpg
ecbd1f94bb5b96868d52a8bc5c6058b7
1c2316e48f33a63141bb71385c176e70bd6f7f50
51349 F20110209_AAATYI friedel_c_Page_261.pro
8b7c7ffec050902cb9a05fcfb3529924
4e96f42eb02d3220492c2396b1cab9e3985db816
99728 F20110209_AAAUCY friedel_c_Page_120.jpg
d2d5a29c3aa0264f06926530bd3fbc49
5eede747c57eca7888efa10827a804ae32960bb3
F20110209_AAASOE friedel_c_Page_171.tif
349ab231be7a8ad54858497e00fc6106
bfa1c2356737f26abf83bb5817d592922032806d
31423 F20110209_AAAUVC friedel_c_Page_096.QC.jpg
95db47f89aa762f46d42d7bb2327947b
3121ec3953902c6e3955c7293b5493cea35fe8d9
13306 F20110209_AAATYJ friedel_c_Page_262.pro
30036c3eed2fef016cc1b9a9d08f5a18
1d30a10546f232b6001b0aa29960b5d448c79256
107622 F20110209_AAAUCZ friedel_c_Page_124.jpg
7dd495922d6ed4df7a922c9bd2f25462
09b611dc67e780b65c12693bad26a91246f291a9
1937 F20110209_AAASOF friedel_c_Page_109.txt
1735f7d213ec6f8b98f1a9ebf7c89f72
ecb56ea7d8e4d124d56f5db6470a4205a28470db
31994 F20110209_AAAUVD friedel_c_Page_098.QC.jpg
96cc589d67827cfc7168475bd870fb05
c69951bbcc2d1cde3df27052c8e312460ba70d4b
43972 F20110209_AAATYK friedel_c_Page_263.pro
9d5cef17f0da6601ad651a630959c109
df390c7035a8d684cbf9fed1ba861916a54ef8dc
51345 F20110209_AAASOG friedel_c_Page_327.jpg
3d1866faf31018f72e6e495edbf0b64d
50482f78346d13cddff0597c3693f61c47e1cd97
29377 F20110209_AAAUVE friedel_c_Page_101.QC.jpg
e855a054b468d749f47a1fa3a8cc4f99
2372b1fd7d023126d9e608946198fa3f56b86e09
F20110209_AAATLA friedel_c_Page_057.txt
d5884c9a80d41a1c743fdfb0df3ee149
d4ec1d32df5c2048f957e0426c714ea6eef5fa72
52494 F20110209_AAATYL friedel_c_Page_264.pro
223f6f3a2fa4fd4442087e247e289df1
7199673a8f5255c0a18dcbb81a8b004b0dee9a35
94013 F20110209_AAASOH friedel_c_Page_309.jpg
71e15a73de14e9f1703721bba2f04d26
fdd959eac387b59192cad453890439b883480f7c
32665 F20110209_AAAUVF friedel_c_Page_103.QC.jpg
f2ef654514757e7a05ff0f8fd2c72764
cd73c29c6feaa3d23355a3e4752ca5491b1e5225
2004 F20110209_AAATLB friedel_c_Page_058.txt
a16b3e4e3c8d4547d90a873a1e54e7ca
f9fb5ca8908129aba00d238c043b14b3177e98a1
50875 F20110209_AAATYM friedel_c_Page_265.pro
155de3e582dfd6a9d7a24adfbe9c0df2
2688623801d4727ec727b89d39848bac7300c9ac
111580 F20110209_AAASOI friedel_c_Page_339.jpg
8e1810601edba95274b37fe6071acb1c
af83a714629a782ee972882c369013169c1b55d1
29068 F20110209_AAAUVG friedel_c_Page_104.QC.jpg
66b1080e382cb7e71ee427e1b18e1ff6
db6ecff8a0697fa9c894b201b9f90166a64a0cac
1952 F20110209_AAATLC friedel_c_Page_059.txt
5c88a244d20a413602c4fa86b85a3325
30f9e9e60c177cc303e4988efb66e55582108fb8
49335 F20110209_AAATYN friedel_c_Page_266.pro
61359983f4131333ee20c242d33bca81
ae1ccfa9747f2232e79771390a250629129f0bf4
3865 F20110209_AAASOJ friedel_c_Page_009.txt
282a399c47dc35748a96e9ff0b344d83
7a736fbb0ca9463a74b7953b5b9bf691eddaba39
32973 F20110209_AAAUVH friedel_c_Page_105.QC.jpg
57f9f77151ccad2872feeb53978f8b8f
81f179ba7397bf871bde69efcaf775ee27baf19d
1982 F20110209_AAATLD friedel_c_Page_060.txt
4c56257fda4c90ab1f47f33035b13f08
12ded9d7571bba233bbab53feace0e16943a715d
51217 F20110209_AAATYO friedel_c_Page_267.pro
293a6af1f20448a8af8969af0cda9243
69a42f40481de68360db8516249a74d46981bd5e
26640 F20110209_AAASOK friedel_c_Page_328.pro
470dbd5967ea2fd1843c43bd79c573db
0c7f417b45de088bda80d9a588de00eeddc80d59
33408 F20110209_AAAUVI friedel_c_Page_106.QC.jpg
e2dcf21f75353b5d747fb56b702ea335
c0a9e577303d5559e40866da7ed557032394e395
2045 F20110209_AAATLE friedel_c_Page_062.txt
b2bbf6df3d385ccae13726ea3f3a750e
c3dd72c931c139d2ed4f958e8875d5c007f7b979
40838 F20110209_AAATYP friedel_c_Page_269.pro
43a2345e49f437a2cbf6a78aa7bcc5ec
ef97273a23aff147bdaf84e5c9533ba8728aeffa
97210 F20110209_AAASOL friedel_c_Page_181.jpg
eb99d0eea5e9230e59319aaab06b02c0
b246bdfa7766b7b7242e5978d80cf6bf87344ace
32212 F20110209_AAAUVJ friedel_c_Page_109.QC.jpg
4125ca464660b334e9e17c9d33ed3de2
d385d19449528d2213c39ffc0143ca4212ec34ba
F20110209_AAATLF friedel_c_Page_063.txt
7ea2d405c62292b91772b5470135c7a0
4de94ec47e98bd4cddef54fe137bc44c59ea2661
50579 F20110209_AAASBA friedel_c_Page_105.pro
9d3f585ea2934b126e93c4794c7cff03
60a2baf1874c5425a200888326aefc13e7085bbd
45809 F20110209_AAATYQ friedel_c_Page_271.pro
35d9f9f0a0b055755ae704b29f5713c1
6f12ff78f080b2c1dd7a798423325b9b86b601ce
32314 F20110209_AAAUVK friedel_c_Page_110.QC.jpg
a68711114c4019ecb82470ac2db523bc
1ec89cb82491ff557b2341666a353fb74efe6bc1
F20110209_AAATLG friedel_c_Page_064.txt
987a153db1bde468a2ac7db6f455cfa4
c9112b036fee1b8f4edb9a824800fc60181a7c84
827131 F20110209_AAASBB friedel_c_Page_218.jp2
d069784063b1ac22f0c65ec4099e1968
cd15a112a70654fee318329c032db27b59e1c647
48357 F20110209_AAATYR friedel_c_Page_273.pro
3cdd42e296613dbedbd865d389c10e97
0777ade36a9d7309afca6fc2f0c4c69cc445d9ae
F20110209_AAASOM friedel_c_Page_020.pro
184ea599ab1151fa1cb7fa1cda9dc947
6025fe5c53649fa989b491e22bd20a9ee368e579
30767 F20110209_AAAUVL friedel_c_Page_113.QC.jpg
2cc48d8db08a1015d16179560f67c444
a9bdf8af4661158de8f955f923f570b364d4ed48
23915 F20110209_AAAUIA friedel_c_Page_321.jpg
0f8e951e9c6bb80acd90e5059e805d7f
70507c3affa7c439fe42c343d73a05a439641e68
1939 F20110209_AAATLH friedel_c_Page_065.txt
403450d5c220ecba6563984a47304261
ff0bc19e4107f1034776e52fd27a2ba4fca67cfb
1048225 F20110209_AAASBC friedel_c_Page_253.jp2
68ca7641bb2f6d9dae3730da5df5fee0
5a2c49f3bfff20471b315c9588313a2cc710bb61
47208 F20110209_AAATYS friedel_c_Page_274.pro
41803fdf9fa3a12908a19c22213f1296
e52cbb896e4c49c91c36e133bbb360b942a5a826
34281 F20110209_AAASON friedel_c_Page_219.QC.jpg
1da7851b308f3188cee7be877c6fd417
f03ef4b4b259ce54bd75f7cb1b197455f6b09d62
30172 F20110209_AAAUVM friedel_c_Page_114.QC.jpg
941f8e598c5708770d8f60eafc2ba8e5
89b822c5fd4ac731deace93359430c6fdf59af5b
69452 F20110209_AAAUIB friedel_c_Page_322.jpg
b2e005eed89d38c1618a8c9ebe955c12
0d148a6e25e75f9ba04add9a21dc75169cc99ce0
32558 F20110209_AAASBD friedel_c_Page_152.QC.jpg
76bf1764144869151b325bace374ca1e
8f2a9b30c97e42a9b81c126b281e91d6d463b984
49838 F20110209_AAATYT friedel_c_Page_277.pro
691a9c9712ffc5102fca3144756adfd0
1d505ac155eb03f177a79b0aeb2a172aa8cd5d93
32149 F20110209_AAASOO friedel_c_Page_278.QC.jpg
2a79949c739349bebb224e92847aa100
0681a084f5af437529acbbe3fe10d6364628816d
30561 F20110209_AAAUVN friedel_c_Page_115.QC.jpg
c1ec4f9e9f8d2f4fd3218cedc8f6b321
4c72285ddff107eab562bb122ab0ded632935c0e
19222 F20110209_AAAUIC friedel_c_Page_323.jpg
2bbfb4e284fb673d4e50654261f17b05
e3d63733ba16e4b7a00a5c835f874fa8229cb8a4
1963 F20110209_AAATLI friedel_c_Page_066.txt
c29ba05e7e90a40b773df5902e09c623
5e759299f4c447b5a31a3073c9a1c95b17ddd6fa
7718 F20110209_AAASBE friedel_c_Page_333thm.jpg
0350c70e527d1ed8bdcdb01cd2288264
c9d5b180437618f1cfdb81e2d829b508ce244ffc
46048 F20110209_AAATYU friedel_c_Page_279.pro
3ee7732a28d020f4e84912ab8e0db2bc
d96f8ae0d4c72b1d3bb57692be066f027cdee5c1
53260 F20110209_AAASOP friedel_c_Page_155.pro
c33bcded27b7e599b35c18f8e5fea824
a6c5026341eb069447ab28855cb4bfa67babedf6
30180 F20110209_AAAUVO friedel_c_Page_116.QC.jpg
323023bef8d8d31eaf4b27d89e6da171
2a015d73ef6951cdf3a1f3259a760a6f14510776
75886 F20110209_AAAUID friedel_c_Page_324.jpg
afbfa1f94d78780dd69b7c917b8e4732
78a0aa8dcd5db5dec4d30ddfdd547f9a690645aa
1869 F20110209_AAATLJ friedel_c_Page_067.txt
091920785161084d75adc6157dd4ebe4
5844fddadff2a7c56e60a890e85802b641e75ea7
8362 F20110209_AAASBF friedel_c_Page_156thm.jpg
d644cb96e33dd0705fa809a7d298ab1b
e191ceff19e57a37a5789e47e788557431baba5e
87212 F20110209_AAASOQ friedel_c_Page_255.jpg
258c8c8a58c47ab1211174d0fc27f63c
b0ca2280143d69fab1e5a2dec5c69a994c35a62d
30289 F20110209_AAAUVP friedel_c_Page_117.QC.jpg
7fab26b6a47143ec066280142e3c08af
82c4b70a284a6d646b35455beacf138079a37f2c
1976 F20110209_AAATLK friedel_c_Page_068.txt
31b568e9383998755aa0596e8a11662e
a21ed7a1cfb3cb31c6cbf61c44fb937d47cc446a
16775 F20110209_AAASBG friedel_c_Page_223.QC.jpg
5d50ff8670997b75a5db60ebfa3bbcab
1beddc3b7bce6b63aa58ce1168a61ee65007ecb9
48366 F20110209_AAATYV friedel_c_Page_280.pro
5508ea54ad46d42ba206f5fc87f51b39
5298c828278c27e5c3d3975a038b0caec83532bd
112229 F20110209_AAASOR friedel_c_Page_007.pro
1bda119f65c4a60a5b1ad72d5dba4074
7d52519b09695a28b1f619e1b1de005d60bba9dd
30286 F20110209_AAAUVQ friedel_c_Page_118.QC.jpg
97eae736a29c3bee542b4e92366371dd
81f43b30bc7534af249743b9ab0fcd7eaa3c751f
44738 F20110209_AAAUIE friedel_c_Page_326.jpg
03b4de320323aec86645972827e48507
2aba0fef13a749a567506977fa3c153aa0b1164e
1791 F20110209_AAATLL friedel_c_Page_070.txt
7b6e7f78f4ad134de92185d337e7043d
c0ceba322ccdcc099625ffe599c14813bb5583ba
2080 F20110209_AAASBH friedel_c_Page_028.txt
355c198f4e26f25d06a4ff36093b6236
2f96c84b22b1cf30a2bcc448c4cade13e0efa12d
50580 F20110209_AAATYW friedel_c_Page_281.pro
e72f3c9e4addad455faf187ee19ceee0
67f5d6c8b5a4b99e3e04d429edf294ba5147d23e
47009 F20110209_AAASOS friedel_c_Page_272.pro
98ad16abb10f9a8972449e086f9ef38f
b0b6408adaa9f77fcea6aabdfb9a3a0acc1003a8
66496 F20110209_AAAUIF friedel_c_Page_328.jpg
77b3b225933f40e3a5b14a00e66f571d
c9da88472a1d7a2802df3d0c11631c496def68f6
1874 F20110209_AAATLM friedel_c_Page_072.txt
6d468a62225fe50780e3a33d90c637b1
e5183a76e29b22e5be9582165f064c8568189004
102344 F20110209_AAASBI friedel_c_Page_060.jpg
01afada194a9f6bd1975b4bd75a3e4fa
be38e175299084cd5f279a38936c808e56b6de71
50473 F20110209_AAATYX friedel_c_Page_283.pro
52270a5b8dc312510c885053298aa3f8
05e3caffe00347d907762200d53a0927f4b0924a
F20110209_AAASOT friedel_c_Page_272.txt
4e335cc230c81c1365cdf980dd213940
c5981dbd33db426dab8d60f3d32ca796fc7ef81b
31006 F20110209_AAAUVR friedel_c_Page_119.QC.jpg
9664dbe2a4fb4d557effcab13567234f
968b93a952013022bb68b43114ce03c7b6c79473
51225 F20110209_AAAUIG friedel_c_Page_329.jpg
703d7f955bda588c6ca408ac6f807c2e
03ed93a4014c9d35351cf82f11cd6e1ef2dcdf2e
1999 F20110209_AAATLN friedel_c_Page_073.txt
1eae8c8a690c6a1d19d8d99a14b2106e
ff35fdd27fb7c583627986f1b5e1b2c11183cb9e
F20110209_AAASBJ friedel_c_Page_099.jp2
9f4a733ef5d9455087de47df411fd9eb
d1b5989ea5551674e34fc800ea4d178501162387
48468 F20110209_AAATYY friedel_c_Page_284.pro
9017613dabf538cb77f1942d7bfde162
0ba1dd6afe37aeaaf5864034c669a5815bf1e5da
F20110209_AAASOU friedel_c_Page_051.jp2
371785cc87a587f9a584afed2706c489
549be2e78ceb61f0ff560d3f7e52c9f305278533
8067 F20110209_AAAVFA friedel_c_Page_181thm.jpg
a4f00cce8c14fce0a4fec9dfa37d388c
246db378da3a89beafe3f9024aa5eb28c9517bd7
32498 F20110209_AAAUVS friedel_c_Page_120.QC.jpg
983b037d15e2c866a7a4007fcfb626e4
85bfdfa65d1d18550a4e919a15f86f9e41f43008
110409 F20110209_AAAUIH friedel_c_Page_333.jpg
78e0bd045c81795ae0384017d9334898
5feb7443862dd645f028db16f1c3aca6e15197fd
1970 F20110209_AAATLO friedel_c_Page_074.txt
547a9a03ea5fa725405c3ea1460efe2c
500b49a1f17ed8e214200cfb0a4c41a3e40c79b1
31134 F20110209_AAASBK friedel_c_Page_130.QC.jpg
b07f1cac7b6115beb1308999120e1666
b175fc18bbb7ca03af0a94d710cdc58ba464da21
47130 F20110209_AAATYZ friedel_c_Page_286.pro
f55600b136fee9951f0b86329fb4ed5a
4d79473ec2a4b106c99474eb69d8964321c061e5
35062 F20110209_AAASOV friedel_c_Page_028.QC.jpg
cf5626df992c1503045dfcedc166bb48
23953b12f4db22858a891427f47e2ba006fcd2bd
7118 F20110209_AAAVFB friedel_c_Page_183thm.jpg
e74ec02987203b260f353de386c976b8
7050a06936c69d956e265b5bc92fd87996fddd91
34185 F20110209_AAAUVT friedel_c_Page_124.QC.jpg
f5e0766b35e49bc92845fccabcdc14df
a4215e3d78cd0143be6de553905f7511aff53a6d
110343 F20110209_AAAUII friedel_c_Page_334.jpg
a1363aeae97e1ed2d372239eedac96ac
1ca3d6ea3cb7aa7ba7e4539a32b8753a8bcf2821
1913 F20110209_AAATLP friedel_c_Page_075.txt
a3b30193c6f7dc3926cf76a0cb579700
6dc446fd3867b2a01ae0ed3419ffb12f38d260ed
181553 F20110209_AAASBL friedel_c_Page_323.jp2
85ead11dca70174b6c9b311461359a0f
646dea72195760d7b87a27f35e2c0b9f620eb98f
1051932 F20110209_AAASOW friedel_c_Page_242.jp2
f394cc2830e5d0648d1e78e51663e9cc
57a356c5ee5eb4925a548881debba47e55ba43b2
4156 F20110209_AAAVFC friedel_c_Page_184thm.jpg
a3adbd3eefa72c742579f5dcc6042cde
a901fc56cbc547aaf56bb77b05709e86914b6378
32197 F20110209_AAAUVU friedel_c_Page_126.QC.jpg
9eddb4e88f7e345d365944d1344674b8
e7a0afddfedbd398a4df9d4ec8e59b49683de224
118215 F20110209_AAAUIJ friedel_c_Page_335.jpg
3a0aac16cb0e2ccdaf3f70029ea67ba9
b4cc17ea35fe0e1eb61fdfd1a7d506cc9306b118
1946 F20110209_AAATLQ friedel_c_Page_078.txt
1132cc2cc7034fb1f9a1acd5c521af92
7ecac2a5491eaa826f165baaae7417533381fb9d
33411 F20110209_AAASBM friedel_c_Page_071.QC.jpg
966486fb039b992180de1fd5ea1c1c72
245b583bd837352c4c716d2e244b52355dd9fefe
F20110209_AAASOX friedel_c_Page_277thm.jpg
2739b33c586d3a67f44b5e1999d7fe70
12680151cad707b3f856c8f477e97f72049385cd
8356 F20110209_AAAVFD friedel_c_Page_186thm.jpg
7cc90a99fca2610d65518f62cec30e5f
7066a61cd101102b271fdd7c2e61f52b3bfea1b2
33614 F20110209_AAAUVV friedel_c_Page_127.QC.jpg
015d1b6439e167989694b5127036b8e8
4c3f06b691e16fcec896ad1f9de039bfdb773015
104836 F20110209_AAAUIK friedel_c_Page_336.jpg
ec5ff937c7371f9f485805ad00ee2717
a8e40ead0907d549917efb347002e48950e2ba34
1918 F20110209_AAATLR friedel_c_Page_079.txt
49b73395190d86c36a228a348283d1ca
ee6e94f9c11afabd49329e3a4d2732b277f06aec
2507 F20110209_AAASBN friedel_c_Page_001thm.jpg
9f15d908147e2243a612a2ec25bd529d
71b7f566d3871304162ffdc53981e194367ada54
47998 F20110209_AAASOY friedel_c_Page_254.pro
cd166324869b9eb09a88cd94ea0f1265
01a0f4529dda4c6911795fc061433ae45e5ae020
6371 F20110209_AAAVFE friedel_c_Page_189thm.jpg
24eaf7f1f484147274e2cc7630b9eed9
8c5d676880d33d593aa8fc3cc374d4fe42d4b80c
33064 F20110209_AAAUVW friedel_c_Page_128.QC.jpg
5e215b08bbc8d377dc327e2f1593cae3
77da26a3788d03f6e872a7b633663554d753917c
118591 F20110209_AAAUIL friedel_c_Page_337.jpg
262ee05f893fc1b43d0fa209a5ff799b
dd813110444c3206a24a8e9e4d269439be773518
1827 F20110209_AAATLS friedel_c_Page_082.txt
7a275414b356ccd2fb88edc4df9074df
7bed4acb183ce64a469252e2c5c222888fe01975
1955 F20110209_AAASBO friedel_c_Page_077.txt
9e501acd1a2b8452a6b31dcfe612c575
f77364ef65c15a984128b327a73ecbed398c4abe
F20110209_AAASOZ friedel_c_Page_203.tif
e6d8e6b636d8d23656e66e8c315fa60c
ae4941958fb81ee5dde14f034033f64f0e13d4e4
4160 F20110209_AAAVFF friedel_c_Page_190thm.jpg
a7a0649c50dbe04730b6eb572cb03c00
a6c188525895625e3460eacb4fb1e2f041750e5e
34039 F20110209_AAAUVX friedel_c_Page_131.QC.jpg
0b9bfb42af2980af29cc64f54e12dcc6
932d7e35eca285a7ad9c5deab69d7afb28e74dc8
111160 F20110209_AAAUIM friedel_c_Page_338.jpg
9c1e03a0a05663329062fa305533857f
0372fcb01f80e3f57173ab279adab17127d91035
2064 F20110209_AAATLT friedel_c_Page_083.txt
3b335cffc2db0ab94480dd79bf97c2d1
3fee0e10d594d1a6c600f76dbefdcd8ff5579026
48917 F20110209_AAASBP friedel_c_Page_030.pro
6473ce8800417d450fb871ed1d3c11bd
2723e587ec6381c1e37006a1da216d5101a5a06a
8460 F20110209_AAAVFG friedel_c_Page_192thm.jpg
228c482304a8a4cf2d448cc77d0e50f4
22e3efd948fa13394c23fa35614d55833d504b8b
33141 F20110209_AAAUVY friedel_c_Page_132.QC.jpg
bbe557f74bc16f2cd35d269018c68f0b
95cabefb85ecca237a28b4f75a16032f43a52e7f
112476 F20110209_AAAUIN friedel_c_Page_340.jpg
5b332e182fbd453b674f8d2e6e3ce5e5
3ef4c616ed0b537ad427333797acf4b085b45f90
2016 F20110209_AAATLU friedel_c_Page_085.txt
5465290b516a45221f08410fb19c75c0
169a9aa8ec5d7705540192f0903539e4093224df
50457 F20110209_AAARXA friedel_c_Page_151.pro
de1ed8f245ac7a13f94b2083d62aa4aa
e19697eac93d7b3d9160cf5aa067273fd78ef0e9
22665 F20110209_AAASBQ friedel_c_Page_045.QC.jpg
9d722ff9c29390d54a47b1a416bd88df
2f4849482b29c8fad4bb649e9ed798dacf7b4c22
8089 F20110209_AAAVFH friedel_c_Page_193thm.jpg
af545fec4f784b617f4ca98bff08daea
7d75567a2a70a124081461d93f14d8b1940c9212
32644 F20110209_AAAUVZ friedel_c_Page_136.QC.jpg
1fa8f862efec62ae4bd0fc04aef8621e
6495923efc7e05ec11834f1b673f3243d9b1cdfc
109662 F20110209_AAAUIO friedel_c_Page_341.jpg
4949403706c57246910d7e4494e71661
72e193b168c7202c19a59575bdee7a76ef6de4ae
1836 F20110209_AAATLV friedel_c_Page_086.txt
48bd7e2aef5c03e73615b9b40f2de933
c884d1acee6057cdedf677cc5829ff28c13bea20
F20110209_AAARXB friedel_c_Page_172.tif
d35692e047254e30736161985fdc0187
41b51b83606a409a7eca97ff7676d17fbabe3bc0
99054 F20110209_AAASBR friedel_c_Page_280.jpg
3f9718c43e96dfba3862e7d9f964ba9d
03d91a736c093249e477fa501a0d8bc4c8427bcc
7217 F20110209_AAAVFI friedel_c_Page_194thm.jpg
51dc2385bbe92e088aab13ee913c9694
cae86ae617fc3c20280297ba20c1d235ae840312
80849 F20110209_AAAUIP friedel_c_Page_343.jpg
9a5641237b95a8c065f07b10cf67257b
b891419a6af8c26e8e8c1238563396dc32e463ac
1932 F20110209_AAATLW friedel_c_Page_087.txt
3b00a28c4fede76d82d932a8780b4392
fa738102b9686dcbe41641d24d7c752c87d6a301
F20110209_AAARXC friedel_c_Page_228.jp2
5806ede6c69a089eecfa8daac74c27c3
df53dd20b630e24c7e733b43755ab92d788d01dc
F20110209_AAASBS friedel_c_Page_290.tif
eaf6280954066a9e1fd45bd5f087c2e4
ee16ef0942173466063b7ff683cde47770d909b3
6302 F20110209_AAAVFJ friedel_c_Page_196thm.jpg
8a8601600575ab4e45231992da763816
82baabfb0539ea4597124a1137a5987abf0d3caa
974749 F20110209_AAAUIQ friedel_c_Page_004.jp2
73435073d578c7122b10fd7d3c3affe6
8014dc15ea4682fcb68ad96dcc780b505937d38e
2091 F20110209_AAATLX friedel_c_Page_088.txt
e45cea0e7db547172bc3ddf0fc355ae4
40b74bee8ed00f84d67bb35e59eb7edf8ecf2aa0
88277 F20110209_AAARXD friedel_c_Page_270.jpg
f7ca6adee941eb640874a1cde8826cef
57e213e8ddd7cc82f6ae826b8cdca1e31b1dde7a
51254 F20110209_AAASBT friedel_c_Page_026.pro
182a4a3421388f077feb8361102692a8
47ae7c82986f647198af1b71d35143f40bf9edc7
6310 F20110209_AAAVFK friedel_c_Page_199thm.jpg
f2242c4edcacdf520bb154642e9ae905
48e01edf2235dd97bdd5c8dcc46cb03f3042a898
807735 F20110209_AAAUIR friedel_c_Page_005.jp2
04750cc5c5599b0c6095be8af2f2283b
18ba6e244db9abee7e76fdba08cce90ef293f1ea
2341 F20110209_AAATLY friedel_c_Page_089.txt
7d5b40c7e939f4d2b212dc260119615a
4419dd38b4a3266d02096f5f3f174d0075afe6db
90417 F20110209_AAARXE friedel_c_Page_198.jpg
d6ffd23144eb2711869876061e762d2e
048f8764dcd92d2712815b3c04eab066016693e2
2324 F20110209_AAASBU friedel_c_Page_156.txt
0cd692d2f58c6bede291801e977d707b
be610ba1766925dd272079273e34eb8eff74d29b
4153 F20110209_AAAVFL friedel_c_Page_200thm.jpg
0e1e9ecf609dcee2726059e7f6bcd857
70c8723557a1e73b10eee92da0dc431b4a113b3a
F20110209_AAAUIS friedel_c_Page_006.jp2
f5ff094ca52a0e8d97db7e9dc3754043
aa1f0970315fe12743497f92987997b89ebe0cd1
1979 F20110209_AAATLZ friedel_c_Page_090.txt
f695f5da57c247b711eca5a52d8d9d6a
c81be1e8d43d318b5cc3b76582dfb5232cb853ed
1962 F20110209_AAARXF friedel_c_Page_056.txt
99d1e5f59af70bbeda9109a9112f4c1f
ebc62e4b93dd23700fc9e6e7345ecdb6bbc0b832
32332 F20110209_AAASBV friedel_c_Page_135.QC.jpg
9a97370fe13bf0cce3ccb68685a2a9a2
e298b1da4ad62f0d24eb2eba47373ae8268884c6
6135 F20110209_AAAVFM friedel_c_Page_201thm.jpg
f311fafd2c8b4e10c7111791a696f9d2
cc3e5d6f53c8f67444422532a0215364e410e0e8
928192 F20110209_AAAUIT friedel_c_Page_009.jp2
81f9128b4e8610c397efc64c32bd1e25
b0ba5b7601acf4b01cd5be73f10ee805a778d76a
7952 F20110209_AAARXG friedel_c_Page_040thm.jpg
e772de9c51b36e4c2301e45b7f9d1cd6
5c6dc00506d1994739a8e0138b3100bc2726c58e
104883 F20110209_AAASBW friedel_c_Page_214.jpg
355da828f44f52294415e4eb6a698a52
0241d3d71204e27cef0968209a79d997b6e6181a
F20110209_AAAVFN friedel_c_Page_203thm.jpg
48b0079cb2f46e7a0c943d9de3d263ff
5804bdaea694a5718e91f9deb2ce10500c3dbc0e
857998 F20110209_AAAUIU friedel_c_Page_011.jp2
6faf69f531778c611c14f4a8b01bac47
995ec029f74b4d495915e2629820b9c0cd8e030e
1051948 F20110209_AAARXH friedel_c_Page_334.jp2
3ae2cad01dafbaddcba2cbc1787077c5
ace68a29c3c8f3c2ab1f69e9d7bdbf92f5ab6b76
F20110209_AAASBX friedel_c_Page_336.jp2
ff6b756391bd9c5cba44f8a3fcedc3a4
6358cec43023c69aaae43271032112ce15e7018f
79699 F20110209_AAASUA friedel_c_Page_218.jpg
a7dcfa305010aa7a0abbcbccffd50668
1fe2f645135bec24013face01761a8bc6cadc528
7603 F20110209_AAAVFO friedel_c_Page_204thm.jpg
3e48da76f3da6599b7f5269c6b3e93b8
4c927412113ef1021ee49137a6bfe96f288c4213
1051940 F20110209_AAAUIV friedel_c_Page_013.jp2
877fcddfdc5476a04218cebf67d4c4d2
5a694754aaf92699761f3248cbd7d5530d9d0e0c
F20110209_AAARXI friedel_c_Page_322.tif
bc763f05ea64dc8da1707e948b02a661
a2d61e2baf08d09dca3a892e39a7a6f7c20fa1c5
1012972 F20110209_AAASBY friedel_c_Page_241.jp2
d7a4e2d06ae7d022a3dd3d8bbbee5a3d
d6a9b32782a17718c9d329a76fef21a3d7ab2d9f
F20110209_AAASUB friedel_c_Page_155.QC.jpg
b23962369e87da993bf4eb6115cd225b
7fa6a06c8999c5543a8fcbaa9c38d3f3d1a0b60d
8021 F20110209_AAAVFP friedel_c_Page_205thm.jpg
a286169bb0e95645699e240e192dba31
f7399954ea37ce54b086e7dcd0b375f77193eca3
F20110209_AAAUIW friedel_c_Page_014.jp2
642ee8964d271028f401194f5cafdcae
3ea3cf93605183b8fc3fe82ce4049edd38e53d37
F20110209_AAARXJ friedel_c_Page_145.jp2
ca671d89c70292411d37cf0959185e8b
21adf72023c3a986b70109b5f855a6fa342ae9a7
F20110209_AAASBZ friedel_c_Page_231.jp2
37f98934a5d1b4edff69c5ecd9dbca55
8528b840a5eaccc7e11b93299b4efb30e4ffccec
7823 F20110209_AAASUC friedel_c_Page_151thm.jpg
b05867576d32c0ee9be2d7ff7a1d31bf
bc7f41342b80e669ffb4eeaba71228ec859de5a6
4150 F20110209_AAAVFQ friedel_c_Page_206thm.jpg
c630893f7b15997f184b2e0f9c957032
509837514ede8553849907f1cb113c3dc51e0d08
907235 F20110209_AAAUIX friedel_c_Page_017.jp2
903c0b02db27b3d43c6eec6996f4628d
21e288b3ef296889ec9450e5ced1c740f2a599c3
1811 F20110209_AAARXK friedel_c_Page_166.txt
331db2e4730b945096e608ffced96e20
0de5332e2a2af82bef0c2c21bd21e1ff04010beb
F20110209_AAASUD friedel_c_Page_160.jp2
5757884f07d543025ebb7e52ff2c0a6c
d82e2c561b109dd52d407862fe87144ac4cf90b0
6324 F20110209_AAAVFR friedel_c_Page_207thm.jpg
b5f0d8e436db22d614b647466142fafb
8a33585af8ed7f993108adb494fff593e196ff54
848638 F20110209_AAAUIY friedel_c_Page_018.jp2
ff34cc1ef717371b17f2bd13960406b2
084e9eaf472fe8a1968ef3a1d21fe7e234f85771
F20110209_AAARXL friedel_c_Page_049.jp2
b05520418cbd3601fa9306ec077fc2d0
44a5f434d5b4c2d31f25031ff77581589816ce9a
32357 F20110209_AAASUE friedel_c_Page_339.QC.jpg
eef7e112fe9033f9c56613899ea73b5b
c7abe5ff6b2e8e03a7eab55d0968b8102972fcdd
7728 F20110209_AAAVFS friedel_c_Page_210thm.jpg
9b793c4f12f7a4a2b7d801fdff5a956b
ef3ccde4b1dc1dec2083cbab145eacca46f9e3cf
931192 F20110209_AAAUIZ friedel_c_Page_019.jp2
5bb2ef43d347c467cff87277bc96ce31
8f2e2d506b04df07bb310d98e296834becea4d3a
F20110209_AAARXM friedel_c_Page_309.tif
cda05e8f12fec95051d89e4371a40810
a07f598aefdd9e65036406f73ea753f7dce7c65d
8033 F20110209_AAASUF friedel_c_Page_251thm.jpg
a30b6426b266738e4b9e7f67bc1de644
4cff7af5d6e2a4502fd9a930e3753450c67ec3d2
4570 F20110209_AAAVFT friedel_c_Page_211thm.jpg
cf22a75a0218f2afdb6541cdda8e8850
86a5b322ac57664544fdac01ebd4d9ccd0cf27f5
1891 F20110209_AAARXN friedel_c_Page_330.txt
1c35998248544f069cdc3d20d00df8a2
d30ce149a3c89436aa2cd9471fc7c0a956cd7dab
1023445 F20110209_AAASUG friedel_c_Page_251.jp2
68ee1dc0c4c23a3bd2458be0dc91ef3f
10333d09da41152b47c40107cae9d02f6684af70
4177 F20110209_AAAVFU friedel_c_Page_212thm.jpg
a679aa64a53b997bfee7342f33a68942
a435a1931d33be4da27ac8b018684a689d3f4a60
F20110209_AAARXO friedel_c_Page_074.jp2
001a1307e3edc3a008daba051a621cc2
e5846604741520cd8717ad1908ed417b502fb9da
7028 F20110209_AAASUH friedel_c_Page_037thm.jpg
75d3cc706182dba75debe98badffc400
0234036259bfa2c473807c553e76c202070e2e4f
1803 F20110209_AAATRA friedel_c_Page_309.txt
84b30bfaaafab831517e27afcea99e5d
c41c26af87a43579b571eb99103ceaa7ddbdd044
6349 F20110209_AAAVFV friedel_c_Page_213thm.jpg
8b32a486311154e2f6dc8653ed60f794
ba775311995b6ac76e8ca72a6f1409d3e6701039
2438 F20110209_AAARXP friedel_c_Page_200.txt
f8033cd3d9d5f4e97ad505ededea8b6f
688093a78bbf6887a93a8becf6bf94d92b8e3373
48560 F20110209_AAASUI friedel_c_Page_176.pro
ae0d151015efd657682f3e6689841285
792c1b610d17ff559f83503d9376ccaa51705898
2060 F20110209_AAATRB friedel_c_Page_311.txt
58fb22f476fceabda3d5fade00c233ab
c93349399c2fba01e576df19170b5bb3218abebc
7701 F20110209_AAAVFW friedel_c_Page_216thm.jpg
ec0e68ae1a70180e2ad420e811b1c3d9
443d5afbf5faada33316f53199e7783d5162756c
33570 F20110209_AAARXQ friedel_c_Page_295.QC.jpg
47dca8c12073d806dd483d2cbe3fc3aa
488cfd5cae5708165c29706b72be02c5f6bffa77
1735 F20110209_AAASUJ friedel_c_Page_323thm.jpg
ed390bf2ac355430b8554509b0b5a81f
9a54c4e44b4225f787819d6a7227afcfd03cdf3f
1862 F20110209_AAATRC friedel_c_Page_312.txt
133b7e68afd911086792253b41e7a256
9308bf5063f7463d78b34daa5167748b220dcd00
7557 F20110209_AAAVFX friedel_c_Page_221thm.jpg
5f048f6b1e9639d193b18e722678e5df
5ac6c870b716b40fa20ced243415ccd8f279dec0
F20110209_AAARXR friedel_c_Page_043.jp2
8bbe7c9b2d5aa05581e5e6e381c8be59
5aaaa1d8fd576a5dfc4ba79054e02d3412f08175
F20110209_AAASUK friedel_c_Page_310.jp2
6d00b35176cd082c1fd48476453bc7a7
e0a411eb236eac2e635d494742a26fd7a35999d3
F20110209_AAATRD friedel_c_Page_313.txt
b56f9b1f78f651bbf48910f070576bc6
9d7043cd2492bcc9a1bfbcc5ffc9aee6a3fb15de
7615 F20110209_AAAVFY friedel_c_Page_222thm.jpg
506132f6dc7870ee63fbd7d05785766f
9b1c054f4516372d066b9df414ce88e078b26131
16492 F20110209_AAASHA friedel_c_Page_178.QC.jpg
5db655f539ac534d91e912684c0433bb
1590eb3d6d59bbd872fdfdac8cb53f542506d53a
F20110209_AAARXS friedel_c_Page_280.tif
784ed9ba69cfe3ab31a1e55281ece187
c337551850855e3854b07848c31ee18a5fc0a791
48938 F20110209_AAASUL friedel_c_Page_232.pro
bb4eac3fef71879412db195842574a9d
85a4f2aff81531883e454cf710a1650a891b7248
1971 F20110209_AAATRE friedel_c_Page_314.txt
49e85292237a5cab1db23e541f184420
8205c1ba9faa0bdd86b11e69093851994006e05e
6266 F20110209_AAAVFZ friedel_c_Page_224thm.jpg
4647e34063892b65beb173ba613a1735
0dc9366fca39d17aba4501782c1bcca23a7f23be
F20110209_AAASHB friedel_c_Page_200.tif
44ec54ce1f63913b5c4d49edeb9ca43a
6b80adf342b23bed64d6fa2ec81863f530d0a7e4
31729 F20110209_AAARXT friedel_c_Page_040.QC.jpg
f46697b584f7f9ae2f757f2e7be0ef80
fcc8817d10640363ef553c2dfd48a384438e83d3
F20110209_AAASUM friedel_c_Page_017.tif
cf9cab8523efef2dfc90fc7a77f9910c
ea2272c843b9413c4e0eaec71128e43fe3a2f09e
1677 F20110209_AAATRF friedel_c_Page_318.txt
3c808cf81b9091cacf2335141d020d2f
f79cde6417eb64931bb620ef3ad71ec88d521245
36231 F20110209_AAASHC friedel_c_Page_042.jpg
429e0c6a833b7ed41466a06ea0202fbc
0b639fa1ac088a3d1f6b23fe117d83e247e8a44d
147087 F20110209_AAARXU friedel_c_Page_035.jpg
a649d060cf805c23986fb7c9dec66f40
7da676563bae28c2bb0a12a6692182ebd6bd05be
F20110209_AAASUN friedel_c_Page_117.txt
1141f2f4d23278353d1a5db45ccbd626
86e47a2500f665c9af2dc2f5f293fdbeaee88d33
2464 F20110209_AAATRG friedel_c_Page_320.txt
c660b2a229aab0b054a553a8704a5e9f
b694b9ed1caadb7db0fcc9b219b4e1397a0ad452
884924 F20110209_AAAUOA friedel_c_Page_212.jp2
3e8f8fbede9fcba828de672c5489b090
d3957b4721ff6b634260b9d4b01ad0dcd5cb734d
8200 F20110209_AAASHD friedel_c_Page_338thm.jpg
b50ba004a9c1db202952ecc3c2b76550
d781035aeb0d36235354f073bab66a1f04120b6a
49813 F20110209_AAARXV friedel_c_Page_074.pro
7f3e78d2375f619aa451e47b5bb4cace
a3dba0e836ea63d26d6ae73834475a04ee5c1cdc
F20110209_AAASUO friedel_c_Page_288.tif
7cbf3efa408f19d31dbb9eec9fb224e5
7002dce50bda501a71ef1cacf57be537ff0796f2
511 F20110209_AAATRH friedel_c_Page_323.txt
c7d4924a4a1c423c488ab8dcec6ab73d
5fd4c1a4943bde26edb7d14f286af7d6c78b2f7d
F20110209_AAAUOB friedel_c_Page_214.jp2
a6f25aa496abee25e483f45bdca42dff
42ee3057efd22ed3329d12780e169e04d09b6138
32680 F20110209_AAASHE friedel_c_Page_232.QC.jpg
7c14360b0773a9d020e1db0bb3b78b6e
c98289b0149539d319ae0865e7d2e27d30132f98
18854 F20110209_AAASUP friedel_c_Page_015.QC.jpg
14e2de7ba1a7bfcefa1e89bf9b9751c0
eb1b3dce775332780cb338a3337a20a62e396c73
2034 F20110209_AAATRI friedel_c_Page_324.txt
ac876476302094b5eaf2b622fe5b8aba
7e551ab934830dfe083c983ee5aab0eb5a5cfb54
F20110209_AAAUOC friedel_c_Page_215.jp2
572b913eff563df0903491e3d86a71cc
2db97f9fa27284d8e96f8171380f3ba07f25018f
2050 F20110209_AAARXW friedel_c_Page_250.txt
e0b887ff90a79911d97445daf58bcefc
4a88644c64ff5059c791efaca20b145ca4449246
1881 F20110209_AAASUQ friedel_c_Page_123.txt
e34bf1d979649a9c5c359dee21512b35
6eca1e4ac42162658a6bcebb7aea9f9befff1f52
623 F20110209_AAATRJ friedel_c_Page_325.txt
676f11b2eff5af0a437b13146a893e09
d07c680628199f5b8695bd755b4eb2a9e8f2da6c
1025585 F20110209_AAAUOD friedel_c_Page_216.jp2
55d95f9b99418df0bc68629042ceef95
ecb5abac51f249bde8d7eb2a3fa1610f637d2f10
2699 F20110209_AAASHF friedel_c_Page_150.txt
24b3c272f66c12226bfca52189404e06
61e40c337babf58f64908878dd54e9e0797c22fd
F20110209_AAARXX friedel_c_Page_235.tif
4bfde24c80b9f79f26825fae7d91353a
f6932be328571a1f0cc49fd4c5ace6f2fe2e0685
31591 F20110209_AAASUR friedel_c_Page_087.QC.jpg
e49c062420122047504eede56f2a38a7
abe0841eb83cc936dbb13441930e34e3b114366c
849 F20110209_AAATRK friedel_c_Page_326.txt
ba7ddafbfa4213d735ff3ec156dff5b7
a4e91bd45a8c5dec3d25d08ff1785a95df3d5e7b
1006446 F20110209_AAAUOE friedel_c_Page_222.jp2
761e9b41d2ccb9b2b036865afce4fabb
1bc4f774989a6808478c2ae3628aa5acc10c6a1e
966519 F20110209_AAASHG friedel_c_Page_007.jp2
de3ef608815c089d2e42181c9f30aa52
bbc1cbce67d8dad7441e6a581f3adf0411896ffa
F20110209_AAARXY friedel_c_Page_251.tif
c09ccdf939c888813fe5e05005e664a0
4894bb4981f7048e7c19dd273309ea5cd203a767
F20110209_AAATEA friedel_c_Page_113.tif
4da5092029f6d49cd7d386c2de50fdff
b371da8e4de7839eedf750a0e02a05706bde22e5
1039 F20110209_AAATRL friedel_c_Page_327.txt
6e3f9069726d69dead8ad9a4ace5fb60
cf0ba05cde5fe2705802079f2242978d20276b73
911754 F20110209_AAAUOF friedel_c_Page_223.jp2
77fef651d4bbef21c1f83ee3b0ab1584
55939437cd5d54e107f681a9eed519fcff49cfdb
2827 F20110209_AAASHH friedel_c_Page_034.txt
c65a0989f3241ad8ac6e163306bd3812
3e69d61cd3f0b0dc35a4c3e8928434509487581a
108393 F20110209_AAARXZ friedel_c_Page_138.jpg
e244faaadec1f61f8afa4115aa3fc553
f5391513a16933c257dd457c2e38d2db3e7ce30a
8263 F20110209_AAASUS friedel_c_Page_124thm.jpg
050dcdfb19b48ebf0443e7b1bc9c281f
5c086d7a8f6e37d78501ecfd36ab758ebecee6c7
F20110209_AAATRM friedel_c_Page_332.txt
56c52aeccd5d494dfec00a37607ee1df
73f5ff279c64e1f9bcc425dadc20a09f27aeca06
814989 F20110209_AAAUOG friedel_c_Page_224.jp2
802db7e408d4bd46777bfb58c1e4d10c
29997ac3ce11027354f418809fcaadf4ceece7a7
8032 F20110209_AAASHI friedel_c_Page_077thm.jpg
023d84752d68c55322831e3807a60a9f
e4da8436afdde8f2fb1d5f6613d219c3e621a339
F20110209_AAATEB friedel_c_Page_114.tif
36b542f126e8e0644a654cb57bc43752
047337df1c627828a3001922f2d488262a92150e
82549 F20110209_AAASUT friedel_c_Page_213.jpg
c5a3982fbd4496f1d20abb5321d5baff
f7d501596478dcca643e596841b15299e43b53e1
2268 F20110209_AAATRN friedel_c_Page_333.txt
924feff7f12fa9947528681e841047c5
4b875101c8c317fd89c53c8c26ef20bd4d393752
F20110209_AAAUOH friedel_c_Page_225.jp2
5569635295285b78ea61745e9f7b490e
d20e52692793bbd42f25aadd5a4ddcc567bddd17
176 F20110209_AAASHJ friedel_c_Page_003.txt
40643a37ffa4145b332353e121605afc
5b5ad50c6135620b7d51cdcf932aa714abff557b
F20110209_AAATEC friedel_c_Page_118.tif
7e0b5cad69ec2bb5323544b4da2d0f5c
825c130e9ea0794292c630ef76082a0acba1cac2
106311 F20110209_AAASUU friedel_c_Page_146.jpg
a560372c18f402614be65212e814c0a2
dc457d2d8f7ec4cba8b23cba94b798c8b8cd3056
F20110209_AAAUOI friedel_c_Page_226.jp2
a77a772b157d3477db87e8c13499c810
fd53d2269b1803521f0140acb44364a835c13eba
F20110209_AAASHK friedel_c_Page_046.tif
08f3417774ef0c0c928670f89368b4b5
505d2f8e6c5459a1ec85e5567ec08ad9105aeabe
F20110209_AAATED friedel_c_Page_122.tif
006a195110d46e6c0356a5645368819b
971524a302b131ef9706966497c6f5556e38b01e
31119 F20110209_AAASUV friedel_c_Page_245.QC.jpg
4f7fa836a635336d4c7c33afbdb781b0
ce54eddd3e4217ce0f00a90766fafeaefff4b5f4
2317 F20110209_AAATRO friedel_c_Page_334.txt
e65c601928b1299db367c5e421e5ab08
cc24ef14604f62655eb91abc534628bcf194f7d9
F20110209_AAAUOJ friedel_c_Page_229.jp2
c8d31bed2630d3b1081c38a84c5bf304
f43e76a5b2d3bc4746e6ea5674046d7ebf3a7e8a
94883 F20110209_AAASHL friedel_c_Page_257.jpg
27c067e4256f5355ea894f82cbe25231
a1d1ac89dc9ba886ea616f302ee8ed2a813ebab1
F20110209_AAATEE friedel_c_Page_123.tif
c6994c249a994b23686d8f107ba3bb87
49cebfafb17be80155dea218311e43e3af6eb90e
56435 F20110209_AAASUW friedel_c_Page_190.jpg
8db91c8169936203c9730a90739632f0
738ed39e6c412cb52a776ee7df720cc7e1fa80ad
2284 F20110209_AAATRP friedel_c_Page_336.txt
92dc8c6734501e14c9143bd2598b1869
02a3c8c989d3b1f63df674e9ae4337020a7b0c86
917 F20110209_AAASHM friedel_c_Page_100.txt
b23b32b429b97413170481201cf01fce
3ca993bda9d06efb0130e5fe60bae66ee52a604d
F20110209_AAATEF friedel_c_Page_124.tif
45289e7cd07838e257cf763d54790da2
65251f93d32b5866c2495bec330b3e21d42f02f8
14628 F20110209_AAASUX friedel_c_Page_325.pro
31b060d38c443fa9d747a45a136a7aae
eba33d86d33841bd89bd3b3fb2e851559dd0024c
F20110209_AAATRQ friedel_c_Page_338.txt
06f268cd763159819cb8ce55ef99c3a6
9e21899c99f5206cd6064578771a0fdec549ed9e
1051918 F20110209_AAAUOK friedel_c_Page_230.jp2
ee92647e88595ce845430f9d6c86702e
39ad578656684e83e3ed2197ac46f3e29d60678c
F20110209_AAASHN friedel_c_Page_080.txt
9481156b8f9577e4db7db1aeb519b569
fc6a0f226cf294982d2292aa38dbbbf91acd5e4a
F20110209_AAATEG friedel_c_Page_125.tif
493d02545ca6ec22b0bb3fd000647b2c
3679bbc75ee2550da2d303abca9ebe3afb88f92d
82724 F20110209_AAASUY friedel_c_Page_170.jpg
9fc09dd7afe6ea4bf3cd750096cd5da7
da6b1977435d3541681ba88afdc93100a1999f0d
2421 F20110209_AAATRR friedel_c_Page_339.txt
36a558d92d764b168339aa0d05118f4e
0f1a2d91be5d1224f6183cfe90795cc0478b9bb5
1051930 F20110209_AAAUOL friedel_c_Page_232.jp2
c84e9cc9b61a5a8d6341e3f40490b713
d7379d5d05413bc82eb0c53014b32dc084b4b107
8529 F20110209_AAASHO friedel_c_Page_219thm.jpg
b5542b342773f552eb105e11c4048992
8eb63ace9b6199b98c01a604a51c9775f88cabae
F20110209_AAATEH friedel_c_Page_126.tif
58c34bd8795bd1c02f1a45f44ceabadf
e862dc7a9832e1b488bbfdd7f15203c81c547b45
F20110209_AAASUZ friedel_c_Page_246.tif
fa78729e031f42e50384fa96f3890d7a
a0fd1d58fa1ef54ed155cf39c8dbf5c6c2bd2aeb
100560 F20110209_AAAUBA friedel_c_Page_027.jpg
6673052a1a1b71b1649523f3c3da6234
f6d0fb997247c8addab435649460c7a76701a435
2249 F20110209_AAATRS friedel_c_Page_340.txt
55780ed5b93ac2e8a2fa405ad3a0c898
d9a52e5a94dfd4cd7d3dbbedb6e7231fc3fbd75e
F20110209_AAAUOM friedel_c_Page_233.jp2
9654903316874dfafe6d159c9ac643b4
22fcfeab9c5ffd3c14c224333c50fc29578a8bb5
57530 F20110209_AAASHP friedel_c_Page_197.pro
1193a3c1c1b1b8e37daf05864a8504df
7bbef22521566898dbbd817a158d0081746a621b
F20110209_AAATEI friedel_c_Page_128.tif
f6a6bc0cc3f2398ef266f4f74158470d
f9ec6dfee529becc7ba786d9bb023af050106b70
98399 F20110209_AAAUBB friedel_c_Page_030.jpg
c7aeec534f442d574d2a5b02f49733ca
1be0e46ed1307a5073ebb31ca203e944198fdf72
2377 F20110209_AAATRT friedel_c_Page_341.txt
599220b3559a462ba340239766d91af9
3a95a65790807c6eed2602367b5c600c58ac2e00
1030441 F20110209_AAAUON friedel_c_Page_235.jp2
c08584b9ada0f13c8c74b58e18a5c0cb
d8b8abbf7c4645110090d8b508986d60287f8a06
1708 F20110209_AAASHQ friedel_c_Page_017.txt
d8eccc69a43eaf879d97f077cffd900a
5639d0f10423166a90c2e324f87bea4616ce70bf
F20110209_AAATEJ friedel_c_Page_131.tif
770c73a4286c2d56c2989b25fde5f210
d8560ea390519055f2538751a82e9ac415cc95aa
104928 F20110209_AAAUBC friedel_c_Page_031.jpg
ccb17d3987c66d4a0f2941d67a2e6955
d7ebe1ac95a27187c8112ad85ed31d32e21bfd10
1265 F20110209_AAATRU friedel_c_Page_342.txt
5f824e3d97cc4a923edc0d8a87dff87d
aaa2d8b9c0245be6ba3abcede08381a391a7db45
F20110209_AAAUOO friedel_c_Page_238.jp2
fe88b2d75ad3a11abda1adfa097107fa
5e57bf4b19e0c15dcc2d71078c495e18aec9d0ec
39024 F20110209_AAASHR friedel_c_Page_017.pro
763e8e6aaa156f2083ae2320907627dd
f105f5489e1259951ea9e224c79cb8ffe6675ced
F20110209_AAATEK friedel_c_Page_132.tif
bed8d4a5b179fa77936e7a9fd49859dc
9d725656cfda4e0e61dd672b0a794ccd167e858c
96375 F20110209_AAAUBD friedel_c_Page_032.jpg
7cae390e10f00647d7b8417679e09718
45acb8cbb1e278c68eaf67a0810a12bab2ad1e39
296 F20110209_AAATRV friedel_c_Page_344.txt
56a56b16c47806cdbb26bd4a0a2c8a00
fe35f5fd2f5151d053d698addf314c3a38eab5b0
1036155 F20110209_AAAUOP friedel_c_Page_239.jp2
582ff3edbd77ea79daaba33c6ee56d33
94857d5df36be96e4a57ad70675a9fca6ca1d982
51750 F20110209_AAASHS friedel_c_Page_297.pro
7f07a9a63de37759f3e4f5f2e79e8fea
d19456a055e9c26d1a5ee1d0ec7fd3020233bc7f
F20110209_AAATEL friedel_c_Page_133.tif
cfad03e3559b9efbb800912863ca8246
e330b560db1ad638400a65258d5c1ee1fe75b692
72080 F20110209_AAAUBE friedel_c_Page_036.jpg
fd9a2496d9036926b77604f9106c0421
06e15eac62a4999657e2df646aaba05be94659c0
1332 F20110209_AAATRW friedel_c_Page_002.pro
8b2647591ac6ca511951f1c3bdecfb9b
2a1ab20e22c1cb07f08350ac37d9d61b620cce57
985476 F20110209_AAAUOQ friedel_c_Page_240.jp2
d3b9ce63628a8c9ecd9bf77fe7cadebb
b1849b72b5e8ccc6108e63f719f126867798517a
83862 F20110209_AAASHT friedel_c_Page_318.jpg
9936d91ff04e5158088566015f38e7c4
7d1f0d6268ac85d82c22ef0cd8d6ffce94050e76
F20110209_AAATEM friedel_c_Page_134.tif
c18d4fe5202e20d5e2459bd98c42139b
6f6a461b63ecb00ffa35e24aa3a6d416a9dca20f
86391 F20110209_AAAUBF friedel_c_Page_037.jpg
01a9eb0a68cee661e1ccdf7f795df34e
39deecd3334bd782d001f738ed74b4d223acb9c2
2695 F20110209_AAATRX friedel_c_Page_003.pro
6e451d460a2ce846db48bffd64cd7f10
896ec3183f964f82c5526fc6b358966c4bdb2b73
1045401 F20110209_AAAUOR friedel_c_Page_245.jp2
e8ae5e54972114652b324be4ea8e532d
a7f1a03da6294889b72d256048045a54142bb9ab
95582 F20110209_AAASHU friedel_c_Page_121.jpg
8d22ee23aef0f67eb3ccb6f570fcdd7d
6ab5b7a0c4f1a21fc028a7cc8768a1c9a50b7ab2
F20110209_AAATEN friedel_c_Page_135.tif
2240e295f00898baca7805686c9d1b81
19e852a8c4a996c94c8b8dc1bc80570440d4b288
100496 F20110209_AAAUBG friedel_c_Page_039.jpg
170a6b2af0f64ad9f4ee8639a624d8c1
db764fc6ae12b2b33b4bb03e795d40bf69bb1ff7
43829 F20110209_AAATRY friedel_c_Page_004.pro
8cde5f4f1bea1a56566484e3eb32d0bc
f10dc2cdcd8e9a0eb7fd330c4b30c31d109a3454
F20110209_AAAUOS friedel_c_Page_247.jp2
c7c519a56db453c0ca947d3e41433a8b
515c3d1a9581d47f9c5f811171bb90bac001f2d6
104969 F20110209_AAASHV friedel_c_Page_094.jpg
ee751a433dac0c9cdbd9843bb84383da
35b3bb9b82d6e658b6b973aa91e2c5a1673ac82a
F20110209_AAATEO friedel_c_Page_136.tif
8eed371f6222826a3125bd7669a09694
7218c751417f1fcb014dced63b6ed1828adac876
104101 F20110209_AAAUBH friedel_c_Page_043.jpg
5bd421b71593b125ae887749e19d6fc7
8ae4c5c3b55e1a64caec3f98f1c1e5323ee789ca
77642 F20110209_AAATRZ friedel_c_Page_005.pro
6366a3a2e591678e32dd4be604f57cdc
e42f460c3d3a0f853b9d68054244fa25e4711fa4
F20110209_AAAUOT friedel_c_Page_249.jp2
2626afe83778b4c3870a99ce31550f21
8e14acf0057ba1d622dc6633ad018c8b9171a8d9
F20110209_AAASHW friedel_c_Page_236.txt
fe6b209cdf8b798a0746f3c24436bd54
e9a97f6789f2c20fdbd3a2dc76fc55181d59bb3b
F20110209_AAATEP friedel_c_Page_138.tif
89bc934fd66c701648dfbb232e13b1dd
8047911fd29bef440287df235978b298da2c4c01
105209 F20110209_AAAUBI friedel_c_Page_044.jpg
ffdab72d6fae01d61250fbd68e092944
d218175192ef94771311125b5b596b321a66cd85
F20110209_AAAUOU friedel_c_Page_250.jp2
38b775a7e27264701a93f3a53cd02b32
ada55e8a44eaca7c17dbc50d80e78533991c547f
908992 F20110209_AAASHX friedel_c_Page_172.jp2
4f7a4b3fa607ec5af567a97a1b5e2f23
4c7c484c29d4822e1e4fba6d688380d6d1d89af7
F20110209_AAATEQ friedel_c_Page_139.tif
d08516f80aca1d9821689c36558a7d6e
f57f90fd9c851a1f7918b4792cb908660ce00616
68481 F20110209_AAAUBJ friedel_c_Page_045.jpg
b5e54d1120537402bfc6d5808712fd3c
fd4ca596183bb00a0745814ed326aea752a31db0
F20110209_AAAUOV friedel_c_Page_252.jp2
453abb3a8ecce07f6a3f963b539bc5eb
960d9f765908dcd00886a49582488f186b8cfaab
76846 F20110209_AAASHY friedel_c_Page_196.jpg
9019c5e6961282a9001855483d246e83
74dc6b039784e0af39017e49a0ff8ff6892a40b0
F20110209_AAATER friedel_c_Page_140.tif
7aa3d53520ed96ee490928caa1f58c56
21bbb6ad55bee8ad254a0c6252cda23e49261473
112061 F20110209_AAAUBK friedel_c_Page_046.jpg
bc2472e7f7990e5e27c24c4a8abae020
5b154901c2b52cea96041ac0c5502f570775edf7
F20110209_AAAUOW friedel_c_Page_254.jp2
48ee61e83d082bc570d14ab67f597ce7
a1b8028ef11dc14f16049f369167047d141c7a63
F20110209_AAASHZ friedel_c_Page_084.tif
c2e6a3a6a72e651c3258e660f475da04
5a5bc9d010baa335fcdc626b94c503458146c1da
F20110209_AAATES friedel_c_Page_141.tif
9f08415c59f3b240f87e6f42085e0808
8b757be4eb0663de408a5cf95873f81fa5d059a6
104998 F20110209_AAAUBL friedel_c_Page_047.jpg
e98d7fdc69b36caad2ebdf7b18fe4c26
8f1074e55bf22d2297465f522a2c20a2eb00e864
1028823 F20110209_AAAUOX friedel_c_Page_257.jp2
6315a254d3ff65af8224dbf6d99fe867
ff1876b422e906781fbab706187dad7957c80fd5
F20110209_AAATET friedel_c_Page_142.tif
14f6ee8efe5ef61cafd31ffb96b538a3
5e9349d27f7f6a50bd8953c5f1e9df03c002b5b3
101696 F20110209_AAAUBM friedel_c_Page_050.jpg
be4803419e6dc1a09a949ed7d9360cc2
7232d34730e9941d358a479fda85ebd09648a0ba
1047208 F20110209_AAAUOY friedel_c_Page_258.jp2
c2695140afbac1d9e4c913e311bc3324
86c4db44e3c80deec3abc27dc1f64965dd32b5c8
F20110209_AAATEU friedel_c_Page_143.tif
70b09bf3e93959dbb5c6bea0a3be46c8
cb18bd01f57d870fe2964d631867b230f05e608c
105696 F20110209_AAAUBN friedel_c_Page_051.jpg
eac9530a4faf461af3f76647408e6441
6ebd1b56f60cd7b91bf74fe75a5fe683d63afbe4
1023974 F20110209_AAAUOZ friedel_c_Page_259.jp2
10a1732ed556683aa310ef96ae5447b6
085235679149060d95f61d297cf5ac0382469b06
F20110209_AAATEV friedel_c_Page_146.tif
cf5a7644c98c927b3fbb30ebb0eeb961
fa15846df509a3700aa5ac7b1df6b0b2c1594964
100916 F20110209_AAAUBO friedel_c_Page_056.jpg
10dbff79006397255ce677cefc9ae0be
e15f20e75849163c2414cfb80457a825a28f0295
F20110209_AAATEW friedel_c_Page_147.tif
fa7de62ceb08626d51d7b3d65afd3f74
44f1fba1db4415b44842d77b67e106dbd800db6e
99377 F20110209_AAAUBP friedel_c_Page_058.jpg
bf160c072c9f471dc83c2628b343b908
a74f101f54938ac1f8181a37d4b90b601e514eef
F20110209_AAATEX friedel_c_Page_148.tif
5d531e349307947298aa218de3993e54
803f061f68297378729c78fba3979fa44765706b
42709 F20110209_AAATXA friedel_c_Page_207.pro
2ab8397a969ec7e31c618b611892deec
92ee4cc446cd99619d5fec61094310434646c9fc
104892 F20110209_AAAUBQ friedel_c_Page_061.jpg
70a3964a1c4ec1780d7f08fe7fbc78a9
a854d9615a28c2673590b3229b2ad95ad5a0eaaf
F20110209_AAATEY friedel_c_Page_149.tif
f4970a0e0c76d5768677ac65fcfe2fcb
c463cb65945b6399bcccd0685430380b0c67a2c4
52902 F20110209_AAATXB friedel_c_Page_208.pro
6e67b4e8d83d81df44543bf0d69766ca
bf60bf2059da0e5a88d30fb8e0fa4a90848e7c69
101244 F20110209_AAAUBR friedel_c_Page_062.jpg
366b5cf122cf1c967f7b4674d04ded73
bee1c5d5690667b58f722b55d23073f63cab4660
F20110209_AAATEZ friedel_c_Page_150.tif
e002e22b9997b3318ea087c223f52da1
8228156c8672430483fd999f9002db06cc9513b9
49502 F20110209_AAATXC friedel_c_Page_209.pro
715a430fea1265ebd6a1ae3d908ef488
283ea0e54f2b3fc80895f21cbcf35b90266ac75e
100172 F20110209_AAAUBS friedel_c_Page_065.jpg
75e6885ecd29fac61c20a8247707d406
c891d1b22ffdd791a0bf102e40a43b31c3133f2b
48574 F20110209_AAATXD friedel_c_Page_210.pro
2889a9fae687a4f378babf2229f49bf6
72aea04ece1cff1550dd18da2fc53dc90fb0d230
100399 F20110209_AAAUBT friedel_c_Page_068.jpg
1e5a5da42a007a7be341c84f44bbb872
9b1425ce77f468ee99611d386e36a09837164dc1
26937 F20110209_AAATXE friedel_c_Page_211.pro
71774da961bb6c40bea062655058cc2e
b7dd86f41e7620fa94af169187f6f86d8539b79f
101913 F20110209_AAAUBU friedel_c_Page_071.jpg
cc16eea39f8200d16ec00d86bbb76543
467111efd8e98005468609dc4d22aa64b5613c32
2187 F20110209_AAASNA friedel_c_Page_180.txt
8b6864d094a2a8abe3c1e2e8dc6f01a1
97d4b8f6dc8771a50ef8fcbca489f607a716a7bf
53605 F20110209_AAATXF friedel_c_Page_212.pro
a943d5a7f37af1dc601338ced2cd2e2d
e96fdac17051f8c923b57002d6ca28af9d6276b6
96037 F20110209_AAAUBV friedel_c_Page_072.jpg
77c569dd9060783f72e89c987ecbe065
0ad935dd7a5e2a8eeb8f487c1d9e7992145496a9
7988 F20110209_AAASNB friedel_c_Page_332thm.jpg
0a36d680694ea04d63396e23c551eb3a
cb2fd39ab3fbdbb333c9e40cb75bb50403fefca0
54778 F20110209_AAATXG friedel_c_Page_214.pro
c26c88ed420fe825242fb51f0abf1e08
39baba1ab36529bfaa272e3999cd29a478148231
98366 F20110209_AAAUBW friedel_c_Page_075.jpg
f2b38c15b37fec07efd09faab203d477
e599a5e54931e118078d114c44724d9fb3991026
7486 F20110209_AAASNC friedel_c_Page_286thm.jpg
ee818ac1fd57b835684490d3ae668766
a12950a9df27d46eb1a196bfd173e82d71565aa3
33352 F20110209_AAAUUA friedel_c_Page_043.QC.jpg
ff90760ccc83a773c1daf66180bdff74
7e6d4803752719518b8b153312061c8eb4076954
53488 F20110209_AAATXH friedel_c_Page_215.pro
44b989ce36364d46f20e4dd6089f8092
b602b7473d7600e19312150a289f60271aee02d1
100823 F20110209_AAAUBX friedel_c_Page_076.jpg
5231c33e41db3ecaf5b354d078144cce
a628fef85b1bab28ba9e9afea8ab6110741ff5ad
51949 F20110209_AAASND friedel_c_Page_053.pro
bed5e5ca9d2def4110492482e381544b
8b7cd1ef02247bb6db7bd0bc94cfdbb2720b79d2
33005 F20110209_AAAUUB friedel_c_Page_046.QC.jpg
d220272f5bf4dadf42ec1ad3922bbeb0
dd15e0787e8088dc999259434a4d332634cfcae9
46280 F20110209_AAATXI friedel_c_Page_216.pro
408ca5d0b18b596c50b01606f5d07f0e
6dab6520b768d6c196ee9e9b809f1e57f119e942
99613 F20110209_AAAUBY friedel_c_Page_079.jpg
96137b2a64ac8a8471eb23bd981954d0
2a19459eaae76d11afc6e8db1e3008564aa7a982
31706 F20110209_AAASNE friedel_c_Page_306.QC.jpg
ae0578b1209a2aa4781bf6523bd97940
0a14988314ca0a3ed9ae91bc3a0966f5a6c23d0f
32655 F20110209_AAAUUC friedel_c_Page_048.QC.jpg
c2499169fa0be0881a475a71948d7973
912d0abe82f1fa7fa414dd130afcfe4365533247
42167 F20110209_AAATXJ friedel_c_Page_218.pro
6c643bdb39faf0ccdf406fa995c7a59c
9561726385a0a6553692c5601437f0e61458882b
95500 F20110209_AAAUBZ friedel_c_Page_080.jpg
c76a4cf7ca1e97baa1192ab970c80154
dcec970f44690ac9ca2693cc7139a32a3bcb1008
2003 F20110209_AAASNF friedel_c_Page_193.txt
069d52a3c0f962070fdbd1ae1371011c
84b7df18ef875de8608e69d302e60f1ea4365f57
33641 F20110209_AAAUUD friedel_c_Page_049.QC.jpg
e2b4348e1b1090abea00d14a2faf2d7d
a8915a37a779df1a534e9b15bc361159e81952ec
55868 F20110209_AAATXK friedel_c_Page_219.pro
3ad7c81b7904d4d907af8fe930e26505
5a594c842b968783a758ccbc20e7f3156823617a
59023 F20110209_AAASNG friedel_c_Page_339.pro
ae5ea021b0c69a2af4c4b1f974d88dea
908eaa254ac47de176390daa552ac1eb63a200a2
33165 F20110209_AAAUUE friedel_c_Page_050.QC.jpg
7bfe8fcd29d667e99c00e42f374a9f16
fb243ea54d458eafcf9308af0c3d794606dbf92c
2184 F20110209_AAATKA friedel_c_Page_011.txt
9d95dfa6b33eb0752707dc6d52672bf5
646c910dca1cb40925f4c6c73fe7a8ac1292621f
41325 F20110209_AAATXL friedel_c_Page_224.pro
1ea5d0c5ca7979811a180c7737cff77f
153c4637855109ba4f1dbaf62ba0a1048532d3f4
2024 F20110209_AAASNH friedel_c_Page_225.txt
64c4c2807abc0d11e03dbc0534d643c2
c8c5dee184134bbda2a34cde4196943e63026e84
34010 F20110209_AAAUUF friedel_c_Page_052.QC.jpg
be2265a55bbc5af53d24424ace8e4430
36a517731d7865fe6d87c9fabfb569077e7748f9
2697 F20110209_AAATKB friedel_c_Page_013.txt
baf61bb49f856e61118bde320197a466
e7ad364f25910029ce602b9b40d4fe259d277388
51135 F20110209_AAATXM friedel_c_Page_226.pro
49b5acb33c7a2e3ea27a2520270b5574
3cb6c242c5238fb1d78dba7ea48a810524f218b4
30496 F20110209_AAASNI friedel_c_Page_216.QC.jpg
ffbd71767adff10df8e73a4b98101b0e
dceca0714207d473383e82a7ee62908c8aa19085
31872 F20110209_AAAUUG friedel_c_Page_054.QC.jpg
a8368a50292916aa1a27202bdbf91e45
3af0c335b8eddfdd2d165b1a05db210322922ecb
1853 F20110209_AAATKC friedel_c_Page_015.txt
d48768e3354ef22afb50e921a960f55e
6bbf6c03d05d800d418e9f2ef23c98a1008f9db3
47605 F20110209_AAATXN friedel_c_Page_227.pro
e004007819a62ca1d968bc46ab6fd7fd
39e4d2f9cc0ec0e748fbf0aecc46e4304a0c4196
27863 F20110209_AAASNJ friedel_c_Page_289.QC.jpg
71b919888b921eec2d59d6588ac2c5cb
421caf0cc615628353599f0dd08fbcebb20cf709
32971 F20110209_AAAUUH friedel_c_Page_055.QC.jpg
b9ce134a32664a98382125fb4f80acc7
43e64a0cc71f40f1ed5735bd8fb0c0eed837e540
420 F20110209_AAATKD friedel_c_Page_016.txt
d7199f59e5de83b832d892b9e74e0f3a
3854d1f2fe09987c1c379786019ca95308238652
F20110209_AAATXO friedel_c_Page_228.pro
a84e1ca64f37f7e329637d920d4c60a3
6d8b4270e233e8766f066dd3df19ea21e885d770
8388 F20110209_AAASNK friedel_c_Page_024thm.jpg
65fdc557e51dd33a5e1ec439fb654432
b8cd7123ada284dbde1e64707410f6a022215b8e
32404 F20110209_AAAUUI friedel_c_Page_056.QC.jpg
8addb8778ea623d1e58c31e52e5276cb
9fe1b5817a369a07484d4ef4adb95c39f1743b8e
1702 F20110209_AAATKE friedel_c_Page_019.txt
2b04fa10a52f8c8ca831a88bbcca32e8
818377f480395a129bb86b27a0a7227f8ee124ad
48545 F20110209_AAATXP friedel_c_Page_229.pro
49228345de9f360c3b85e90aa85e7b9a
13e7eb6a9394740664d8cba335345a69f7d28635
34904 F20110209_AAAUUJ friedel_c_Page_057.QC.jpg
46083accddcc918120e36d3b113656e7
0ffb91b8210ea1ecf0c7d92f27fc841e3cfca63e
2107 F20110209_AAATKF friedel_c_Page_020.txt
49473514e4609deaaa5416c6122fbe7a
0db1c413bab6024cddaa9e3d16b9af059a6880b9
654 F20110209_AAASAA friedel_c_Page_081.txt
99672825380e02dedde20bae8ee033b1
0fa8fd68e455fccd2a76d0c2b5350376f441f749
48334 F20110209_AAATXQ friedel_c_Page_230.pro
32df6a71f5460b61c2b0dc5ee5161bb7
c680ab2626dc6637fc0f7d08cf9172697f58627b
31233 F20110209_AAASNL friedel_c_Page_107.QC.jpg
6a5bed559aab768a9b6fed747ec631f2
111229172b67bf6fb9782831539869d61901426f
34529 F20110209_AAAUUK friedel_c_Page_061.QC.jpg
521ef8766a9c70ad90e8b9acd1e76c44
ee3be03e7b1a13d3136028073fa30a1ec477a835
F20110209_AAATKG friedel_c_Page_021.txt
25e43da126fc7bdcbc6dc4a386e01f09
513bbf62c598e14719cb35a986c76845592c8f8b
F20110209_AAASAB friedel_c_Page_285.tif
dffba362ca31a00b159141a619aa22a8
c66703e9c64c7ccc9225c6eff9102a1d7bdbffbc
47383 F20110209_AAATXR friedel_c_Page_231.pro
ab294ad7c9f54912ac09290a95d0f5c5
78e10468cf2030993f9993f945c15ec5e81bb079
F20110209_AAASNM friedel_c_Page_058.jp2
e3bb4e23bd81980ac586a669a01858aa
7558325985f66d3c922cab324682bc5ec482132b
31773 F20110209_AAAUUL friedel_c_Page_066.QC.jpg
b80843d2859ea7f210be172bdf1e241e
b774c4ef7827f13e9477d8d9894f7a9b2040472f
96882 F20110209_AAAUHA friedel_c_Page_278.jpg
bac88788f1ae2491e71218b0e5700b50
80f2fd0da37aa2ec30f8134f52bff3907c82d30c
F20110209_AAASAC friedel_c_Page_059.tif
116b02ef0821d9e36dc652fcb094ed32
83dedc4f0f62fc976c460ef45213f868d0c7f412
49197 F20110209_AAATXS friedel_c_Page_233.pro
04ae5aa1c987e16ecd936818c81b54ea
38b27dda1bc55366775380f3e27fe3a3101619e2
F20110209_AAASNN friedel_c_Page_195.tif
3bcf5fd8849f5edcf3060f6cfaf560a8
5afd4a2ba331cc320b66300f309952b8b0643369
30098 F20110209_AAAUUM friedel_c_Page_070.QC.jpg
b64ba71facb844caee6c0f0990d15a8f
01639eba05d73091daa1551763659bcae582a35f
95291 F20110209_AAAUHB friedel_c_Page_279.jpg
41301a1aa45699496f1bc9d7ee65d1b4
6c1d2690dfcbd218c2afeaf141663117e3c2c5e8
1985 F20110209_AAATKH friedel_c_Page_023.txt
1c8313eb25c60eebeb73e1bcd68c7135
5739cf7eae912617a89d515f7dddc02e922955ed
6012 F20110209_AAASAD friedel_c_Page_011thm.jpg
a089f8b3398d74231e5eefaea6fd35ef
2ef7f3fb6b4e7ac3283d5a49c483c0c99450b75a
47613 F20110209_AAATXT friedel_c_Page_235.pro
061a1b48f95170096b22d7b71fb91b32
9b16c263983dd742a625559be452d76659df497c
81875 F20110209_AAASNO friedel_c_Page_207.jpg
b4a0e3227b56b43adf217325d747d01a
7990c9a28879e9ac0c9de5929f2a665bf0a70ea8
31439 F20110209_AAAUUN friedel_c_Page_072.QC.jpg
20486400b94eb4e81518da37b5c7652f
e109beef864ddf7352c79e8eec92236df7368f2b
102276 F20110209_AAAUHC friedel_c_Page_281.jpg
b064ac28029ff09d39427789601509ca
97acfef6b94daeda560ab516b4ab80c5a1e03499
2054 F20110209_AAATKI friedel_c_Page_025.txt
8b2e772900ebcca896c7c2a4e9478ca6
d1e51efd52a22464236db108513c7f0081d05ff0
31875 F20110209_AAASAE friedel_c_Page_151.QC.jpg
7b76e595a2eb540e27ea58fb1499b526
80e6f75c93aec32cad6824dd7d0c5fe13e22b44e
F20110209_AAASNP friedel_c_Page_214.tif
d27b3b63eb5aae6d6449709467aed348
b5d59cae83c03f80ca47596b3cb323f253f41091
33073 F20110209_AAAUUO friedel_c_Page_076.QC.jpg
46920b41c02d5aff056de3b81859c54c
254ee08e53834b6bba4586065c0430c6bc5e7fa6
2019 F20110209_AAATKJ friedel_c_Page_026.txt
fa6ccf0191ae368abf065fb24afcf836
0b260bed91b6abc15d1dfd483af452e86d74c2d3
123431 F20110209_AAASAF friedel_c_Page_006.pro
4b214ff82fe13e8a4d406e3742a80b8f
46556a5fc6cf23953c2a90d14a9e5d73539d4a3c
51525 F20110209_AAATXU friedel_c_Page_237.pro
33bb3690151b7fe1c232089eda6eb217
9b5ff7ac60b5a45604e070d04a9847beeca40250
76133 F20110209_AAASNQ friedel_c_Page_014.pro
b7f9b77b04d5a68ac21a3bc56d632864
e96fb7fb8329605bb3e272c92831eedc0df14b16
32300 F20110209_AAAUUP friedel_c_Page_077.QC.jpg
6f540f94e92af243b512ec806f78dc67
76a7b3599630e7232649c65b03b1b9a5b33571fa
103631 F20110209_AAAUHD friedel_c_Page_282.jpg
083c5f482f35c65f3b0a079c7017b857
7e15e56cc29015cfd065250acc535a801110447c
F20110209_AAATKK friedel_c_Page_027.txt
6c02277c3c926fae66c2f3ec6e77d003
0f2bbc2acd0b56e8076a5c0a926a4e3a7cfd39f9
101179 F20110209_AAASAG friedel_c_Page_074.jpg
1680ee4c4c9aeafaf857a38b4da1bb28
5b9caae7ce6ebd8827f0f53efdfb351a6056f835
47250 F20110209_AAATXV friedel_c_Page_239.pro
9ee97fde90e970789edd38aeffb7a2ae
690e27c2c58ef48f170f64b40b0987d329c691f8
F20110209_AAASNR friedel_c_Page_218.tif
295b60291b4c1c142dbf92b1a63cfab9
2f60489dc16e89d8c6540d0ae7bf9102d870cb7f
102514 F20110209_AAAUHE friedel_c_Page_283.jpg
b5d42118646c027c396594abbdeb8861
ad29f6dbd489b8b105d9b53c443ed60d3d70719f
2052 F20110209_AAATKL friedel_c_Page_029.txt
e8280c4fee8aecbc4d691c3c45a14b05
16831912772e692cdf2ebe19fd219a7c58638383
F20110209_AAASAH friedel_c_Page_273.txt
f4bc9129d075b020eb314c81fa16f8b4
eef7612739a612124ee8459ec967f298ec9d2ccd
46216 F20110209_AAATXW friedel_c_Page_241.pro
0836a30d5a3e0228849ecb707ea91e32
c8e02a2a0230ea840ee0523d142ebff842b6b8f1
8431 F20110209_AAASNS friedel_c_Page_057thm.jpg
16a755902ce5c263c9632d33ee12cfae
181b802f26a63bf544617b72872d72a7db463914
F20110209_AAAUUQ friedel_c_Page_079.QC.jpg
8a6e49683a78b3f36658e655d35d244c
3e834596764dd2f47637fc8937258f2ef11dd880
98126 F20110209_AAAUHF friedel_c_Page_284.jpg
57e33135f3d9bb97daf2ad1322ec6556
c2b61ec6ae2d36f12d341d6a65b61a62baeda621
F20110209_AAATKM friedel_c_Page_030.txt
8e8708acf023a5ff4c80142d1debe191
c1fa33f9920ae7a65f2ead0194dfacc2bdb10588
6698 F20110209_AAASAI friedel_c_Page_172thm.jpg
bdcd989c600fad943f6c040ab8a84dee
e0a5c1c53d4d5f90bcf50d8d2d9d77c0b3ed7969
48634 F20110209_AAATXX friedel_c_Page_242.pro
37afe34805f9ccb2cc88df15fe4c4400
8e998763a37542c1105a39d4683f6e02111f7350
54975 F20110209_AAASNT friedel_c_Page_336.pro
8b6da04203d23395e9650db052019cf0
cbacfd98f66148a307290e538c082d9b7e2c5f7e
31065 F20110209_AAAUUR friedel_c_Page_080.QC.jpg
13269070a04214afa0aabfec12e8919e
0ca94ee3371d5d5efd9136ab6a4ed57c59484423
94997 F20110209_AAAUHG friedel_c_Page_286.jpg
26eaa8514f24db0b7ccffda124fa3139
1ebd534e863d2a2d5fade7df92cbd8396fc8f8c3
1986 F20110209_AAATKN friedel_c_Page_032.txt
2067f957984596163ca4fb09dac3d732
b876f9250be4f0117b85bb94cbc1a5ea1082d1b3
F20110209_AAASAJ friedel_c_Page_127.tif
4dcd9de260df1b06d36b8cb13974960c
223f986e0c7c9e5a8b091c33281a20bc97ac3d87
44906 F20110209_AAATXY friedel_c_Page_243.pro
efc3a7bce409e675bdd8fad40733848c
f85f22e58e20e778573611d15ead8d8629e23ba3
F20110209_AAASNU friedel_c_Page_118.txt
0df3589a996708760ecf9acb6aafb197
1eb27dced5b26afef8e77ca218b2df060d619c49
7680 F20110209_AAAVEA friedel_c_Page_130thm.jpg
5b539d3bff7bcefa6b0980f082ed56b1
fcfb66cbcc4f43dae8ab97d8fb385b766def074a
11630 F20110209_AAAUUS friedel_c_Page_081.QC.jpg
71883662a497316ea97612d7640fc5d2
587ac519fb04cd265b1f99d6dba8e4de6efd08ad
96546 F20110209_AAAUHH friedel_c_Page_287.jpg
8b14082f40534db36e802600fcd3a827
bd81d0528f1f5d52e02895faad53a6b714560c80
2123 F20110209_AAATKO friedel_c_Page_033.txt
14c509f9a4e9f800db0f0f97816c3381
25dd2ac9a902bf746b1826510514d534f34402a8
F20110209_AAASAK friedel_c_Page_165.tif
94c434ccbff80939b1f7b9f45b219539
0e8b55a0e4bbcab284b7fe221d1e3bc7a977acc0
48812 F20110209_AAATXZ friedel_c_Page_245.pro
d30a4d46eaa072b72c538fc1074d30e2
28915dadca46a1f29ed221dacf7096a7521253d1
F20110209_AAASNV friedel_c_Page_059.jp2
2cd9c769c937a242fbcf12178f2ebb03
8bb6c65cba9a4d1fdf57d3c560d48a771d3486ee
8224 F20110209_AAAVEB friedel_c_Page_132thm.jpg
80e46f64250b588d67a6b13639ae5c15
330075b96b55293ef5c10c8bc5e927d697e941aa
34260 F20110209_AAAUUT friedel_c_Page_083.QC.jpg
3c5c50c9ffc46926ac574d4c5023e47a
b74317bd5b94b2f55962a79ca43245f39a275525
91899 F20110209_AAAUHI friedel_c_Page_291.jpg
68990f93df7268be80a60ca81a0dfff7
8aef728f18097c4b083fe4afb1145787e549345a
2984 F20110209_AAATKP friedel_c_Page_035.txt
fd455d2a6da0a0e61f2200b5256d451d
2c095f33bd4e72f8342f2bae85b1ffdb993a4bd8
102853 F20110209_AAASAL friedel_c_Page_024.jpg
eaf0b931f99a855f97be8f96d3a55722
ea9c5838a0dedc44324938d420c0e47b3649cdeb
F20110209_AAASNW friedel_c_Page_021.tif
340de6e55a2f8790b627b56f2ae96fa0
c0a5beaef80cc450b255a61db35ff797deef65f8
7855 F20110209_AAAVEC friedel_c_Page_134thm.jpg
3c71c943ccbb9f2d0cb5bbe6168d27ca
4d71dd35a0bf3bb2ec32fec9ba3482ea43920cae
33191 F20110209_AAAUUU friedel_c_Page_085.QC.jpg
da64da0bb5aa373278be13570c2d11fe
b6be915edbc49aba36a7fa812c524addeaf5fca2
100952 F20110209_AAAUHJ friedel_c_Page_292.jpg
ebe8b25dd82da69f543e91410ba579be
ec2dd9f5226fa8106d041b7e2d4a34a3cca524f2
1736 F20110209_AAATKQ friedel_c_Page_037.txt
8d91a23d1a0728f2e82f1f2dac6d6503
1631a871b7cfbab7c4789da9824f9b14259e380c
51167 F20110209_AAASAM friedel_c_Page_282.pro
36a1b5be489f8656da620099d4299ef7
89991fac24962f7b47407e8e43dbe7dcd2ebaa20
29322 F20110209_AAASNX friedel_c_Page_248.QC.jpg
3bc4eae104f6949d82ac0883cc113c64
7ea089f42b635ba758104ac60d50a92c83c6c792
8013 F20110209_AAAVED friedel_c_Page_135thm.jpg
2a099278fc06e5fbb041724ca3cf6926
79923c816358d7dcca0f8d466badfd2bb8296577
31020 F20110209_AAAUUV friedel_c_Page_086.QC.jpg
b7f27e4d24cfd8b1b5bc7ca3caa4fc8a
7339344077ebce3f3b7be4dc02563bcdca51b6a7
94359 F20110209_AAAUHK friedel_c_Page_293.jpg
ed85f447dc6be0f90f5fc2efcf516fbd
60820cab36d5c39fc595496975cb9215921c58c1
1992 F20110209_AAATKR friedel_c_Page_038.txt
bb3488224f14a24a5f5ca517f4a613e6
45bacd2b6d74f2dd33dc840d171f03043e045773
43804 F20110209_AAASAN friedel_c_Page_194.pro
f6c40a79a2a3e48c91373705fceb0e33
24fa28d5e4d1ee01350cdef9599c11c2d6fd0b9f
34452 F20110209_AAASNY friedel_c_Page_129.QC.jpg
adecd5b864cd155097c8ed271fdcd4f6
8a8075edab83269b363b9f22d5f1c6e50bf1cdb1
8433 F20110209_AAAVEE friedel_c_Page_139thm.jpg
2cef80f5f5e534436b902f9d50295e07
48a6e4e1ca0dbff61f49a5e274373ca3fd6f62c3
30769 F20110209_AAAUUW friedel_c_Page_088.QC.jpg
42e936c69fce170c41c6a5273fcf58fc
a1c303c1d2d1354a4d487fe8f244f4246348b611
102891 F20110209_AAAUHL friedel_c_Page_296.jpg
b13c2cd64031a629d53c09d99d99ab28
81ec39624f2f260441acb626d08150fa919bdcb5
1924 F20110209_AAATKS friedel_c_Page_039.txt
430784c62636c61dadc07e1fa99a6e70
75212664efad21ea8fddf116709e759b4aff6861
32264 F20110209_AAASAO friedel_c_Page_058.QC.jpg
ee94b9ded0050057dfe0a2b040b96aa8
a77f8a8ec4c2b0b22268fb907140cdeaad2a7c00
2042 F20110209_AAASNZ friedel_c_Page_228.txt
c1269cec7561962cf2c467761f9288fa
3a74f1f241f6d43aac44693dea2072bcdffd6694
8318 F20110209_AAAVEF friedel_c_Page_141thm.jpg
2aae5b0ed5b5f10dd7902a4daf3dd52b
b7b6d824a04df57220c659da5a3e69828c1b3f1e
33656 F20110209_AAAUUX friedel_c_Page_090.QC.jpg
b133357ec02276aa98391da9e2642353
38feeb05735bff467c7910c2f83ea69be90cf028
102747 F20110209_AAAUHM friedel_c_Page_297.jpg
1bee43834d31f21f80ac5ebae9fa84cc
8ef8ea5ab26735b4f7920855c4e002033b2bf8f5
2020 F20110209_AAATKT friedel_c_Page_044.txt
8eee08806b65f1748d2a3fd02585fdc5
830a6f3c1c45cef5a96039f5dda6531d8790129f
30271 F20110209_AAASAP friedel_c_Page_165.QC.jpg
13a96d65a3e1e87aeb9d57abce922693
3b0f94c569c1ba752d695d8d198f3c9cf29090a2
7113 F20110209_AAAVEG friedel_c_Page_144thm.jpg
e93c30a1a05165de94720cd806202f4a
66b784c55ba8f51d1833374b65add405fbeaa265
29521 F20110209_AAAUUY friedel_c_Page_091.QC.jpg
df3b1c5230eccb03b529765b7a9498cd
419ebd3ee2bdb06b0dbe819f064a4fb4b407028d
93731 F20110209_AAAUHN friedel_c_Page_298.jpg
86bbf574eeb10ce351ef97caae2b28c7
acab9f58c8dc6ffd2a0737d268b843e6a648b52e
1346 F20110209_AAATKU friedel_c_Page_045.txt
506d93d6adee66fc2aa1e586ee0be5dd
8f433599920f7f23ec19b7085c4b79501f972724
F20110209_AAARWA friedel_c_Page_273thm.jpg
79f2da4e1f2c52dfe7292425f3d59ec2
fd9c49d52c82e6074773912797032637e46a346d
F20110209_AAASAQ friedel_c_Page_244.jp2
9fd0745e0f193b1cead8c336c28d9923
660ba23c31d75a7691555398913887d51605987d
8495 F20110209_AAAVEH friedel_c_Page_145thm.jpg
b316afddbe9d5420015e2c482f0d05f6
2b56eb106bf5aa700a691c9777288ae4e62fa59c
30857 F20110209_AAAUUZ friedel_c_Page_093.QC.jpg
7584231880ebec5927534fc71e9efe20
ba7151edd68e59c3f30ec50d83d96126285d923f
84996 F20110209_AAAUHO friedel_c_Page_301.jpg
115dc855dde1de21fa88d6a1e777e613
4e2e358f3ce1443ff4723326c98e9dd1c2bbcf2d
2305 F20110209_AAATKV friedel_c_Page_046.txt
a8859be6ff2a5b44dcb7427cf95c8c53
70eaed2fe960c5c64569c32df5f218b89b192229
980510 F20110209_AAARWB friedel_c_Page_221.jp2
7e9d38ad678d5b3b27d36cb756abf68f
9bbbc0e5e54ff1c6a6ad033b952249b4ad849a4b
F20110209_AAASAR friedel_c_Page_209thm.jpg
21535991a408efca7334789094b1d14b
151839bef6cbd35dff2b8f009d6056575c0dbe82
8375 F20110209_AAAVEI friedel_c_Page_147thm.jpg
3b1fb76df2bdaa0fd1b036652d197efb
6e795d1b9e554c84fb4ecf7b61b5069d14703022
96266 F20110209_AAAUHP friedel_c_Page_302.jpg
5cc9708eba8959825bbc7f61a40206e6
c9e542a3d6f30fbc28e704ab8063b54aec2cb837
2116 F20110209_AAATKW friedel_c_Page_047.txt
a5608d52b5b509f58feace6bb40bd640
01d59a2bde00948466f81dc8a2d9daf84a8c9c24
F20110209_AAARWC friedel_c_Page_247.tif
ab73975b09472284a470949f6b4adf86
63be9f9bc151b17bc384ae62b3d0f9ac50499da5
1051916 F20110209_AAASAS friedel_c_Page_039.jp2
1b3c137e6de67c04abd5426e410db7ff
624bbae1bd2a9868f6966e93d0f373f9912a905c
7791 F20110209_AAAVEJ friedel_c_Page_148thm.jpg
b0b371a6c2091bbe7f694da131cc05ef
9e8f1211ebf1c22b15c7ba00217986c2f964933a
105671 F20110209_AAAUHQ friedel_c_Page_303.jpg
f05bf276b787918efabf6888c96c2ed1
e87af90c951dd040a12a7ac965bc40a36d3c4160
2005 F20110209_AAATKX friedel_c_Page_049.txt
e8a520681ba86d95e6f984f068634846
233afa307dc5bbde7beb23b37cf0b0b62e6f3088
F20110209_AAARWD friedel_c_Page_060thm.jpg
746ea976c155629df5f5ce5d79badce6
8dab9a88ca79621b49e05f99ef2e639a9afcc9f4
1501 F20110209_AAASAT friedel_c_Page_189.txt
dba9360fed90946f38a3b32ecafa4fc8
754fd34ff8e825568d372bd3ffaeba1b48d440e6
7983 F20110209_AAAVEK friedel_c_Page_150thm.jpg
b19fe4f6120383a50158dbff39a2995f
01a307f42b51248667a438ff17b7b8ae2a46c7d1
105017 F20110209_AAAUHR friedel_c_Page_305.jpg
5fe0e49a9ff5d5451f12cedd1e01f16a
3cdfa022aeaffb10b76e1432a189752bd6bff96f
2028 F20110209_AAATKY friedel_c_Page_051.txt
9821b5f73a7f03bd3f456726b4643d9c
fd95309db2875629603b61fe0f7d1d1f05ea33fe
16691 F20110209_AAARWE friedel_c_Page_184.QC.jpg
201750fb562b952da37e609880b16f44
ca6b750208c911f5379f0332edcee4904df04400
77638 F20110209_AAASAU friedel_c_Page_035.pro
755d0bdd254607aa23ea19501fc1b0b3
143c451004cab830c5361e9d7a94ec80faf3a3b9
8278 F20110209_AAAVEL friedel_c_Page_152thm.jpg
3691513f4ccb5b5caa5097a1181e086b
007401814c1f4a582f2987f88bff29decaf76cd2
95537 F20110209_AAAUHS friedel_c_Page_306.jpg
fd1607a9a01e115e0403c807e029da85
24b08171bc29394e0eec70dd4bd2bb789b20c866
F20110209_AAATKZ friedel_c_Page_053.txt
4beafc48c5bf41c5cf345c2071da67cf
6a6c840ce0303f2c5c449de9a5ec6e7c15d36859
103924 F20110209_AAARWF friedel_c_Page_295.jpg
6aaabfb4b40520c0551be98b8fdb87f8
fb20a037f398a391395c274a757db7749e763ce6
28814 F20110209_AAASAV friedel_c_Page_041.QC.jpg
5b0a9478275bf97ebdd0129f67b7e17d
077753986550ee96289d288648e4906e2b0a143d
8047 F20110209_AAAVEM friedel_c_Page_155thm.jpg
e40a3f6cd0c03e603b47b756d719d380
b401bdd72f00f99f82907365ca8593357628d65e
92246 F20110209_AAAUHT friedel_c_Page_308.jpg
52e04e240e641586555c4ecb80bad8de
40e70b2bafd89228da2bca7056886460506d61c1
F20110209_AAARWG friedel_c_Page_052.txt
762d03fd2487bfc24a20aa7c7ace2593
293a2d5ecf18ad87341926ca4cabb40fd4ddbe32
1051939 F20110209_AAASAW friedel_c_Page_065.jp2
019eba84ef24cc4ad5ff8b131155e000
a64849bd90143fb5577ce678172b454f48a0b890
8572 F20110209_AAAVEN friedel_c_Page_161thm.jpg
4d8cbf1445122fd07386c985edee9780
1d2aa04a587938e5d5d0cadc1928b7b90e27f828
99420 F20110209_AAAUHU friedel_c_Page_310.jpg
c497cba0c0cb9d49416e82a4ef9bef4a
40ef3021357809205053e7fde52977c51594c799
F20110209_AAARWH friedel_c_Page_227.txt
775f3d392773dc846aaebb7a27c2e76c
6f425264d03186486c93d507b86606d18be31c15
34084 F20110209_AAASAX friedel_c_Page_063.QC.jpg
5822ab1092062b5d8f7b18b3b5542c6e
227b98c6d1366224d110afe1c6330df5e038203c
45380 F20110209_AAASTA friedel_c_Page_308.pro
dbcdcd21ffec9f5e51b0b9cc73ea61a4
079e56089ebae3eda385073ccb2e6d0e7cf8474a
8108 F20110209_AAAVEO friedel_c_Page_162thm.jpg
3dc37925901692d2e147f3976ce383d9
8a3371d692262ee9b0331e778bbca939b0972a82
105805 F20110209_AAAUHV friedel_c_Page_313.jpg
f6d1cb43d1812d8c9e526f590a8c6a06
7bfeb2f9cb623263e1520da9c94acf72ee13fd0b
F20110209_AAARWI friedel_c_Page_255thm.jpg
9f1696f9c217f3b6dfdc6dd877d8bf1d
e2005e67f6c1182a5d3592fb8173beee499678e7
1714 F20110209_AAASAY friedel_c_Page_307.txt
600014607b5f87270aa9a84bca53291f
ed57d4d067fa35f5e4a81400a350e2dfe2755190
1051956 F20110209_AAASTB friedel_c_Page_129.jp2
5ce0f1218eb7cd985f45d8367aa56103
7e3e588a5a0d5c079824befc757f04634e82af4c
7958 F20110209_AAAVEP friedel_c_Page_163thm.jpg
eea3de722d1c9d117479087b76d865f3
81121ccae8c9063130752d031e93f3810ad943fb
100977 F20110209_AAAUHW friedel_c_Page_314.jpg
cf0e05fe6edbff8ace01bcf968de5b16
8baaa192be3a0e228a7f7695c412b05ef1892ab0
31957 F20110209_AAARWJ friedel_c_Page_084.QC.jpg
0d2b01ef7ee741b3a66b26a89454affe
c2fdb907cd03a3b0d93aacf8d00a7a1447e1a336
F20110209_AAASAZ friedel_c_Page_048.jp2
76fe812b27470ff8e13486e95f76dde2
be6af1d2a4bfa19270570662153f5f9baabada95
32185 F20110209_AAASTC friedel_c_Page_033.QC.jpg
ca8e8a6e670410ba2d8ba40ecb90ac4b
3a626ffc1182c9b1b576e921aadbbcdb29a67eae
8196 F20110209_AAAVEQ friedel_c_Page_164thm.jpg
88a70a7f97376d58f427bd38265acce5
fb8682306c1cf8cf93df1e5e0d633e3e00780086
116824 F20110209_AAAUHX friedel_c_Page_316.jpg
6f321ef948d522ce2ca2c9859c294e1f
c70c2042572ccba0b3233504816fe4f56958a27f
4746 F20110209_AAARWK friedel_c_Page_015thm.jpg
94cb394a04856473117dde7a046de268
0bf32b67b51a29b583b26215f3ed11d08bbbb090
59777 F20110209_AAASTD friedel_c_Page_150.pro
66e25c79a960dba56973296f691503ed
b71e84f62a6154e5e767659505f4279f9e58a3d1
7745 F20110209_AAAVER friedel_c_Page_166thm.jpg
6536ebc5fe0486e48cf13414e6ac489e
427d93a190a0676ed0f89b9052cfe2340fd35c0c
131383 F20110209_AAAUHY friedel_c_Page_317.jpg
830b9fc8e75288c4ce7d7a81cb3c890d
bace58181a6477880bd1061a86087d3e02ebb5da
1852 F20110209_AAARWL friedel_c_Page_113.txt
f65bb80e2e7ba71bb760bfa0cad89725
6e17718ccefbd4160d2b006a96a816fb3a9392b3
7348 F20110209_AAASTE friedel_c_Page_300thm.jpg
a233690119d8175b07d6335bbee5a863
feafaecc58b25d89f86f22433d31c0f8d9dd2b2f
8578 F20110209_AAAVES friedel_c_Page_167thm.jpg
909b83832b5bef7528ce89ba2818050f
d61332f5e73ba60380b555ff859b2cd3606c3f26
58236 F20110209_AAAUHZ friedel_c_Page_319.jpg
f81069e4a7ba0d1843b09e2143036bf6
ac24a5baf29ac8fd7d37803bdaba8e7969cd3919
113831 F20110209_AAARWM friedel_c_Page_013.jpg
f720337938ba793cbe6880b8bbfb7e1a
ed17eaa903e1ec22e89f6c7b6340403891cd89d1
F20110209_AAASTF friedel_c_Page_199.tif
67487bda313306e930512c6518cf9209
8156d114e90e155a4a2c0eb2f196d9a97632d853
8229 F20110209_AAAVET friedel_c_Page_168thm.jpg
78cfa78d081760a04e7972aba3aedf37
e341128d83e426439f571203594e7e2b593a1b20
F20110209_AAARWN friedel_c_Page_048.txt
8f7e0b10fa74701eac96c1fea71cd169
9523e739ba00c593f8e7c7ef6a33b224e7b60b01
F20110209_AAASTG friedel_c_Page_111.tif
07cdb266af8aa56ca946b715b5c9c32f
eb76eec81df0b140e265d9e113bf3253acfe9d6e
7812 F20110209_AAAVEU friedel_c_Page_169thm.jpg
04417fca4ac678afece2520de1e5dd1b
3378c4c4d78f752efc046ad7fb600d700f52a20c
55896 F20110209_AAARWO friedel_c_Page_206.jpg
f4aafc84e9c1000036d4e340bbc6fb02
39a042750d6320eff5c7ce038d076b77bc4a1140
F20110209_AAASTH friedel_c_Page_264.jp2
befbb13dbd3ec84e8888e82546a9ffca
186fdc387560a7c83878da78ca63e2988d238f68
1837 F20110209_AAATQA friedel_c_Page_275.txt
834e40422a2f5a56bfacf80f31dc4494
e41db2d3da0ce0c542ed5c6c8cad6f10255cd85b
4167 F20110209_AAAVEV friedel_c_Page_171thm.jpg
3ced860fa5bc7474aa354c8a4576afef
1ce37621e33c4adbd0b0afc6fe740a07c8233585
942208 F20110209_AAARWP friedel_c_Page_008.jp2
fd8b7d002f8ceb46c1dae43f2d3f48a7
4034f5e1b7259a1c316af16f2543bde6c90caf1a
7989 F20110209_AAASTI friedel_c_Page_143thm.jpg
081340c4ca69a54943afee9351b8386a
4a47ee303c0ddbe7397625ce474318ac1320486d
1844 F20110209_AAATQB friedel_c_Page_276.txt
d0c1d4992b915d47383a88014a88e551
9b9ba54a2a96f626891e3b860ebd1c11567bd77d
8068 F20110209_AAAVEW friedel_c_Page_175thm.jpg
eb09976ad5cd66dbbffdff3dd094e854
274ea7d19d75f60747f3660e0682fae166c8e0bb
F20110209_AAARWQ friedel_c_Page_203.txt
10f0743902f0271632d8ec4b57a6d80b
8151a30d5ded3fd0c54eb552859f2c539551f2bd
100243 F20110209_AAASTJ friedel_c_Page_084.jpg
15c3f09470406af64dd35df295656a1f
0837fd940a302f125b709d165e894e0e56e70170
1964 F20110209_AAATQC friedel_c_Page_277.txt
b3cdf1d7cf2b379ba4873bf664b21cb8
dd8fb8289cecf5abb8c22f7c914fe85d64e5e664
4133 F20110209_AAAVEX friedel_c_Page_178thm.jpg
71a3193656af451cbe754da95769276c
5e1960d02fa3871af1d03a4a5628eb561bde171b
55282 F20110209_AAARWR friedel_c_Page_152.pro
0ec9a3fa28d7eed53182737ab2afe3bf
8073333577c178f979016f5994c64c1f35072693
30690 F20110209_AAASTK friedel_c_Page_312.QC.jpg
c740e02f4dd8f66b646c3099ba5c2767
8e077c5fbdcb29c3ca1f1baead35ba4eb6ed6dfe
1821 F20110209_AAATQD friedel_c_Page_279.txt
2ae134e80dd6841fb881a054a664328e
614a21d2ef2a7b61bf9e5433def0d1af48d73e4a
6373 F20110209_AAAVEY friedel_c_Page_179thm.jpg
0351c434132dd5f397f99e7387588746
f92632b424da7aaeb65f20bad212332e9974718d
56739 F20110209_AAASGA friedel_c_Page_171.jpg
1adfc6bfe7c5c4bfec3ce32f2c3d4709
b2dabf44aa3b44d0196164da5ac0f3c8bd0438e5
46616 F20110209_AAARWS friedel_c_Page_298.pro
1f8d5b0385bbc52189cfaa91d842d0a4
12353feaada27a825035653d5ac9634623c31264
48307 F20110209_AAASTL friedel_c_Page_260.pro
c3e7323eac1ae5c06ab3323c7fad2330
456398887bc05f34165979430fba6b13c9a1f5fa
1904 F20110209_AAATQE friedel_c_Page_280.txt
106e95aab71db0ace4ba54935691db0e
77674ad8c0847eb130e66c5694b5e6c1146e07ea
8143 F20110209_AAAVEZ friedel_c_Page_180thm.jpg
b93291265c41fa447b5095166d394c2f
44eb39cd29626da1f211f4d502b396451468be8d
F20110209_AAASGB friedel_c_Page_095.jp2
05ba484a9c2bd74761301e3158700381
4fa52bc1f3e8099429bd62c3b06b9f34f02309ac
F20110209_AAARWT friedel_c_Page_094thm.jpg
fabeac57dcf4d9598e1d2537f177fb02
68c9d706af4f3b6f309d31aaa65b7432a8fc32e9
7468 F20110209_AAASTM friedel_c_Page_118thm.jpg
e7d4505f57d458d01e997b1ab09873fa
16bca6e40ca136afc105e4727e6d01cac1bad28e
F20110209_AAATQF friedel_c_Page_282.txt
5d9291489c4ec0c9a079cf6d8c5f3fcc
eeed8cce2d95b306825c6476183b3a6166b4a5f2
99911 F20110209_AAASGC friedel_c_Page_193.jpg
2f90007e56346f20e39c4e29b43915d5
4868591585aa531b6c6503c9fb6593cd100cfcaa
98812 F20110209_AAARWU friedel_c_Page_242.jpg
e5e1ce40b5e743a809a18d5ea9dc7192
a7f38af6f6b7b88643404d95acfe0c99277ae822
48801 F20110209_AAASTN friedel_c_Page_103.pro
365f36a387239370a92de9cea39ae0d1
bb62475111032123637208c124f46a8697505210
2058 F20110209_AAATQG friedel_c_Page_285.txt
60e26dcf41e728e3e48d9ea774dbface
fbf393f8ae41b5c8db9340a8419d442d1ac726ea
875033 F20110209_AAAUNA friedel_c_Page_178.jp2
0db7316ea5987297594fb3d510c017c3
a982ded41d31b48a5162a44ca385d89b6ec35d3c
2375 F20110209_AAASGD friedel_c_Page_132.txt
ddd973eebd222863800704303766be19
3bbf9aea1dd3e1a3e8252555612104f15ef6909d
2835 F20110209_AAASTO friedel_c_Page_081thm.jpg
a6ae4bf3978e1cb60ac672d75757d362
2bcee49cee4077d6d37af17cdf11d04c0abbb3bc
1914 F20110209_AAATQH friedel_c_Page_287.txt
dd12821d055f60bba29ea96ea6fb255f
fe12d3833f2b9d16eac6a910c6dbfd6a26ecfab9
858363 F20110209_AAAUNB friedel_c_Page_179.jp2
c7d6a755c257745fe53db7569d66f9b7
21983f7a71355319111672cdfda9ffa887ea31c7
F20110209_AAARWV friedel_c_Page_002.tif
662ca0b848e0e73587cd2aacab606bd5
a9108fbf4063c29202df941cd3eb322c0290b7f8
F20110209_AAASTP friedel_c_Page_054.tif
419854e59d26fd75dadaf418e0fabbf3
adc80ce4fa879fb4aef32bdd814e5945e08fa660
1757 F20110209_AAATQI friedel_c_Page_288.txt
8f3681aeefb0d4e7bd19ece2a6d8f743
b0ccddec3a0e8094a46716b87b6c175d0884c633
F20110209_AAAUNC friedel_c_Page_180.jp2
0332b9fc5e2d4739ab803b478f478e7e
d503cf06a3ef205307670f8322f166e133375e02
992949 F20110209_AAASGE friedel_c_Page_248.jp2
4aebfd4acc9ed811c08ffc8adc8a3457
74c031258e0f6974da8a1a863146fc4b76a6acd3
94719 F20110209_AAARWW friedel_c_Page_107.jpg
3b156ad3dd704342e3b50c83a6606613
abcbd8085c76f57ab2213812760a2967624b86f1
F20110209_AAASTQ friedel_c_Page_203.jp2
354f068666f8cc82af935c0d49fc6de0
b69b601901c84743c1702907f7e585eacf2722ec
1691 F20110209_AAATQJ friedel_c_Page_289.txt
6acb324267b22231c629d5deab3683d3
67ca6c64aa90db6eecbe04405216499ea4cc971a
1051969 F20110209_AAAUND friedel_c_Page_182.jp2
b6abfa808a498405a6b8a48666ea2766
49697311b1c3dd3bb8f17223437c7fdd45009ced
F20110209_AAASGF friedel_c_Page_159.tif
97c496fd2845fb5d39b85e622d35ac19
b529a92157556b745fc2129630d7c4d2dc20dc51
25466 F20110209_AAARWX friedel_c_Page_319.pro
3511fc30eb3729cb22a8b154bac08324
00672d67111fde6e86954464db109063501627eb
1710 F20110209_AAATQK friedel_c_Page_290.txt
9abf25a3830b02de10f4b937d01cd4be
8035b7b184b5cf72f963396ef249afcfe2ac7192
882791 F20110209_AAAUNE friedel_c_Page_184.jp2
940dc2d3a6a804dc896a861ddcac8bdc
d92dd33f3f1175de00498e48f251760562c3bc3b
F20110209_AAASGG friedel_c_Page_311.tif
22a6f001a8bdc48fbab94a672592f752
e0bbf45b37af634a595606abb9a11dfcbe270f6b
25464 F20110209_AAARWY friedel_c_Page_018.QC.jpg
09bf8b70fe93dd45048a3f79dda51145
27f47db43ebfddf4ea3184d9f6f5502590d74356
F20110209_AAASTR friedel_c_Page_232.tif
aa6762d7f7ea2676fa7664dd92c2ec07
f42b01a1c66dba09350fe7d6d41aafc76e4c9e01
1834 F20110209_AAATQL friedel_c_Page_291.txt
0a53aa0873b5703d11f69cbb70f3ebc4
52c3619de6e93e3cb6eb3e3feb752fda744e6ee7
815542 F20110209_AAAUNF friedel_c_Page_185.jp2
95e6500d765d5aa2cb0a11d9c75fc50c
9c89c8758eacb205da85e504530397453af9362d
46573 F20110209_AAASGH friedel_c_Page_275.pro
62f110a488ed46cb75dcf905829274ff
23f8effdbc3db8c8fb941036f57e2b8c407d7b20
1051929 F20110209_AAARWZ friedel_c_Page_132.jp2
020ac009d032d42e85eaf06dcdca3640
f31c99986a6b144c7f990d2b84b755397f440513
F20110209_AAATDA friedel_c_Page_078.tif
5940246d30ab60261755bf1dd67077aa
3c203ca4ec0095e08432084758c5596195164961
48956 F20110209_AAASTS friedel_c_Page_084.pro
23e99c62322fa43384c65e68cfbb4430
77d0435b6f5351f9da0c4a80fd516c3978f4b176
1965 F20110209_AAATQM friedel_c_Page_292.txt
970f58e6fb49490fb22b953c66f9c565
c4b8183f8719a58be52af287f441f8fe1d50caec
F20110209_AAAUNG friedel_c_Page_186.jp2
f6c8951a9d12f2809ad0429ed78caf2b
0107cf77e6cde33b8882c89748507f5b9368216f
F20110209_AAASGI friedel_c_Page_302.tif
14c46efe6515ad8f71288b280690105a
6d2770e33bffa22e72484c67c9f17d4c0b9110f1
F20110209_AAATDB friedel_c_Page_079.tif
c975e11e9d3fc53adc135750efa6aa02
bdd16591691d361cf301614a1e51904d3801a9a6
19090 F20110209_AAASTT friedel_c_Page_007.QC.jpg
a3407f630c8362b7bbbc32fef2f3573e
69c768362f25becf3a900a7592b0758668fe0440
F20110209_AAAUNH friedel_c_Page_188.jp2
092bbfe0e502fe8e0ec798fdd7760d76
821831267cadd2b8fd78e8ff6f701eeea2e4b5fe
F20110209_AAASGJ friedel_c_Page_232.txt
9196cd547c8b06de453dcf56b6dc368a
264b0d3155e8c77c3e04ff0c7e1ea4dc7e9181ab
F20110209_AAATDC friedel_c_Page_080.tif
7ab713d1258f74a68a20b0cc648b1398
ed6b6adca44742e4d35913ab625f1c1dafb363be
103915 F20110209_AAASTU friedel_c_Page_029.jpg
1ffc18abce20d1208362c075a2e32b02
00db5a8e52ad4e4a54cb1d395e913031a3f7f0af
F20110209_AAATQN friedel_c_Page_294.txt
57a274b5d82bcfbd39ebadece0f0a233
88b320e44e7076ef48a7aff0f05c554e3bfc1cb3
833149 F20110209_AAAUNI friedel_c_Page_189.jp2
53861acefc56ced72d021d45c7d19243
a42aaafc91542329510622e276b3979ff4599892
F20110209_AAASGK friedel_c_Page_330.tif
56173301937f608d755a4beba078e8f2
1e151c160e003e152bb5a72d990f73cb49881101
F20110209_AAATDD friedel_c_Page_081.tif
c5c1ee673d8b6b498ce776469c30b645
5fe4b40d360741f426d8720c761c2b9b3751e878
105763 F20110209_AAASTV friedel_c_Page_311.jpg
b91b2f83fd87c7b759ddcc9a0ab7abbb
b7d26861b2b22df89ec1161b923bff9f90aed73a
2043 F20110209_AAATQO friedel_c_Page_295.txt
685dbbbe8871d5db6b63d09a6d1bb2c3
c3f496723bebea1f8f462039c60ef486066f62e3
101487 F20110209_AAASGL friedel_c_Page_106.jpg
9f4191c5fcae20dbe215d1348648bd3e
88f2a53a4cc7913b3ffc136b9a17000e98d2c660
F20110209_AAATDE friedel_c_Page_082.tif
b31d8b81a648f46807be83450efdb5ad
5c06a03cb43eec63e2ab52718b8e6bac963cb1b4
43125 F20110209_AAASTW friedel_c_Page_213.pro
84cc0115fdb22433f2f85ef6b1ac9222
7d9e48bd50d492c55eb211df0eaa2067442a000a
F20110209_AAATQP friedel_c_Page_296.txt
0fdc7f19da11dda1f6fa520845bfc239
d16ed630197cced0b134ee854132a37170608f4b
876212 F20110209_AAAUNJ friedel_c_Page_190.jp2
37b59c038e801d5747c1eee8f6fd8d85
0dd9a14be6a9ef5d5c9cbd1fc27510e360327ff5
628 F20110209_AAASGM friedel_c_Page_042.txt
da5b57e3856589fd4c8e16a79aa1288c
b4031dcdba247686f46f57fcc1c388a119e78416
F20110209_AAATDF friedel_c_Page_083.tif
073ee16c2251903ee41df838b2e1782d
7bd3f4fa979c4764ef2e6be304fef35401e4a12a
7911 F20110209_AAASTX friedel_c_Page_087thm.jpg
419df1677e8ee0ed22c5a1a3223175c7
ccd4436bf605456a60f4cb35257b9a81d3b34f5f
2041 F20110209_AAATQQ friedel_c_Page_297.txt
8ca75d214f29e5cd1295c6bcdb61c754
9956141cc0cd92380ebcc357e22efa795a18c3a4
854534 F20110209_AAAUNK friedel_c_Page_191.jp2
9dd4edac76caaff221a8306d711b5456
f624b27838c021e33efe4e4a168702c4016bffec
1989 F20110209_AAASGN friedel_c_Page_281.txt
b9f7a65854dd611770d2d831a96ff1fb
4d039caf7e369ad46323b9383054b40d4bdbb35c
F20110209_AAATDG friedel_c_Page_085.tif
03c5d99dfcf34156b41c404c23be1549
560bfc8e056c947230b24589c9a5f7cc98291002
1297 F20110209_AAASTY friedel_c_Page_328.txt
d739836f40cbc2bc3cb4d629d1a532ac
74379482637f5e2abda3f203494529f96e70dfe2
1840 F20110209_AAATQR friedel_c_Page_298.txt
ae7556323b780a75f0db83655a8e89ba
2a3989c351d63c8112253f51a0668fa4617bd3b0
F20110209_AAAUNL friedel_c_Page_192.jp2
5db81aa01445ad23329199b07384e221
8c8814128016cad9e9755039e2a5a2457f458d51
34423 F20110209_AAASGO friedel_c_Page_133.QC.jpg
38d271e7450d9ee79752622b26594a10
14ad971cb43d81eecf0003bb5882206269e1a679
F20110209_AAATDH friedel_c_Page_086.tif
da5f414f08a12ebc2dcb68d021e58cca
03ff71ff9188cbd6fb5264cbd3297fbfcffc751a
44062 F20110209_AAASTZ friedel_c_Page_268.pro
4cd12cdaa2a5509b9de530bfc8d05731
645b32a46ba2365f87e1b46bef4f0dc76fdf1ab9
18479 F20110209_AAAUAA friedel_c_Page_326.pro
aedfa654abd50a04ef0ded34b034ebfb
26c37b569bfe85c3eab6bca60ece70caff8e3a81
1785 F20110209_AAATQS friedel_c_Page_300.txt
fd542873aea0326753779ae41485b38c
f3bee9a21e56775f89762a4e96728c8164aa8504
F20110209_AAAUNM friedel_c_Page_193.jp2
a66398b7fba3df342d45289edd281d09
d85f038f485a1e8b7e9cbcbbd292efbb64839b49
99887 F20110209_AAASGP friedel_c_Page_246.jpg
293f7c02aa54ed76baa6835d32527af6
0b5f47e878f43724b932c82e9ab521a92d743095
F20110209_AAATDI friedel_c_Page_087.tif
2a2693bee7b78c04d58c2cff4fff13af
8c7f47507b3a157a090559a25d0b78b31f8e8277
23285 F20110209_AAAUAB friedel_c_Page_329.pro
b2a15f1a2859d22484b53e802bbcfccb
96bfba625e2c24d1192cd8876b017cc5054ed12b
1675 F20110209_AAATQT friedel_c_Page_301.txt
27cae3a5c44b1ab9d12707b518b935e6
e2a6f6de275fd160e58b64c6a089b004e965a765
977329 F20110209_AAAUNN friedel_c_Page_194.jp2
257c5169c993627b8082ecb1a62d5c4c
a13df86fb43f831636f23a74ff779f1f4f7cdca4
3459 F20110209_AAASGQ friedel_c_Page_042thm.jpg
c51c2bc72396a96074c0697fbbd74138
e226e94b9e4f8ff167f2573a04c305d969c2504e
F20110209_AAATDJ friedel_c_Page_088.tif
5d669562dbea3d85c4dc8ebe0cd1dd8f
8cc4ca85dfe32ab0b8a41a4ee8273063af8e5693
60076 F20110209_AAAUAC friedel_c_Page_331.pro
9622b7ee03eceecc7b41fbbf245c6038
6910cb9fcaf60bf8dcf257069bb88026259d4c50
1887 F20110209_AAATQU friedel_c_Page_302.txt
578835b4f813f5eae79a5c05cf5eadc6
b36b2486a7b92b9e65ac604c207e4c7331b80931
868487 F20110209_AAAUNO friedel_c_Page_195.jp2
86d0f7776f7d4f5b52c9d9761e2571e4
40a7972ea69533cabb4ab1632db2b0c87e4b1a3e
44677 F20110209_AAASGR friedel_c_Page_300.pro
042ba02b1707ac5d1847b17af89e9e3e
1e22d619071c9ddfdc3c373469ba76b3c3f0d13f
F20110209_AAATDK friedel_c_Page_090.tif
b1b6211895e5306ab64545bbccde503d
41367d7e495252dd74978198540f8395721ce42b
54967 F20110209_AAAUAD friedel_c_Page_332.pro
4d036be4272125f83c4e195ced44feee
c0824dc0a8addd7761a69245da12b1ccd950f4f8
2073 F20110209_AAATQV friedel_c_Page_303.txt
61b7cb3f44767b9a84cfe9a07cd5c083
3d1d77b8844491ce77b27094e358698bafd9ec90
809096 F20110209_AAAUNP friedel_c_Page_196.jp2
eccaee3e10f91d0771445eccbda87f65
16c479aab339b23b49612d519104dfc471bc71e6
1908 F20110209_AAASGS friedel_c_Page_284.txt
0c20089e78ffb1026ac0be0483fff1dd
36fb74a5db007a19074a63a8f751f5992d6a6f44
F20110209_AAATDL friedel_c_Page_092.tif
d083df141ce264e0176179e85807dde5
5ca85055a02482125dbd1181c000ce416057d282
54467 F20110209_AAAUAE friedel_c_Page_333.pro
6f64f1c51575015968e59ef9896e2524
931076772c23fa1e368ee74c7f82022ea10f2899
F20110209_AAATQW friedel_c_Page_304.txt
e9a37cfb28e331391cb1ecee316d052a
2d959d7342ddd97a95bb7a3138807edd5c51370b
989636 F20110209_AAAUNQ friedel_c_Page_198.jp2
0916c5d86b20b778965958ddb9c3c779
b480ed567b39c1f38b123090c1e3d9eab5f46234
50301 F20110209_AAASGT friedel_c_Page_055.pro
02a2d0189bc521d4e15515c98c6a0909
860d62da2224352fc2544ee29797a1426a2ba82b
F20110209_AAATDM friedel_c_Page_093.tif
2768aca1a77cec1cd1dfd6d6c87a7ba6
4fd5ad0f72652325e09a39a208bc6d73bcf046e2
59105 F20110209_AAAUAF friedel_c_Page_335.pro
a35090a7f3891904ec908f93f3d56d5c
0ba5f002ad1ed0e1791d2dd1464949f8a866a37b
F20110209_AAATQX friedel_c_Page_305.txt
2785e4b8e21f7e36086eade13b05e6dc
c49f024ed3a31b2d040861d1a01756ed4892c1d6
877114 F20110209_AAAUNR friedel_c_Page_199.jp2
391cde1a19c16df8cfcb275a08a56059
bf57adeb368707b138ebb9661a781c26a24b1e27
F20110209_AAASGU friedel_c_Page_146.jp2
32f907e1d59cfd93e07194b00727918b
dce47fcbe35173cd650f6d50669cf8f1e8cd1faf
F20110209_AAATDN friedel_c_Page_094.tif
36c2af80d88246bb2bc762456b0a7df0
2a7d86e8e8808b349661b57de6596dcaddf79bca
57719 F20110209_AAAUAG friedel_c_Page_337.pro
1b9c96b4eb2903eac0f5f2f5e2235d06
b5945bf226975a82242ec504dfe5149c5653eb0b
1845 F20110209_AAATQY friedel_c_Page_306.txt
14948e4fe5e53b5feab82c6c07158461
ef3b0708054285c80f0b2fc87b01ee2ec8ed7f3f
877564 F20110209_AAAUNS friedel_c_Page_200.jp2
b0c063ac149d57fa2f61ea28d2e2fb3c
c57cae363d47702a70b51f3ce616bb43f26a21a9
28028 F20110209_AAASGV friedel_c_Page_019.QC.jpg
c0ca62dd20493a8273e3fd7067fd4626
f137218d1509f150777d941b3254cf0712a03878
F20110209_AAATDO friedel_c_Page_096.tif
8dee919d7a408a1925fa27f8514373a1
3d3772b391d7b3c351b5f841a1424df2eeb067ca
54449 F20110209_AAAUAH friedel_c_Page_340.pro
74d0c3b260d2088191934b1514b08325
829ce6c55b3bdcc6f4bad5b227fa0909bbb7f3a0
1796 F20110209_AAATQZ friedel_c_Page_308.txt
9e911f895f2d334653534131fef227db
e65753c6c825cac0e965fde88e973103b91c9f28
829766 F20110209_AAAUNT friedel_c_Page_201.jp2
ef15d3200a2ca8cd010bab92f3cd0943
ca767dc9fc437d99ead4f26c91bc5a0304e4598e
F20110209_AAASGW friedel_c_Page_068.jp2
f082a7a36493c7d5941de5c095f3cc4c
9584def72400de4a00142b5e246d7eea4bade0db
F20110209_AAATDP friedel_c_Page_097.tif
32013019b28c82fb23e6201308810d22
9866b5b76a7390ffe25dcba76a10731d18c425d2
57256 F20110209_AAAUAI friedel_c_Page_341.pro
c79f95318e16aa851fb923ebff4c97e6
085bc5ad3f8a57600ac8d4af9f30656e1580a7f2
1041681 F20110209_AAAUNU friedel_c_Page_204.jp2
dd1416a72623fa83507637691a2fe965
91bb19a8b251a0f66386aa070032b4a393d86e78
23695 F20110209_AAASGX friedel_c_Page_224.QC.jpg
6e6df310eb23085c2033c7fcedc2ad3d
8aa54f808a91bf13e9bb8a7ce2234ac16aac67c5
F20110209_AAASZA friedel_c_Page_127thm.jpg
798921b01a635259a135279ca85e2dac
3598c879523313700286cc70de0a579b971a55cc
F20110209_AAATDQ friedel_c_Page_100.tif
145a55465c8114f33c78ca52cc31dbfd
2638343a3c79077bc9d5cf00cec00b1a19b941df
30366 F20110209_AAAUAJ friedel_c_Page_342.pro
ba5b8e2ab9ec366bb996f0d555063e72
8d08fde889f6baf5de7448ae2d42b7253fb1ae44
F20110209_AAAUNV friedel_c_Page_205.jp2
113d7eaedfb3e2b8ecb2cff8e7d9fbce
547de0dd64b36ba10cd0fda2d17b4dea0703bc95
34488 F20110209_AAASGY friedel_c_Page_311.QC.jpg
a709c0730a4a349714412faed55b0d9c
9a278ce7ca932a04808bc4c959dd67079c03352d
98865 F20110209_AAASZB friedel_c_Page_054.jpg
23b078324695268fcfe991f22a683f5d
1c8de65223d827698e97bac60345991c97696d52
F20110209_AAATDR friedel_c_Page_101.tif
f3cb919795975915f559974264305d00
2c54b5c667f00de0266f8c058634973fc3191f00
38237 F20110209_AAAUAK friedel_c_Page_343.pro
a1c6fa46c23d59d6b10c8defa28adf47
466710a3d1c67baba32751164e28025014561f7d
870655 F20110209_AAAUNW friedel_c_Page_206.jp2
6e7dc2af8f970a24bb809831850996bf
055a338799483c7b75bf941843366d4642109f65
F20110209_AAASGZ friedel_c_Page_307thm.jpg
68eef8b18633efbaf439d57ef9d89a7c
7096bf48ba99ecf320096ff607d3cac1b89161df
1903 F20110209_AAASZC friedel_c_Page_204.txt
b1d37697472b8ac5bb91c9c5d5f8d549
770d3fed37e0d1b1fb7f314776beaa7a758c3d56
F20110209_AAATDS friedel_c_Page_103.tif
c59bfdfb6fad983e66944ce9bd5645dc
2284e683d8cdb1e0761d2d2bac6eea6991574022
28858 F20110209_AAAUAL friedel_c_Page_001.jpg
ffafb3d1822aae0d55c60be9621ea33a
dda2d21cad89a859f62dfd496167d34cbb5616a0
F20110209_AAAUNX friedel_c_Page_209.jp2
1f73c718276388eb102119933cd4c25d
cf506de36d78af517434c43ecd63c17a1f62d26b
58724 F20110209_AAASZD friedel_c_Page_003.jp2
e6da3e0e427da210b9fd08ec1a096f7d
3dd53749223041fd48f1665040f11bb91083a3c7
F20110209_AAATDT friedel_c_Page_104.tif
1a836dc8509052e979e780127dba25d8
2b3677cfc387153eade6ea3d478e3fbb50676d18
8198 F20110209_AAAUAM friedel_c_Page_003.jpg
ec8da8a603851800dfcd78daa6a09b74
01dab9761d6c0cf0e222897a328dc51eaa62ffa2
F20110209_AAAUNY friedel_c_Page_210.jp2
5e54e400b753476a030043343c7fab26
e0d4681388990a540cf575f0690567c572b79135
F20110209_AAASZE friedel_c_Page_032.tif
22077e6a966c9daec7f1a9fa7bfb32b6
31bb4a6d33eb00dce35676b2feadcf6caa876845
F20110209_AAATDU friedel_c_Page_105.tif
68d7e16c2b4bb2f36b064c1fc9149a27
6096fa5e638dcdc5c976c86cd8bdb380b9c596e4
103258 F20110209_AAAUAN friedel_c_Page_006.jpg
260d8b0cd28bd3059b26222721f14774
4ac0c9680094f402981c934e88c87336eac67821
610188 F20110209_AAAUNZ friedel_c_Page_211.jp2
18e791e0fd7fef2825d94e83a331dfd8
f61cbce47eea650fb26ef9ef5c4bf5522fa65f73
F20110209_AAASZF friedel_c_Page_176.jp2
f080d8ece80f67dfca1219261d848877
9339d7cfe3531b83cf0a98f0a24bd6c794c01cf0
F20110209_AAATDV friedel_c_Page_106.tif
416408206f7b71fe89dc6715e81f19a7
beaab4154f139001381a87f810e60e3e7e045967
93986 F20110209_AAAUAO friedel_c_Page_008.jpg
7316b8bb3e5b47319c030a5f1cda0bf0
83362ced57ce2c63a9b07af1773a54f9d8ad3b8b
50268 F20110209_AAASZG friedel_c_Page_060.pro
03079b4f3b4d47ea45fd7c0a4319aeb4
54172d51855ecbc87533aff3caba1151da834428
F20110209_AAATDW friedel_c_Page_108.tif
fd6ae430cd77059dacf38b86f08a1e07
715c5fa99d4d2252a4fafcf459f6896e984fc52d
91353 F20110209_AAAUAP friedel_c_Page_009.jpg
8901c9fcb1e4a5bcf515ad22a531ff45
0f329d639dcc2aa8c52f80eb574a85b72f59a478
104933 F20110209_AAASZH friedel_c_Page_215.jpg
6d0af037219d7249947787bfb68899c7
c1946e2aa49817731dc8473f69cfd7873281f16f
F20110209_AAATDX friedel_c_Page_109.tif
aaba383725e5710a8f3cc3423368d547
d8915b01fb3de773294d48281c9497f675bb6b38
53502 F20110209_AAATWA friedel_c_Page_171.pro
47314adfd8bdc02ecf5dfbbcc5a55f18
2d0e7e154c771ffb99fb3249a92053f2b25294b6
15378 F20110209_AAAUAQ friedel_c_Page_010.jpg
7030b7f1917d5ae78bb129c9a3ea2c39
e3d8ecaf47e3d7d2f4ede6dc9cd1047523646077
106186 F20110209_AAASZI friedel_c_Page_057.jpg
e39ce22805a99138d56cfd57d8e957f5
4fa3e1f2e72f4b5fb1d50d699f4568e8df7bfcb1
F20110209_AAATDY friedel_c_Page_110.tif
04ec9c8f918a27a5b93efff7c8511b57
f2aeea904233cfc21efd2cfb7b0fc6301055c5af
45179 F20110209_AAATWB friedel_c_Page_172.pro
f0ef0934e8ffc458c3b56e04670e5c32
c91e0d099f571daafee1780a458c9e87447d4f21
100098 F20110209_AAAUAR friedel_c_Page_012.jpg
86b44a61943b643400a63f4615cc4887
2c51abe42eaf9cf57072b59dacd5ef75fd5f2605
6163 F20110209_AAASZJ friedel_c_Page_344.pro
202598dd3ab36c9a53fe15890c7231ed
a9fdbc22a476c5ae71d9e5ddf6b636469e0d363b
F20110209_AAATDZ friedel_c_Page_112.tif
fb97718a3911aac972e857628b0b810b
7a13619f55c56263508e39e617a8cf3bdbb8ca6a
47643 F20110209_AAATWC friedel_c_Page_174.pro
596089e175fc5a421a7fa0072b53be42
d691057d5b9fdf32d02a22332c07d807b3480e50
67670 F20110209_AAAUAS friedel_c_Page_015.jpg
a43ac83c4ea636da72142ca48cf26892
ba47b2c213337f2d018e330edaa22da5d1bd6f7b
2429 F20110209_AAASZK friedel_c_Page_147.txt
2c9e2740965bf808dcdb95f39748c996
690d4b61cee49290075657006f5dee4cdf55e5e6
50388 F20110209_AAATWD friedel_c_Page_175.pro
473b8522d5932b93c733475c688b23f3
2eb07f84d413779f94fa78b194343e85cfa43111
15220 F20110209_AAAUAT friedel_c_Page_016.jpg
c7a8996eadff1ee1c25aed8f4ecf7b6d
91b8e09f26df6d6441d17a8d0a9c76c8a0661a10
F20110209_AAASZL friedel_c_Page_099.tif
675e9f6124b839cdbe49e38d64bb5926
87419703e54818d38cd7b20a4b04b547403d630a
28133 F20110209_AAATWE friedel_c_Page_177.pro
23b16649603a24b5798daa08c9809419
18115bae759dbc1c3ca5d3460b3d3690f5caa340
76894 F20110209_AAAUAU friedel_c_Page_018.jpg
ef11db7d87551fd03f4343bfbfb1e1c0
d788069e67059057fe3961ad5e1d81a756157402
33649 F20110209_AAASMA friedel_c_Page_157.QC.jpg
305566dbc0a94cc83d7afd68daf5516a
b6335bac939e3e9cd25f4ec5c102728964fee0f7
F20110209_AAASZM friedel_c_Page_024.txt
70317c0b43215fe46f76fdf07918c668
0f5ebab3804d265003fba4ac43ec5f0ccee4a8b4
53186 F20110209_AAATWF friedel_c_Page_178.pro
34d9d6fa28eb24977a914cc285b90d57
c5e621c280a019a3929d8a6abfe3e3fd998711a1
86853 F20110209_AAAUAV friedel_c_Page_019.jpg
25b85b9c517df06e8d44203de865c740
33f353879a766397025e13a3cbacd9f0cf738bf5
2008 F20110209_AAASMB friedel_c_Page_069.txt
2ed844c9b9a469d6689d352f6a520e43
21aad5669c514ecc271ddc62ce962fd52e01c117
8148 F20110209_AAASZN friedel_c_Page_068thm.jpg
b9f2503603b4facf0b3982568934c8d0
bb51f4bb44b3c36d0737dc88cde92d3698b4bae4
42915 F20110209_AAATWG friedel_c_Page_179.pro
1fd3a9742236e787b8d43a1858266912
0c3b44eb29dad15bf884bd3bc8bdf25024cf717c
107806 F20110209_AAAUAW friedel_c_Page_020.jpg
4f48c454e1cbdf1374437bc5b3750733
87b52afeafe2530b6d7214d2576e18b08018d98e
100746 F20110209_AAASMC friedel_c_Page_066.jpg
d45e53c0d8ecf19dab7f0c7fb2e57e2c
179a9534db3b1eed3b21ee2f707876a6c3c3acca
F20110209_AAAUTA friedel_c_Page_092.QC.jpg
5f21e64052a326c1b5bfa2d99673237f
0d8f4361001d40cdde95dd7ceaa7731683b89e53
80949 F20110209_AAASZO friedel_c_Page_011.jpg
94214f8316294ef529ce685948579925
990c8a6466e582bb6e445d24fd91cb9d75d8c158
52586 F20110209_AAATWH friedel_c_Page_180.pro
fb3913fb6983a74a7bbb906c6e2e96c5
7d873e4e18977ed2ab1d04ac996777dc120362b4
111321 F20110209_AAAUAX friedel_c_Page_021.jpg
b5710a7b2f477c8bde2ebee022f934ca
82572230269219b370bbbcc741ea9d549c72906a
92939 F20110209_AAASMD friedel_c_Page_070.jpg
87285ac3922dcdd1cf9e5ed6b127b2a6
32ede1979eb2cd9161e5580bb89226a6e72d4cca
8538 F20110209_AAAUTB friedel_c_Page_047thm.jpg
e824da9cc2f544741d4dce7967e63be1
079ba38ffce48ce6dbce101c56b4345361b294fb
F20110209_AAASZP friedel_c_Page_177.tif
38eb954afa375f396b0b6ff8fa6b2909
442e87492e8073535ff700e124c86b32737a2e50
48840 F20110209_AAATWI friedel_c_Page_181.pro
1508b523ae732dd9740609999858b656
f9a61642be7071ca2745df5060a6c9b606cf4295
104661 F20110209_AAAUAY friedel_c_Page_022.jpg
f66ed257872fb98b138fe386b53c5759
fd362fd7a880ea146efacd33a5b8f504164f0daa
1774 F20110209_AAASME friedel_c_Page_221.txt
b18f6b3624631d6570a591fd70db08ad
f89edd6756c211f2d124fa583b4bf1540a94219f
7604 F20110209_AAAUTC friedel_c_Page_312thm.jpg
25852ce5010086194e70bac99828a04b
5ab5a189f0d33f19463c736c4506ab09ae8c686e
55673 F20110209_AAASZQ friedel_c_Page_334.pro
50d6e1075e7c67a47c3f3929cf1002d0
acc0124403d0a18a9c9a651cd649f53c80d9ab9a
48096 F20110209_AAATWJ friedel_c_Page_182.pro
a36dd39b487ba49f071c8ff8d4916a27
1ece4b3a039cb2ed41fc317dfb04a0db5bb543a5
102659 F20110209_AAAUAZ friedel_c_Page_026.jpg
ae0ae97e41a8a24390f1e47e996bed13
5cc1fada1a3a7e9251928c91deef2e3936e443d1
F20110209_AAASMF friedel_c_Page_010.tif
5dc61342142568147f84996fccb19370
ad9a842b25e8d0e2409a3e43f82923dd52dd4831
33740 F20110209_AAAUTD friedel_c_Page_064.QC.jpg
87f13c71efdd8a2cdfb43ba47ccb05eb
20f6edf5cd3d055ef68060c045e70de8ad216b8c
F20110209_AAASZR friedel_c_Page_227thm.jpg
60d72402914e962fde0c3c8643827d0f
888287eeb42614a8be40a2d19a1b6e9d23bcd7d7
42792 F20110209_AAATWK friedel_c_Page_183.pro
9063b5b1fbb748c5587c63f52b436a9c
f49362d14332a51dd1321ca59d04ae397cd8e2bc
98080 F20110209_AAASMG friedel_c_Page_007.jpg
7dd4ccc75ba77b6e328871dc9f211fe1
eff5f55a03f6dbf77e7cd4fee3a796cf3d2f7fe5
1185 F20110209_AAAUTE friedel_c_Page_010thm.jpg
f30a01cb7c5529e52772f70a9d8378f3
26939ff0f1d6387fc70db6d697695e3bcdcca81a
F20110209_AAATJA friedel_c_Page_315.tif
9bde87fe5ee8f4dd75d8f827a782ab1a
91e73873d3b4887c8e9463bc8c411d7480fd19e1
7974 F20110209_AAASZS friedel_c_Page_306thm.jpg
e57e3943990ee3fa8745dd4257a4dea5
e6aad6946def4d60104593d9d459e5e0aa31aee0
54201 F20110209_AAATWL friedel_c_Page_184.pro
4d371293b10d11d5733df962741146ed
4dba28fcb809688956e78caf2772f65018a508be
F20110209_AAASMH friedel_c_Page_012.jp2
38469372759bd541275a6ba2685be0ab
58c5b2522aac987f464388d9fe045c666285adf0
32898 F20110209_AAAUTF friedel_c_Page_192.QC.jpg
b5abc109a8ef9854e25b50b65a93118c
73a8cd22413adb943c60ef619551791f56edeaa2
F20110209_AAATJB friedel_c_Page_318.tif
72b3215373fe777e1cf2b6d77928eba4
37543a99e2c2fb7c8201be07682ae4244f90335b
88506 F20110209_AAASZT friedel_c_Page_288.jpg
f6e7af08d83bdd9da02c5791e62d869d
701e710ee6b29701a81accdb66735108be586753
40822 F20110209_AAATWM friedel_c_Page_185.pro
bc11d1cc9841db3bf3f85321337739c2
793943c81200b5445d91a2a9a478f9c23a2ac614
2137 F20110209_AAASMI friedel_c_Page_247.txt
f1b2dcff088280bbdfac55268d255df8
58892d46aeecc74f8c9ceceaa3244866a562c98c
8001 F20110209_AAAUTG friedel_c_Page_272thm.jpg
ada49af89d230e6b781cc79545227faf
46b42c705ef352a2e8e598aef50892dda4e638b0
F20110209_AAATJC friedel_c_Page_319.tif
e93f060d225550ad3c0e93d475368fbf
9145ac21dcc99a7571299ee71ffa592180d172d9
96597 F20110209_AAASZU friedel_c_Page_123.jpg
9bdd145a52fd7d0e29798208de814580
ee32de1f40bab3192c9f6373e4428d7a8aa647c8
52931 F20110209_AAATWN friedel_c_Page_187.pro
e9b1a8b22192e2dadadb1506ae7371b4
0a682cff3ba15327ec3e8dddf2c8dea081385fe8
32000 F20110209_AAASMJ friedel_c_Page_193.QC.jpg
61d8e88dd6f2b8b7adaae9d7e48afecf
43195905e1ae9e7a195a214907fe8520e0100148
F20110209_AAAUTH friedel_c_Page_238thm.jpg
d85c9f9665e1304833b063110afb4f20
a9a9991b773ff2b7d73892ff5943d9721934c8ee
F20110209_AAATJD friedel_c_Page_321.tif
4333af972173c13fde418a8b9d271cb3
2b554613b30579f65f19f013d50ef33069d4c182
F20110209_AAASZV friedel_c_Page_076.tif
d44e68c3a045d615cafe4b726126b308
8ff91a2384500ce81ec3dd1066e44a146d2290ec
49021 F20110209_AAATWO friedel_c_Page_188.pro
6ab1e4a049a4fc112217063eba719149
f23f3b31114668b673e05cde10d0e9ce7d726904
554679 F20110209_AAAUTI UFE0015620_00001.xml FULL
c46306da1849f8d32d97e626df65d234
49f0e7b3b2c16942d6338266c3fcb2d520111d21
F20110209_AAATJE friedel_c_Page_323.tif
1df4c1f8dbfeefc79a7843948556889f
1f3816978be7903849e6de984125e85d1ed69f40
106305 F20110209_AAASZW friedel_c_Page_294.jpg
b9a3528b6b72b923fcca69d7ff6f23a2
7189f254578b4806068593a186371837c0c71bb3
42387 F20110209_AAATWP friedel_c_Page_191.pro
699ac307ec156c2c656913b6313c0935
bfc44a365c68a5366ff0f4124957130dfa3959f3
8459 F20110209_AAASMK friedel_c_Page_071thm.jpg
d53710b1e9021cafc8540764d9098741
85a7d246b75cfda2adc9588a67737e8288217834
8791 F20110209_AAAUTJ friedel_c_Page_001.QC.jpg
9470dfcb344131231b8f3c8c0fb13dc9
3c96d6bbd74b8129d022d5895151fea6da381ee2
F20110209_AAATJF friedel_c_Page_324.tif
e8c9be44568127c5b3237f6b27615682
e4217ad1d408704bec4209e1e6706b6d221dfb01
53426 F20110209_AAATWQ friedel_c_Page_192.pro
f33e56e04ab0dfb8444c312375f19d3b
89e0fecb64ea38046d20d627bf0c20564187ca12
F20110209_AAASML friedel_c_Page_117.tif
7023090a3da228053a940885340a5278
9c53c0fec3b223b726045ab3b68f5cc16ffc07ca
F20110209_AAAUTK friedel_c_Page_003.QC.jpg
b70c6ad2b13dacc2de035a3843cb10ec
87dd2851097c0ec2ff49ab9786dc865adf51e462
2258 F20110209_AAASZX friedel_c_Page_186.txt
bf33244f083508199ba62ffbe21a8059
85385204033bf3b7e1a64cc5ea65f0753213294a
50394 F20110209_AAATWR friedel_c_Page_193.pro
6ab6b6f649f7548f94c7645e1d1fd401
a52b7ed5112d69d4071542bb417f802344476a8e
49896 F20110209_AAASMM friedel_c_Page_234.pro
198ef264a34344d55b849d408f28b5ad
75800bef1f87f0bfeee5a013bcafb50e8505652f
29440 F20110209_AAAUTL friedel_c_Page_004.QC.jpg
75f62f477a63cea22616866aeede5748
6f907eed7d6798cd31505404d0990d113e1c5b12
F20110209_AAATJG friedel_c_Page_325.tif
6087d90cebf60e03caaf4a9aa97d9dd5
8668463f74e71d92c59f3db0f9c32dd684011b29
F20110209_AAASZY friedel_c_Page_043.txt
b4865c2b1e74b7d5e3ab1bfb6d1b92ef
49fa0bf71f0d7087aa1e53bc1ac21a8d2fd50bae
89746 F20110209_AAAUGA friedel_c_Page_243.jpg
ea2878d0402bda271b4e229887697027
e7c500182e4f37e3af7c33dbf796160af15b5537
52843 F20110209_AAATWS friedel_c_Page_195.pro
86f69b96b919489464f67228a1336efe
06ca756436fad01d864e6559747ef5ebedc4c05a
28267 F20110209_AAASMN friedel_c_Page_301.QC.jpg
fa2b7fad32166049d1101a9bf915f467
478d50aac542c102d65ca8bffb09b06d93982dc1
20576 F20110209_AAAUTM friedel_c_Page_006.QC.jpg
f77c68c53e784b3783fad41e40d0c8a0
0b4ec59a7fa7e23f3898d9043406a01ca648889c
F20110209_AAATJH friedel_c_Page_326.tif
b2d3e94ed941d0f81837816ddebb6253
d9748c2a580572093ca9cd16b7253f048e23acb5
1051963 F20110209_AAASZZ friedel_c_Page_220.jp2
29197edd1953fa3210052e01a5df00a6
9aeb74754106169f636e61f53f25409740042d3a
96888 F20110209_AAAUGB friedel_c_Page_245.jpg
27b89b7de435e97b6f56abaa3a8739dc
ca15b58f3dda22aed2848ea1658f7ef398725f5f
874835 F20110209_AAASMO friedel_c_Page_217.jp2
4c3fda884e6744a5906b6aa7aa2ab61c
1c9b0a6b339eeb9bb12f8279002d4b7a08db0675
24415 F20110209_AAAUTN friedel_c_Page_011.QC.jpg
7dbbbe48782608f805b2ce77867b357c
da53162a026335349258f8eb8790060c14e2995b
F20110209_AAATJI friedel_c_Page_327.tif
57cb2e9ccea423dc712e55699ad593fc
ecea029212ba7bbe4f04991dfc8d4763c8147ed6
40358 F20110209_AAATWT friedel_c_Page_196.pro
1073ad8fb8337fcf3687fd7289f066d1
ff18df1aac6d2e8d8abd2d41031d3e01320d6f5d
33429 F20110209_AAASMP friedel_c_Page_102.QC.jpg
87951fa976e4fbe3286ccbc264989a64
7955dbea38fcf10f09d8fbc0755b2cb04d6ede47
33674 F20110209_AAAUTO friedel_c_Page_013.QC.jpg
7724c95679aeac21f484cba40832cd41
09a4e205d090b97d26c4443a40afb1f980fbb5cf
F20110209_AAATJJ friedel_c_Page_329.tif
b2462ed9e60c561fcd6b1037587ddf61
1ba28cd164ad345a89a735586a64190b90ad2f3f
98867 F20110209_AAAUGC friedel_c_Page_247.jpg
1c0425869e82eeb2cc3c52be620f4439
ac6db1f0d3fd53af57207f4ac6a80d6ca6ff7c52
45168 F20110209_AAATWU friedel_c_Page_198.pro
2ba8d55cdfcb58a193a2f1dfa3cd7697
6ca3db2a0f757716db838e350c8b3541f307693f
33757 F20110209_AAASMQ friedel_c_Page_023.QC.jpg
0eda7ee1b869f6ea7cf066d1a59ddb46
d42172660770af2a365e8fae6090baed91121d1d
F20110209_AAATJK friedel_c_Page_331.tif
9128814f62da9df63e4ef2eee989a649
b5ccfaabfb0edd01bc145bee6434447fc86c347b
91172 F20110209_AAAUGD friedel_c_Page_248.jpg
8a9b9d5131a0a9c9a7445e54c43f81a2
fd277f53109d4c7618154be36e135ab010fb3099
39325 F20110209_AAATWV friedel_c_Page_199.pro
c29e69038e08f1e34c0442f665d25acc
ffa930affcb8c0ca565aa4f6142446dd945ae46e
2094 F20110209_AAASMR friedel_c_Page_130.txt
3cb855764c452b6ce939f835f5d97ccb
e484da181903f704de6a4b66b56bae00c540a78b
30932 F20110209_AAAUTP friedel_c_Page_014.QC.jpg
f249ec04f935c73170599cc3ce93b034
f219210144723497eb2dd0020537e9355cf4ec13
F20110209_AAATJL friedel_c_Page_335.tif
3a144ff826b1fd81e1612bc5e95746bd
7398ad31aedc748b882b0e61b92cedbf30a3eedc
102144 F20110209_AAAUGE friedel_c_Page_249.jpg
31df10a16585f26688e058126adf6526
82e08d446027603ce5d2166bdd34a954eee39262
53509 F20110209_AAATWW friedel_c_Page_200.pro
c24e56d5232798a2b891de1dd4f47f47
69b743d921ec33dd272b83a2d6a465ec02fe6a09
31991 F20110209_AAASMS friedel_c_Page_247.QC.jpg
b182b8d0ecb08fbe03235a085fb1af37
c8bd859f9a379c65f2e1d774e588851d7438764c
4585 F20110209_AAAUTQ friedel_c_Page_016.QC.jpg
2aa4649641ffd1a94450134062271852
d3c4878167fa01fc5810c0a3cb0653781a334d55
F20110209_AAATJM friedel_c_Page_336.tif
53dd0ed8a9448f7c36551e89336a65d4
5383a1f4165ad270c0f51af5108a8c4e7c80b156
105152 F20110209_AAAUGF friedel_c_Page_250.jpg
5e2d347be6686451789cd7b9f6f5216c
0d82ccae39868051c03ce8e75b5d5be0db322793
41724 F20110209_AAATWX friedel_c_Page_201.pro
79e07ae6f91d8cef16f428064a1878e1
10f183e5789fc9300207ac20010e48be70777f04
4616 F20110209_AAASMT friedel_c_Page_009thm.jpg
25a76ffc70c350eb9ed8bc8f30f6caed
a3a5ed9d1ad9e1e341b2dc3e658b8f1035a94730
33701 F20110209_AAAUTR friedel_c_Page_022.QC.jpg
1053ca3d6895c24ad5f83400bf7de5a0
ce473eddae205c740b4ff783b48f5b651b036351
F20110209_AAATJN friedel_c_Page_337.tif
65f03806d7652617199a718c2aa85e1d
2d2cb6dfb4d59e11df3cf7025f3121c9c06fa091
95521 F20110209_AAAUGG friedel_c_Page_251.jpg
a3f61db12a3e3683f154e0591b9c1aa8
922dedbed0380d12751e5b13c31d599f9ff00dc1
53902 F20110209_AAATWY friedel_c_Page_202.pro
2568dc74de9f9050e9dae841c43ff086
801a9f3ca8f69617fa253a8b5a080b20b26e66c4
F20110209_AAASMU friedel_c_Page_334.tif
8d03462a04eb0aa558f11fbaadc71fdb
2bd4561884ef01eefb38d1741471d2387834652d
8105 F20110209_AAAVDA friedel_c_Page_091thm.jpg
5714f2560af050689758a0404eeb01a0
90a020541e997f90692f932d6a51798bfa8cbe5b
33166 F20110209_AAAUTS friedel_c_Page_026.QC.jpg
08c4fa5eb61e885b82113001f01cd6c0
b8d9219a4a4be7048afc080a93048a37874c718d
F20110209_AAATJO friedel_c_Page_339.tif
6e03cc502b9e44552fd0807656e0acff
4c829d99a8e9414e3ecc634ea48a8aa8f2d742bf
97679 F20110209_AAAUGH friedel_c_Page_252.jpg
c64c2f3edb253341b9840a7efadf4f5f
f819e53ae891f2018d5fd1925067f2b290d8151c
49246 F20110209_AAATWZ friedel_c_Page_203.pro
a96258defacbc811fe0087a7ef4f3ae0
095edcc13e94aca8a155d031856eb511d6ea822e
8436 F20110209_AAASMV friedel_c_Page_297thm.jpg
449b989d190cbe7f7427598bbc5f44d2
37b6d9e0a609bd533b83f4ab37ce00df7190519b
7896 F20110209_AAAVDB friedel_c_Page_092thm.jpg
96bae195f3ec3113583df30e49bcf78e
023913a6827faea7e0ccf89ccd98cbee864da5e5
32235 F20110209_AAAUTT friedel_c_Page_027.QC.jpg
decd5cf4c82054f46910aa5bbbe5c115
4cfbc3c61b678e126699aec2af4711f12bebbe08
F20110209_AAATJP friedel_c_Page_340.tif
3849e510dce00030079ccd23ad00d2ab
847c7f7c62da4de25403214cf3c2ab9b7321e2d4
97048 F20110209_AAAUGI friedel_c_Page_253.jpg
d3e05ec3f4fabcebc95d0039ed02cf6b
80ec9d30ff430507e929e9c0765633b3e51688fe
1941 F20110209_AAASMW friedel_c_Page_188.txt
01af743be8df180680ee5a38e2d8e34f
cc4c16797dfcf530cfb942a7972d67db0aaab900
7821 F20110209_AAAVDC friedel_c_Page_093thm.jpg
6536d6aed9581971109d71d72e3a6142
66e3db8b53e06abb1851d0d2b19c1f9c49a0d5bc
33385 F20110209_AAAUTU friedel_c_Page_029.QC.jpg
30fd4c7d30f899cf93a338bcdd36bee5
5fe2170bfb94a3a307ca51cd8f06179b8e5c4a3d
F20110209_AAATJQ friedel_c_Page_341.tif
b4399e49a6fb77d1ba3df1fb2f9e6372
0ec01b7715cff64261c7d3bf715e10bcc7fe8c7d
98603 F20110209_AAAUGJ friedel_c_Page_254.jpg
fe1c3e35346e04ee5be02ab83bcf54db
598d91e19912454d2ea7de6557f402507ef1139b
105652 F20110209_AAASMX friedel_c_Page_033.jpg
c200eb9bedca20723ca95fa10807b098
386fb494fc10b2c737418488e1aea82d23879c8e
8049 F20110209_AAAVDD friedel_c_Page_097thm.jpg
ecb488d9857569f8663fa9509cf2ee2e
519ed1b2454c17014cfd693629163e167a88dce1
32860 F20110209_AAAUTV friedel_c_Page_030.QC.jpg
54085d5c99b43f8992c2b82b964e5ee5
47173e38036e902f070a93d5739cc2212e6b9a65
F20110209_AAATJR friedel_c_Page_342.tif
78c7f700e722e27e328a1c2203d7e0cf
5117c11f28d689d8af8f404522f6b5b3e746f1c9
102224 F20110209_AAAUGK friedel_c_Page_256.jpg
57d4c74af9d7556be12464ed12ef08f8
2469239e72c25725e2f4d5c8a99ee6a2b2808f6d
1788 F20110209_AAASMY friedel_c_Page_322.txt
58d770e4f8f365df5556f0e017918ecd
2c0eaf09b65123d62aa029dcc88a3e9f21493358
7999 F20110209_AAAVDE friedel_c_Page_098thm.jpg
50a148b9ced8254bbb372c70cbc64069
574acbaf92a5292716fd5915f3458edf2cf17a9e
32642 F20110209_AAAUTW friedel_c_Page_031.QC.jpg
94e99e8e8a53a07959d4748c8d2d3b5b
ec3eeb1062b4b3449a32b49c7ffc4d1e6245b860
F20110209_AAATJS friedel_c_Page_343.tif
85825bdfaeb7aae72f7dfcfc87dff1c7
2d2d8be50b058c1c645199e9f330b301a891d3ab
96671 F20110209_AAAUGL friedel_c_Page_258.jpg
4b66ffcc0762277625a280bf58fe57e6
f6ae7e3511477a40dfdd0cbd0ae91306e1e4504c
96334 F20110209_AAASMZ friedel_c_Page_182.jpg
3095c8a6dad52576682d8304380e32c6
23b866abf3b57a78136d9765301d361e89f80905
F20110209_AAAVDF friedel_c_Page_100thm.jpg
5221ee83600369e7a0b189657681474b
9b74b701ea2fd195b06318bae677312e57866b37
31251 F20110209_AAAUTX friedel_c_Page_032.QC.jpg
4902d61d49259da11ca902a3c4596e50
a8bb3a288d112a0eccbd5e587603550a541c326e
F20110209_AAATJT friedel_c_Page_344.tif
cc2da7db14bf19cf87ec7e8c1a7f2a80
8edef7041156d59b721fb25737ef430d0bc06bf1
99213 F20110209_AAAUGM friedel_c_Page_260.jpg
8d306dc2226e58a220ed920336f60e21
f99b0dba235ddd44e04bf2e87b5fd11ea6103697
7263 F20110209_AAAVDG friedel_c_Page_101thm.jpg
f63f36d8c9e1e6eb90ad1fdfa27d13af
126956e5c53cc20c578122befc28bab66539059e
F20110209_AAAUTY friedel_c_Page_034.QC.jpg
bec3311df642c019063e9221dc0f249a
5fa3c4f8d77b29c4bb19b8fd978577c2cbc35350
484 F20110209_AAATJU friedel_c_Page_001.txt
ab568f419b96250d0aeccd1c6eb28c93
96df8ad2eb19969c60a361e41e972a61e244b47e
102640 F20110209_AAAUGN friedel_c_Page_261.jpg
27fcdc6c0da8d58ccd4f5e01aa8e3a3e
afa858c071f74ae4507a3c7717d3090848849696
32878 F20110209_AAARVA friedel_c_Page_074.QC.jpg
75718ec7fb9113d7bc436b00b1036ff0
52124004194d7a2fc67c6ca00c5866473f8c8175
7794 F20110209_AAAVDH friedel_c_Page_102thm.jpg
417164fcc0e73e3ba245ae4a79968f1e
caf5a523f235cb4dfc44e2ef5206ed2b8ecbf7b3
12329 F20110209_AAAUTZ friedel_c_Page_042.QC.jpg
f98c82e91767d93535c9d6e276e298ef
fd6df028692bf5f69899dbfde91344c2481e5eb1
120 F20110209_AAATJV friedel_c_Page_002.txt
3eb4198ba7e2330eab0c76a4f45c4d0f
df6efddd80afecb601224155ebf3e415e67539e5
30190 F20110209_AAAUGO friedel_c_Page_262.jpg
98e6d5788d623e791554652fc11de93d
52f683425179686199702b72a06af6ee1f9b6492
34770 F20110209_AAARVB friedel_c_Page_303.QC.jpg
d9c1ee8b0d600a66b0f7ded5c1db2a3d
2bdd009201c4ac8b74038751ee51de738a428d98
8180 F20110209_AAAVDI friedel_c_Page_103thm.jpg
cd6ef3d4d9d015c99a795c6b37a57d12
3bd9abec91d7b597fefbd666bc2fdba70024f92f
3259 F20110209_AAATJW friedel_c_Page_005.txt
0e0408aa0a4359346325e50291069039
5472ea1547cf17af87d1049fcb9a74362c3224bd
91504 F20110209_AAAUGP friedel_c_Page_263.jpg
f7263352aa094e214beba228b47a0e8a
be8a6403d3f1f102cbcb878ee0a90b7fe6986608
F20110209_AAARVC friedel_c_Page_305.tif
b8010c2b84708ed0c8797cc3fcad59f0
5fa8b73ea058c3f0ea7b382ede88802c200a0b1b
F20110209_AAAVDJ friedel_c_Page_104thm.jpg
78c8a410bf23cb5a8526a84f211481fe
fd569b60036be3045a6e9c6c974203c147bd34a2
4985 F20110209_AAATJX friedel_c_Page_006.txt
49c49afa551a356429a8ea1a4797185c
2c0fcc25054d22c646efd8c303b75ae11e25f9db
104945 F20110209_AAAUGQ friedel_c_Page_264.jpg
1b2eda4e9b5a325e4253d6d382ae693e
b839de5a760f0905918e14cf98fc72c2173f46a0
2110 F20110209_AAARVD friedel_c_Page_054.txt
d66730ff55784008c51b6678f200efc4
d69d03215b1df689c0bbf11baffe747126f06dfe
8286 F20110209_AAAVDK friedel_c_Page_105thm.jpg
39835b20909420d533659862d820c28a
02c3b2bbe61ca168c5ba66d48760f9ebd6dff2f0
4790 F20110209_AAATJY friedel_c_Page_008.txt
7f4e421b2f672ebd606f853b1aa9c375
b5bb956da5c6f57f622af887f3b4e7b863224701
103290 F20110209_AAAUGR friedel_c_Page_265.jpg
7253b22c44be9774ee175ea2dceab1a1
e17a8ba376f5db7bce4586d4610a788d11c44d93
8066 F20110209_AAARVE friedel_c_Page_188thm.jpg
8f2fc762d359274680ac330f5435da1f
f217ddfe673daf4db9ee3d6c664d0973a9532cd1
8536 F20110209_AAAVDL friedel_c_Page_106thm.jpg
61e7c15b258df89b039e44cbe910a304
915b0c9d23703967639148dc4fbc53f7e3b28dfe
583 F20110209_AAATJZ friedel_c_Page_010.txt
db7b06432e1a91a4db95865396b1fbe8
d1c92980b4083802e3fd529fd682bd56b5cdf7fc
99650 F20110209_AAAUGS friedel_c_Page_266.jpg
96ac817f7ae72b8fb58263b4e8fd547a
a1179a347ea581be9d350041beacfe69c68bf339
3879 F20110209_AAARVF friedel_c_Page_326thm.jpg
25d72d96b559ccb1e483ccb4f5512898
cd59e60be3e2c7bdf9edb5e156671d3c1c2112c8
7892 F20110209_AAAVDM friedel_c_Page_107thm.jpg
7a03416b1749b4f92a611972f2ac44ea
d2aceebb1c272b3a34ffbda6a4324c76da78a967
90489 F20110209_AAAUGT friedel_c_Page_268.jpg
f998dcc9f1ef6254b49c360146684f44
8e48882e44a0fb93333c1582b048713c21fa2c51
48408 F20110209_AAARVG friedel_c_Page_079.pro
e73bf09c492716c52d6b80b48bfabd27
f0c4da2fccc48d84b1973a9f0335c2622fb77e37
7994 F20110209_AAAVDN friedel_c_Page_108thm.jpg
25fc94410ea1c5b1389e23396b06993a
e06582990235faa3dd70624415152877b36dc23a
85681 F20110209_AAAUGU friedel_c_Page_269.jpg
3e73678066e17be8ddd9e31b0e33e144
aa8571859b35c6ab1252fea94f7210b84cd7071c
107398 F20110209_AAARVH friedel_c_Page_132.jpg
3aac4e64977ee39ed421acbd58881a3c
ce9263721e84e56752ad37b6072e7f71c5979fbb
1022066 F20110209_AAASSA friedel_c_Page_114.jp2
c189dc342f99d56922e275b852c8cf05
2635b6c74ff62ebc4cc866238dae9a93dd5e6642
8111 F20110209_AAAVDO friedel_c_Page_109thm.jpg
26a9caea28096e1e274fb506fac43eca
4ff24df11c6d9eb690bd9cc8d28ac9fc15de72c8
95981 F20110209_AAAUGV friedel_c_Page_271.jpg
5174894dcd640fbb8b76191b717fd88f
323e1ae284cf8b5e1f9d1b5bd2eaf50bb95a4c1e
33746 F20110209_AAARVI friedel_c_Page_044.QC.jpg
e0d2f6458b1dd4dc96bacaac2d2bb657
f2a25a6b9eb40ddefdf81ad668d27340034b8a40
F20110209_AAASSB friedel_c_Page_065.tif
7d09a79e53549a3b20fd2dcea893dc82
4a2868ea54980a6a802d99dfa115291de365f08a
7942 F20110209_AAAVDP friedel_c_Page_111thm.jpg
888e498031f20e500979f0b6ea0d3ad2
f6864380e1f82ef702d1d10822ec48d64d222e15
96627 F20110209_AAAUGW friedel_c_Page_272.jpg
f48fcfb54e6f9fe627c53a37feb5910d
2594ebc982b550440ecf409a7c73c0941c9d303f
31757 F20110209_AAARVJ friedel_c_Page_284.QC.jpg
f8bcbccfd9da9d2ce40cc68c399e5efc
f8a2de62338181eb4db4b68645b7f73a8f657b60
101280 F20110209_AAASSC friedel_c_Page_055.jpg
ff8cc9187e62bdee59ea2e0c89657b12
3bd1a9024171406479d848cd8c8416a98e56570c
7878 F20110209_AAAVDQ friedel_c_Page_112thm.jpg
d14c675a3a2f3443b0421075a9e49fb7
774c354a4ce0490643ea2b64cd466ef71e10e908
28049 F20110209_AAAUZA friedel_c_Page_269.QC.jpg
215a0c0f5896eb8db2d64e53e6590987
268e1823992e1d4d408631457c7a9692efb29a9b
95978 F20110209_AAAUGX friedel_c_Page_275.jpg
8ef764a1cca53e4ceffc0638c6f45b92
953e18b8124c3e576ab44fd4da34ff19fe65790c
993413 F20110209_AAARVK friedel_c_Page_300.jp2
3ff629e2bed214bb7ed3efe513fe0534
5df827d646dccc091aae36b59069324d9ec61fa9
33637 F20110209_AAASSD friedel_c_Page_225.QC.jpg
12d7479d9803e05606b2da0fe0b0315d
006e12f2a7176f7bc7fc4c8aef894748deed3a83
8007 F20110209_AAAVDR friedel_c_Page_113thm.jpg
4d0f6fb80f833123060bc97b631a5f81
d146a516ba7b99492e999ecf2f9b5bba9d9072a7
30093 F20110209_AAAUZB friedel_c_Page_270.QC.jpg
2935bc27d4b1c157fc37158737f99243
bee50f2413344734000401af7782402a4f1fc567
96607 F20110209_AAAUGY friedel_c_Page_276.jpg
d4816b5c2d9a6be69536808ebaa74e55
ab1000b3b58fa1bd8a42ab358d2a0d2a9ff90ddb
103341 F20110209_AAARVL friedel_c_Page_143.jpg
ab7356f5f798dd4b7ecf227a4749ab63
310c19d33776bed9ec3cc90a589858814f43c49b
F20110209_AAASSE friedel_c_Page_333.tif
981983736b394bb2dd06d9c1f6c242a7
1239bd7639ba5193ae570cfea73e70260c6d7fc0
7541 F20110209_AAAVDS friedel_c_Page_114thm.jpg
39c0deca6f2570964a4e68cda884be91
3c4c0f248014d6db98df259be5e8208379df8fb1
30657 F20110209_AAAUZC friedel_c_Page_271.QC.jpg
e15e9fa2e5464d98ce4091cda19a3797
626c0fa880dcf0a0882f89b5a282352aac0c1fed
101463 F20110209_AAAUGZ friedel_c_Page_277.jpg
152b346314c562cce7f019df1c41f8d9
197c7ffabbd931a76961aace4ff2e406a098bd9f
6368 F20110209_AAARVM friedel_c_Page_185thm.jpg
3a513c22f32a64fe3e746a359d6d347d
f1ed613055113e6a25733db25a98e2ee852230d9
4577 F20110209_AAASSF friedel_c_Page_319thm.jpg
33367a9daa461577ddd59c2bc024c0c3
698a7b28f23b8cce2db69ef2c374d1bb1e916edb
F20110209_AAAVDT friedel_c_Page_115thm.jpg
f25f6152afc947ed7737bf3c9bbce096
19876ebde98b5226c82972ea30cf406f6b8fb12f
32808 F20110209_AAAUZD friedel_c_Page_272.QC.jpg
5c43d859b0043b6d03ae41150021fc23
1834114c09151848401416ba8cbde5d2743b2b51
F20110209_AAARVN friedel_c_Page_098.tif
f37df9986a1f2ee0c468a5aaf54c6aea
855ca05b908485a70427f0057aa4b7f5b34a7712
7863 F20110209_AAASSG friedel_c_Page_278thm.jpg
99e42660b82f9d442b28c503624b7cd0
92151acb611ca1df7fbbf0cbe1124fee188cd137
7785 F20110209_AAAVDU friedel_c_Page_116thm.jpg
5f433dee160853ca931f7fe2738f8f39
87ca6f0b1ef5b8f0914e3588c7242332565e12ac
30977 F20110209_AAAUZE friedel_c_Page_274.QC.jpg
1a3a95cbee98d1cd92b855b7964fed54
477e6612213329409912e7dd9477881ae7535d8f
1005779 F20110209_AAARVO friedel_c_Page_236.jp2
5dcc7a614c10fb628f4ba79d71d1c65a
7e0d8a1faca2283497d9db3521e1f7e475168871
96749 F20110209_AAASSH friedel_c_Page_163.jpg
56b8e0f6fd7e236e94ac309739dd6390
a42abd1b7fb4324fd4832542602e5231d69c4a08
1890 F20110209_AAATPA friedel_c_Page_231.txt
156c016d7fe24bf2539c4fac7602600a
c9db8c2ab4cc74319132a78c445d019503781d9f
8099 F20110209_AAAVDV friedel_c_Page_117thm.jpg
d657c6f66455a61af1275ff105ee9af7
c229065265f92c4b28a535eb29e0c89b6f065724
32156 F20110209_AAAUZF friedel_c_Page_275.QC.jpg
c4ed14d2363bf2ae7eb9326376877123
7a56707fb11f52bad95bc16773e2a81a8fdefa9b
862688 F20110209_AAARVP friedel_c_Page_213.jp2
03b187b94dbce0dc56f1fd8cdc1cb106
34388be5a6dd1d766c63f1a4d5c16e107bee04ac
F20110209_AAASSI friedel_c_Page_095.tif
7448ccb86661706ac8aa7305c47fc655
f92306b14b56346c85dd42fd026b77624d855670
2120 F20110209_AAATPB friedel_c_Page_238.txt
528dfe91f6dfb66de16ab6d009de7bb2
d48d2a9a3646a0c227e01a5c0ac60c19997ca324
8370 F20110209_AAAVDW friedel_c_Page_120thm.jpg
fa49b44e2949af3eb48a934506bfe67d
d596dfcfe77720a01e8460f599d259edb9410fb6
35018 F20110209_AAAUZG friedel_c_Page_277.QC.jpg
72dad644f0a5ef4738f955fa84531bcd
ca8c33ef19612e81c963d8b39d183437ee655b53
F20110209_AAARVQ friedel_c_Page_014.tif
07331f19776727701d5b797987e337d8
1cabb9f7dc7f27d5f12effe38045cf57ba6bc7cd
39799 F20110209_AAASSJ friedel_c_Page_318.pro
acb3bf83f2cf6ecb44981ddcbe2da32e
6a440f7d25016d4466203352d7362f91411aab52
2031 F20110209_AAATPC friedel_c_Page_239.txt
586f2718e0d3fce2d1a609f001dcac72
b3dc6f46d177a5487cd7ca5c64f00f1eb7cd2216
7819 F20110209_AAAVDX friedel_c_Page_121thm.jpg
920fcbabf1bc3c6284a002c972466360
2b07961c747ec67fdc077d4704d9ddaca64f6e8d
31631 F20110209_AAAUZH friedel_c_Page_279.QC.jpg
0e72cc63872ba78b76159d8c5339f08d
0976a39f146ead8240432fb8a6c9b242a84894ba
107065 F20110209_AAARVR friedel_c_Page_028.jpg
cb2d121e6ed7ae4f119a0547c2723850
7c02364fd6ad58f32ae81d2fe29c12c84148bd8b
F20110209_AAASSK friedel_c_Page_249.tif
eceb78d07aa3f1e24c8e5d6e53088e58
542952cf516b74da525c126f09b40189059b2632
1994 F20110209_AAATPD friedel_c_Page_241.txt
8eeb6d92dcda71adb6df196329e11b95
7a6d09b7fa198c06a3c21c288c430053d8809376
8361 F20110209_AAAVDY friedel_c_Page_128thm.jpg
0cc85eeb9733fcdc8862a38e718a3b0c
8b19dc5284294cfd97765fab64509933816b3b8a
32556 F20110209_AAAUZI friedel_c_Page_280.QC.jpg
7230f39b8f15c4856a5f8858f247d409
557a4c084ff3415cd08089360f3ef3e3f9987c9f
16486 F20110209_AAASFA friedel_c_Page_217.QC.jpg
df791a7cffb8f08a959245f63b49dbe5
76be41779836da5037c8b4cd6b9364cb7053a2fc
138265 F20110209_AAARVS friedel_c_Page_034.jpg
683a53cabcd70aa7ff72f04f128f7ab5
bf40c46cc178a0136be7c7289e0453a7669a059f
F20110209_AAASSL friedel_c_Page_216.txt
5e336ad53665307fc5f88ad164824105
f93085204be80ec11cf45db8b1f27d56aca35828
1923 F20110209_AAATPE friedel_c_Page_242.txt
cacbf12836ae77bd0c0b5b8876b0f0e3
32658c51891cbda4a20e30789257deb48054c3fe
8605 F20110209_AAAVDZ friedel_c_Page_129thm.jpg
19b709959a9cf75e5236262d79402fec
e05e5a008f7c1ff1e16181feb5ec5dd226c71432
33640 F20110209_AAAUZJ friedel_c_Page_281.QC.jpg
ada84bf829f192fa6ce4b1fecdb118ce
38daee1a3bfd3e6fcea1b62865e04df683770699
29902 F20110209_AAASFB friedel_c_Page_222.QC.jpg
bb1ae534ff6b3b75dcb88f0ed0d013e9
e2e87126a547f3bcf14c1e3d173e4e4432c14e30
1909 F20110209_AAARVT friedel_c_Page_099.txt
6c78ab200345a75d5865bce5074e1757
f18c7e48ff836ddb19ccca7982cc7f44a5c88c82
F20110209_AAASSM friedel_c_Page_314.jp2
c9d175c7b650c0d79e65416721802e4d
d0bc2ddf34c006e2d413ca18119fbbfc005875a9
2082 F20110209_AAATPF friedel_c_Page_245.txt
b6310d404b8399be453543ab998652fa
58ba1ce38f0675ff196a68a902fa17011fcc7c7c
33243 F20110209_AAAUZK friedel_c_Page_283.QC.jpg
48ed316cd1ddec59b316987efaa07a05
2761e1313ec740072202defa8e96114e0a6c1145
F20110209_AAASFC friedel_c_Page_168.tif
5676cd56db1e433e80354d65b0265e70
fb37777bb9833da28b2a50dccf77091d0a948e08
2066 F20110209_AAASSN friedel_c_Page_161.txt
48d0c750540afd7353df0257e848f7df
5558591b7345c0d9bd7b281fd4b63e905bebea8b
1790 F20110209_AAATPG friedel_c_Page_248.txt
53380a8af8cf53331b781fd47eff543d
fff74f6986fce89006387143628586018eaa2e72
35459 F20110209_AAAUZL friedel_c_Page_285.QC.jpg
70fc4e4b33d9ecdb036f8fccf87e4b56
4deb4306d7e7daa354a5b62d62429365e6cab664
F20110209_AAAUMA friedel_c_Page_139.jp2
b66b4160255dbd7b1cf0adaf78af2af7
e48f171d81778154219562734234206a1bdd52f4
23416 F20110209_AAARVU friedel_c_Page_185.QC.jpg
8265503096713283bfeb385908f10a6a
50af6a09dd662789daf6cdf2954d2cf81bd52886
1051900 F20110209_AAASSO friedel_c_Page_202.jp2
05758545aa463bafa9326f5da216f794
86e5d50a438a6751657dac3b69c984eaff10fc07
F20110209_AAATPH friedel_c_Page_249.txt
1724b97f6120fbfa38c574e24803f1c5
661d3c1cde2c95b9a3c92e2d0eab5591239bdcce
30916 F20110209_AAAUZM friedel_c_Page_286.QC.jpg
a53634cc3f4c8508b8ef16579cd6ce50
52443db2c67dad477a501a61dac67e26504dc36b
F20110209_AAAUMB friedel_c_Page_142.jp2
41aad99f4b0a7007b5c0c260e14c9363
e9dc4d2d880755c5971a78a0226066358aac9e2e
109274 F20110209_AAASFD friedel_c_Page_157.jpg
cf1d2a6e8a009145ce2684f1e9b13cc3
8dca5d300eed303c9348a67df1ad2c363f027f6d
1017825 F20110209_AAARVV friedel_c_Page_291.jp2
f6a531927186a1a3fabed7bffc08f705
002cea4f7adbd9440e2931258462604adef5c43e
105334 F20110209_AAASSP friedel_c_Page_159.jpg
4e553fb2361815f752eab6ed1109c21f
fcc6e190cf4b49af0f4912ca6b698ffffa7db206
2079 F20110209_AAATPI friedel_c_Page_251.txt
ebfa8d8c6d8a716b4401ac4fe19c708c
07bedea980267bfe20ece1cae11661b5527a7c4e
32708 F20110209_AAAUZN friedel_c_Page_287.QC.jpg
cd87d4c064aaa94fe5f96974711cf627
fca68f6b9bd72b8340fa60d64b455ecf291b8f63
F20110209_AAAUMC friedel_c_Page_143.jp2
a5ff8f160133fdf20daf2fc3c72d5cbe
569abca394fdd1787e60d8f538413db4d21a801f
8005 F20110209_AAASFE friedel_c_Page_266thm.jpg
76ef55ff71836028939416bdfe8eaede
5214ce6d11d3b80e96de269bb7c293c9e4dc89c2
107572 F20110209_AAARVW friedel_c_Page_150.jpg
a15d9ec64a18e8ffb924b19a25a30c1b
88cedf956c4867926348bc8a0b1d8942b2ca0dcc
F20110209_AAATPJ friedel_c_Page_252.txt
0fe0f1f4aa7e9141cfa07e9fca07ffe5
9117633505565c05141efe60f83d0071fc5e5139
28037 F20110209_AAAUZO friedel_c_Page_288.QC.jpg
ef404f7ab7dc69929701af189b5d7778
4b9bf7adb1032a9d4cdc1efa533407eba94c62df
991798 F20110209_AAAUMD friedel_c_Page_144.jp2
837fd0754eb11257a26c3bd792510fab
593d6c4c055ea776fc27473c17b1d4664efeb4b2
89433 F20110209_AAASFF friedel_c_Page_104.jpg
2136c10c8d576ed3178a4e31371430f1
a7ca68bba95be3c300a05ac5f6531cfa33daeed1
104470 F20110209_AAARVX friedel_c_Page_064.jpg
ca86c4c005aecba55602a5daa5a51b3a
7623e8849c43a0075b8a3984e002ef535356dba7
945665 F20110209_AAASSQ friedel_c_Page_289.jp2
4e8bb06cd63cbcaf8ab92891289bd9bc
967e43192dae71c85c444b1807e5968136494457
2075 F20110209_AAATPK friedel_c_Page_253.txt
3bace1e5fe0eee50531bfa70ccb228a7
b341b15dc9af94b75be311ef7633761fbcbee79a
27520 F20110209_AAAUZP friedel_c_Page_290.QC.jpg
ca64ba667d35cae65e63ded75f1972e9
bea3901ef2969f71c4fa0ee172b2fcc362d678a0
F20110209_AAAUME friedel_c_Page_147.jp2
c723d2b0301aef43f015cb29595503ef
4d9ae23d1716f788aad6fd5a973fb4ebf9ce1791
82843 F20110209_AAASFG friedel_c_Page_299.jpg
1662bdd18e9883eb3979877aa02d2c0b
7eab9ea5b0e501d7b355c25414cdaa15a27bca1a
85769 F20110209_AAARVY friedel_c_Page_289.jpg
634c6bbc07bcd39151a54d83fe69d64a
1fab0ef83da2e8d53f2f29544284efcc8d0957c9
107287 F20110209_AAASSR friedel_c_Page_122.jpg
ad6e03274ffd0f00753899c3d16fa564
e7f622667041f6b288a5fc5e5677108a364e88de
F20110209_AAATPL friedel_c_Page_254.txt
342a9358c1c1e7375111cb854ebd5e4e
e07d22efd9d4e1f21094247ef760d11666694e40
30609 F20110209_AAAUZQ friedel_c_Page_291.QC.jpg
50fd5d8d5c81d2703c31b8f823ad5f3a
136f05dcf081f39b1872f32ad7ed2a3f73f8aa6c
F20110209_AAAUMF friedel_c_Page_148.jp2
415f4a387101e33f7982be0f2e9f0dc5
bf0e683eeb6fc6c2a66fa4a78064e47576f45bbe
32330 F20110209_AAASFH friedel_c_Page_112.QC.jpg
356d571fbe2164c9ee8b9614f3b6c9fd
d0a7f63632251ef0ceffabf0ba3a43b5c8fcc831
F20110209_AAARVZ friedel_c_Page_122.jp2
cce42b46bfd9108a9f6033c23130812e
b5af1cb0926e4080c877c0fbc55796f2fbce2c62
F20110209_AAATCA friedel_c_Page_034.tif
a6dc288cc053c7aae3db0f91fade4c79
7d34f035cfe9e1856f9d7da1922523b230b2e75d
34217 F20110209_AAASSS friedel_c_Page_316.QC.jpg
c77a288f33ec289de659246185d54ffb
f5c3af7c41964bc8e2797ae01dcf9d14c9d366b1
33220 F20110209_AAAUZR friedel_c_Page_292.QC.jpg
7a0cf5a82749493e8a09363184e768cb
85e473bdca480b083a8fb60d67ee36e955ce1426
F20110209_AAAUMG friedel_c_Page_150.jp2
710d6fea0e3936839ee21dc518635dae
1d365695d9125d64afd182c2041bd52e866a56af
83869 F20110209_AAASFI friedel_c_Page_017.jpg
36cb0bef547e5feaa1c9d2fd4476ca64
efd29e9d207165c527aca73b0bf2015341186398
F20110209_AAATCB friedel_c_Page_035.tif
772b9069f8611e861498408f7612accc
dc6e2301cc07014086fac5e958065f4687ab08e0
26067 F20110209_AAASST friedel_c_Page_017.QC.jpg
8cbd951e5b0650b0a9654f4ff833b887
f450d300e4fc7a2fadf3f59703c981a38fb6b4a5
1882 F20110209_AAATPM friedel_c_Page_255.txt
4a83ce99d59aa7e9511c76bf86a184fa
56226477556e7b31a9db61ebbe36fbe7c065a267
30549 F20110209_AAAUZS friedel_c_Page_293.QC.jpg
da4e33ac767e412e12b22e4613ebde05
a61407a9d4249c299772e2a203645aaa72bb8e22
F20110209_AAAUMH friedel_c_Page_152.jp2
4b988273265d3368922b2ed564818054
78f18f7ee0deda0f5479dd6cf2e2ced498b816e8
1037945 F20110209_AAASFJ friedel_c_Page_293.jp2
ea4aa9b4b8a0a273814666c23bdbd827
fdc53d4bf9a1d27cc05a2b21239e72a270908a27
F20110209_AAATCC friedel_c_Page_037.tif
a6e9f533f60fb716a06e41e26fce0676
08189be8a5ecc8f43695b34e285456ef8bc928ec
53899 F20110209_AAASSU friedel_c_Page_142.pro
d8f86f6aafbff1d3fa79d1df4c5b9baf
cfcd79ea5dac7d2d2f3c65f5f8f89e1d93420f9a
2161 F20110209_AAATPN friedel_c_Page_256.txt
ccfda98eddc177837224583d4433de61
2f07043c7a66258330377d5e2e4ecfc5d7568a87
34147 F20110209_AAAUZT friedel_c_Page_294.QC.jpg
4feb3f132a00aa14a142f70bb49d294e
34745f766e3afed6b58cd13768abdfb5acc395a6
F20110209_AAASFK friedel_c_Page_069.tif
6cd396c815bae07653b5b1356483ec48
df592106d5d1eb36d9e4a726b16049c55fbb9513
F20110209_AAATCD friedel_c_Page_038.tif
387733fe431e0413f4fc91aac98314b9
e55299aa52b20355f6c95334f2b7031d999275a7
105016 F20110209_AAASSV friedel_c_Page_052.jpg
1b0bab0e1cd3f209203a5ac60791fb0d
5f681702851018c1ff0f43fc27ca9844894693e5
F20110209_AAATPO friedel_c_Page_257.txt
8ae85bc4d5d000089436402750666247
4f386c631283befd8b333dd3fcc623218081ee6c
33301 F20110209_AAAUZU friedel_c_Page_296.QC.jpg
c236ea7b15dbc4fd51ae1f890252e2e5
5a07a7df1db59a76e7cec212f1fec116d33dd151
F20110209_AAAUMI friedel_c_Page_153.jp2
c5ef70c018eb013880f4ab0bea62f5c1
346b214510702320434e9409b779ec56a708cb6a
49292 F20110209_AAASFL friedel_c_Page_100.jpg
d44b09de1e9c61d15e122f79eb003926
e41d48a0bc910790c0aaa4693086134ce82cb448
F20110209_AAATCE friedel_c_Page_039.tif
dc275c1fad18cda41f9810795c3ecf11
d3616eadadd2c824b5be7cea3822034cdc867a09
7485 F20110209_AAASSW friedel_c_Page_248thm.jpg
276145c55a18c2d13b5053fff497e960
d8fe501eac151be63d7fb4cf01051fe35be87f4e
F20110209_AAATPP friedel_c_Page_260.txt
55b89e0e6935ec0ade89bda4cdbf9d90
dfbb13ea60cc04872cbb0260e1bcf37d11d247d7
F20110209_AAAUMJ friedel_c_Page_154.jp2
817abd92aeb2a89117ba006100b2841a
5695041fe61af097e10d307c85a91bdea9bf6639
F20110209_AAASFM friedel_c_Page_338.tif
2155d4d4c0509a65bb8cc9c2f97f9b22
74bef32c6c62f08a661b1c93b005a8777fa0748c
F20110209_AAATCF friedel_c_Page_043.tif
fcb7449add3096b748160f1fc0a8743d
523ab22e30b249c776087ec2ed36f3b16c0cb3e7
F20110209_AAASSX friedel_c_Page_044.tif
5b03f7e9d188912e82bb20f13b54d7dc
df2d3c91b87d07a4269bdf954fdb9e4923059a10
2056 F20110209_AAATPQ friedel_c_Page_261.txt
7309ad46e50bbda7ae031a6abef78f7a
ba81750fb3d110ace87b3bbbd509ac2d7ccd157b
33048 F20110209_AAAUZV friedel_c_Page_297.QC.jpg
3be4b44738d09c00b006d56131e0111b
941041114e9463ec516b7141a4f45d5c288325e5
F20110209_AAAUMK friedel_c_Page_156.jp2
6a95bb9de188f8300081d8300a1198d0
b388a6377540979cbe1cc1d09da1c505d92079ea
F20110209_AAASFN friedel_c_Page_283.jp2
21e98db4b856b252064d815abfff45b2
c26b941e4b4408ea803e254cf27b7b650ad5e19c
F20110209_AAATCG friedel_c_Page_045.tif
38984ddcff272a0109fdea9d5d2863e2
c9b91b790298b0acc45cc21622441d7620ab7505
13745 F20110209_AAASSY friedel_c_Page_042.pro
8f70552ad1fea5dd5ee355592e24fa7c
6c357c3d0ee9c15dfd5cf6b232f00ddbb40291f0
578 F20110209_AAATPR friedel_c_Page_262.txt
82816e309b34b78579ded15cf18adc35
85b24b5caa75339182da0cd4fd446f13bc643e0d
30253 F20110209_AAAUZW friedel_c_Page_298.QC.jpg
23a573a760dc15b469c2d03a941aa2de
f5fb04a3b54103cabf5515833496ce053d0f286b
F20110209_AAAUML friedel_c_Page_157.jp2
378821cb17df19f86047e36d562690d1
ae5517ca1dc81be33a72505d23422a92e9509ef9
47339 F20110209_AAASFO friedel_c_Page_278.pro
f2536609f0ba7e0b23d390c55e144c39
f4939987dba06657be8cc5c3c22bc04a499f9c92
F20110209_AAATCH friedel_c_Page_047.tif
22ba63e37097d8d673c24cd461af3a1c
19d1d110b9530df42cc6a5d85bb6312c08a690b5
46385 F20110209_AAASSZ friedel_c_Page_276.pro
f10b73cc2dee916909d8bf825c5a7b88
a2fb3bfb28aee02bcdc6277e11ec7b620aabf6fb
1838 F20110209_AAATPS friedel_c_Page_263.txt
a3c195e64882aa851809333afa104eda
a8efbd31bfa23ee424dcf79004ca0738d842a26c
34521 F20110209_AAAUZX friedel_c_Page_305.QC.jpg
87ecfed2de3575b2f47e6e029e1ff22e
1fbaf7ce1277129487681241f75d11b978fa8c49
F20110209_AAAUMM friedel_c_Page_158.jp2
32099d5529ffacbc8f0e9f5e5473c4e8
3633cd3a31d80865f25fd3fdad9e181707f2c278
F20110209_AAASFP friedel_c_Page_157thm.jpg
4451254f99871e0d99f937aa24ce0e1b
6b52c6071473234088239d50bd29ccd8feae5008
F20110209_AAATCI friedel_c_Page_048.tif
36b3dc3c8110d7806f986d2fe35a9cf6
70de51e8e19827a6533008fdff5c74e630212a65
F20110209_AAATPT friedel_c_Page_264.txt
ad6dfb4d1dc39329185d12bed87c67ad
2caa45f77af0b47d6d732083c94b05fb974c471e
29403 F20110209_AAAUZY friedel_c_Page_307.QC.jpg
436cce0bb820fa6ef7143d1f9ed7af16
c59a44e0d3b7079544b70dc961bcc859d76d79c9
F20110209_AAAUMN friedel_c_Page_159.jp2
eac637169614d30ff7350b58a61fa51a
6845f4abdf077c031222c89f0eb6ceb59d6f4f29
28598 F20110209_AAASFQ friedel_c_Page_300.QC.jpg
28ee33a9b06e049ceed275709d42b872
3a89cbc19d8c26c685934dfd35dbafd872f70598
F20110209_AAATCJ friedel_c_Page_049.tif
e9cf68a31dd72bcafa4da090e223c042
be4402be7732bdc28d83883ce5bd6137326c5c9b
F20110209_AAATPU friedel_c_Page_266.txt
e762eb8487949d67315ffd9f05b4ac45
3a8b80ddb9aa3629391d8d440d660ffd33216e2b
30280 F20110209_AAAUZZ friedel_c_Page_308.QC.jpg
5776aed5a5bf8483f86e71bb006f838f
75904aae562cfac7ef52430064968685e43e9550
1051976 F20110209_AAAUMO friedel_c_Page_161.jp2
bbc3eccc312fdaa85a0100d8b3cbb9c1
e0bb22c6f13b8e6e0e637941515b393ca63eb057
112225 F20110209_AAASFR friedel_c_Page_014.jpg
975b1f39505d16423fce43863a396c4a
d208c6a4993dd4d42804d67a2e25582adfe985b3
F20110209_AAATCK friedel_c_Page_050.tif
56e9845ba924728010160ae708613a34
e331b2344c7395fc21eb0eb8880917c8752c307a
2032 F20110209_AAATPV friedel_c_Page_267.txt
0970495c01b92a174389310e3a308414
853137ffaab8346dbf9445626bfcfdea3234ecc5
1048056 F20110209_AAAUMP friedel_c_Page_162.jp2
68d5e5b21fcfaeacd576ff8307c4a312
5f0f9d28ecdd763f87e713576530168433407514
57954 F20110209_AAASFS friedel_c_Page_338.pro
96e9c6e969ebe7285bf140a4f57095cd
e5d84450601d259c90af3686faa86b664b463986
F20110209_AAATCL friedel_c_Page_051.tif
1f62d1f50e2202349aeeb5edfa098718
b139878a2ed51c9238b059d81351f53ee2ca131b
1752 F20110209_AAATPW friedel_c_Page_268.txt
ba363f2bfd40a6d93f88cf42de8037ae
2d587c1baa5c89f30efe7f715dc257e8e0a892cf
F20110209_AAAUMQ friedel_c_Page_163.jp2
5a215f86ea21ffb6da70c012cc548b44
0ef120557b0da5ee5a33e8e655c9eaabf0063c28
1969 F20110209_AAASFT friedel_c_Page_240.txt
72d6eba18de9aa0c2846cb1e75dca114
d015b69d5cd46f8c04238146c6a88930919051c5
F20110209_AAATCM friedel_c_Page_052.tif
7de5b0108e4b722b606f059531ce8999
471f770b14647c23a262f33c0ff9fa589309e4f4
1640 F20110209_AAATPX friedel_c_Page_269.txt
5d5b578e3fb73e2edd070abe6c2491d8
a0efa34faf953d5539ecb9413118c677f6286fe3
F20110209_AAAUMR friedel_c_Page_164.jp2
4edd61874e95d8374ef9e3f3bbeb2d0e
a09a718ea0946fa74193ce8f896e1a12c848a471
8149 F20110209_AAASFU friedel_c_Page_142thm.jpg
a9027a8c26ce839e6a9e58e80f70550f
3e7db86581296efbceb794a599fd058087a416ea
F20110209_AAATCN friedel_c_Page_053.tif
97d4532cb2760469036a81545c7f6bc9
622732cbf8f17d11222be54b8888e4b3d21f52ce
1703 F20110209_AAATPY friedel_c_Page_270.txt
cc2665200b659743e6e7ce593a0642bd
db8c81980acba6ce88cb8b0fb91114805e25d4f3
1021120 F20110209_AAAUMS friedel_c_Page_166.jp2
0341eb9bc5cdba7aa1dad39e7a417fd4
dd4bbf71e223d133985266a67b6e9538126a0c9b
F20110209_AAASFV friedel_c_Page_036.tif
7e40cd4d3484668c83720d6bf0b3cfed
856dfa234c15eb7d9eba496163b26e9bb5522720
F20110209_AAATCO friedel_c_Page_055.tif
afb94274cbdc806223b290c412771537
12f18a99618aa20d3d166bad35f5b6039b466853
1872 F20110209_AAATPZ friedel_c_Page_274.txt
640cc6f9c821b99c3ba979c3838d1d0b
aa3d3ec9b5c46e328cdc11f8d70fc38d337254a4
F20110209_AAAUMT friedel_c_Page_167.jp2
1ac867619ed7e3f68b53fa7e194d527f
cd0a069e5ec0b3fc21dce9cbbd70a1208268ab4b
F20110209_AAASFW friedel_c_Page_215.tif
be869810786dc76c2c9c43c55ca6c2ed
685cd0159352b9874bb6b0a6551e2a371ac51ded
F20110209_AAATCP friedel_c_Page_057.tif
a2e32862de25c12f208548d64fbdecc9
6450152343a04f4c2574257ec2ac7f0f54c47bf6
F20110209_AAAUMU friedel_c_Page_168.jp2
16d3ea3d6c5ba11eef0c2b697bcea28b
68bd66adb1f55a23cc5fd617af47a257a7670c29
4781 F20110209_AAASFX friedel_c_Page_344.QC.jpg
fc2db8695f0fd446894768f3d9191605
78c20af7245d0cd9bbffcb35ea4c08a5f74c0f58
2525 F20110209_AAASYA friedel_c_Page_316.txt
0a60e3790c3e19c588a95c73092d8614
e494bc921dc333f740fba4464650cf854c52664f
F20110209_AAATCQ friedel_c_Page_058.tif
16df5cf6668273bc6890a3ce987cf513
0a21d595301892466922d00cb7f8d1c6bcc5ac4b
902448 F20110209_AAAUMV friedel_c_Page_170.jp2
04a3e11800a448f66cb9d58ad2bda657
0e12f9d6376a55fef7d24f75c2bf924c07bf62ef
8252 F20110209_AAASFY friedel_c_Page_276thm.jpg
b972fb5c4e1df7301259f59eee078593
3b8e71cdb1906d8fcaee464c48a40b0f1bf63006
1856 F20110209_AAASYB friedel_c_Page_092.txt
024785ee8d2b8a0af76f49d2c731125b
280993590dff4ea185f075c903ff35e7d8380f03
F20110209_AAATCR friedel_c_Page_060.tif
c32fc9ba78c912f38603553e6ca859cb
4828bf52d79f78a080e6e7db3964d922fd32131c
F20110209_AAAUMW friedel_c_Page_173.jp2
42778f20e4411be8590636d23cdfac2f
b86058b02ba361d58831e1138eae8b48a19eb91e
63983 F20110209_AAASFZ friedel_c_Page_342.jpg
c35c48c6931d8d7b4c3fe249561ef6f1
512edae9eb868d041716382a27cb4efc4cf960ed
7913 F20110209_AAASYC friedel_c_Page_235thm.jpg
3cd6f2a57242fd6f45c4db2c1966d621
f6bec3ecbbf1986b44cd2a7a2a3935f1500dd8d2
F20110209_AAATCS friedel_c_Page_062.tif
0b7e3260684f3f3656a211c5d12319a5
cd2ddd71f5a36aeed434eaa0a2a3ae7457a6c095
F20110209_AAAUMX friedel_c_Page_174.jp2
8590956b9afe6beece1ff5df45dc7ce3
10128daadafb6e119aaf1099dd9d3e25f1bbff16
F20110209_AAASYD friedel_c_Page_227.jp2
61ed0c0276c6cce67b8d6cb2ee19d4f7
a1db380891402a700fe07a13231e962f68113f3b
F20110209_AAATCT friedel_c_Page_064.tif
658c5798f5f2f4fbc632bd5c88d4f520
fbb39011bdf789a518e2b5c45bb95dbc8c69754d
F20110209_AAAUMY friedel_c_Page_175.jp2
2384644a1c1665cea4eaa395cd3557ae
c1c054819a048a003db8063ebf9186ec7f59f0c5
F20110209_AAASYE friedel_c_Page_116.tif
a4931b3557e4d9c26f00190b39059001
4d10a37c627687a86782a334d13a9302301b0371
F20110209_AAATCU friedel_c_Page_068.tif
476b2c6e95b3bcc5e8c1ecaac1313959
38d14f7cfe935541b6e3c3826dc460b54383bb74
639183 F20110209_AAAUMZ friedel_c_Page_177.jp2
10abe6e4b26ad2b34cba1a7f9286f588
7c4dbb4643c36e064fa665dec967dd05f5b4bd90
86313 F20110209_AAASYF friedel_c_Page_290.jpg
5b5040e1dab371cae476a53e69d016fb
a433c463a3c1627fe8c89aedff3851b56b20bf13
F20110209_AAATCV friedel_c_Page_070.tif
a3678695670e57d3d1cd444bf8db14ff
32b326ac629ee06f9a6a94a6b3295ee65ecc8a44
33284 F20110209_AAASYG friedel_c_Page_331.QC.jpg
940daadb4b580e3765066d431dc3d905
7de1bfb66168bc9d2ba133e07b2b3a47f3f9386a
F20110209_AAATCW friedel_c_Page_071.tif
fedfa21ce7e5ee8ec8222e251908105e
cbec89a1c3bd2a87bacb00c5393c589f61501f30
98321 F20110209_AAASYH friedel_c_Page_273.jpg
bd71eee67304d862097ce15db675c01a
c936b451e90f617b76c3a0414fa6b5abb7347375
F20110209_AAATCX friedel_c_Page_072.tif
05a5525ade727ebb74adb29ec7169812
adce9abcb076841b986f7e417acf1610e14c8c4c
54476 F20110209_AAATVA friedel_c_Page_135.pro
bd9f5074299989ae0737c214670a54e5
06892e5ebf2e6535f392772b504d0707d41e20fe
103308 F20110209_AAASYI friedel_c_Page_304.jpg
48525c058d4939f3941c962c5ac19a1e
9305bae1f2cbd78ee25b04e1afc0798cfbcde5e2
F20110209_AAATCY friedel_c_Page_073.tif
1a257c8449d85db5a93ca3c5863bb4f9
4da30819055d5bc62c29f0a35a01b322ee2bc5c0
53573 F20110209_AAATVB friedel_c_Page_137.pro
42f7d2ef91a5d8e65ca58607077842d3
16c8870a81c768f44b04ba729d3ea582bdf3978f
F20110209_AAASYJ friedel_c_Page_317.tif
5654736e36c906ecf7ac166bf1160415
c3fdf5d4d3d1e39400d727d43dfca122cfae4a5f
F20110209_AAATCZ friedel_c_Page_074.tif
83dda52301daac985fe2294b06b2154b
51350ff86c13934eb71b9b93892734ac74589947
57707 F20110209_AAATVC friedel_c_Page_139.pro
4f6033d1180ac25972061a56a225023c
97e493391ffb1998a178e5e6342c1fdadf743338
F20110209_AAASYK friedel_c_Page_332.tif
9f461cf9dc4281bb7d23e9288c9cb6f5
50a6ec3b08c10fc3cb16941639061d3801c90af6
56360 F20110209_AAATVD friedel_c_Page_140.pro
780ccefe8517b5789f87115e31e31b08
8ad7086fc2d16328a0f67847e84fedd48a243911
F20110209_AAASLA friedel_c_Page_084.txt
32975033625cb075ce1024a929d3acea
746ce23cce519913aaac8edc9a2bfad5322ad70e
100528 F20110209_AAASYL friedel_c_Page_233.jpg
07430d0fa536e5d34cecbdaa6abdd18b
a8857eb435f17185bf372365f6a0afb957d3681b
54525 F20110209_AAATVE friedel_c_Page_141.pro
6767173dbb3fd6886e533159045d350c
fbe0d32dab06a511c5141c84f683d11cf0afaedf
28039 F20110209_AAASLB friedel_c_Page_045.pro
8ecccb6ede9771b5de9d716f914e42d0
43fdcbb6457010e31a04b6ee254b820cf285035b
29708 F20110209_AAASYM friedel_c_Page_121.QC.jpg
9c6f0555cc97df96ab60d19a28008b48
be68ca7757f40a4155fffabe7a2794c9e8ef252d
54966 F20110209_AAATVF friedel_c_Page_143.pro
5fc597a5ee78ee7f2996039dbd3d3a54
57b56a996265d7312869aa2ef2bcf3047f63e0b4
73418 F20110209_AAASYN friedel_c_Page_034.pro
482d3ce2d76b4fde4efd8ed7241ea48f
69eb7291c266227a643bf185ed1cedb66c4e88d5
59909 F20110209_AAATVG friedel_c_Page_145.pro
dbcaaf30fb0c3d39963f96a0641eabb8
c236bdb3266dc248a04c0b88b929678c61e51bb6
F20110209_AAASLC friedel_c_Page_077.tif
bfa1b6370cee12341f4146a8138a20ee
9050c4d0f7b79665a8eda1cc7e06c04439f6fda7
31458 F20110209_AAAUSA friedel_c_Page_254.QC.jpg
2c6fbdc5cc69aaa941a44c1213bacf08
fdc7a48c4d148ce794b53874f020297c77ed4e9c
1787 F20110209_AAASYO friedel_c_Page_191.txt
153f09dd3878b40857e735c44c9ff22a
ac8632bae4489881433a7c8b449fa122c75e278e
56799 F20110209_AAATVH friedel_c_Page_146.pro
db0bb455f05e31cf8ee0a418cdd6a3a3
650bfc7ebd79ed9a534b4b459cf578d9221b9fd7
8377 F20110209_AAASLD friedel_c_Page_214thm.jpg
b94faf9e1302f4d582913d5e185305ad
e02d2de32b4363de586c40fd3fc3e23fb3f50e13
32702 F20110209_AAAUSB friedel_c_Page_068.QC.jpg
2491671f8346a4cffad8734f6eb8594e
867d21ad8affc868f45c206ba7d1cc1ab09890ce
F20110209_AAASYP friedel_c_Page_063thm.jpg
bbb8f95ac684113d8975e5e6dd148a57
fab8015a6a258ad940c6581f7307adec3513c8c8
57470 F20110209_AAATVI friedel_c_Page_147.pro
e8171d2b77202c96accd93aa498e232e
bd77759719b3db93799395d8889ad8b7d1da0b41
1996 F20110209_AAASLE friedel_c_Page_105.txt
78d9c815198f43dd872516d5720be0a4
63d109c53ba2c07f8e8231db4515355f054ca462
7490 F20110209_AAAUSC friedel_c_Page_241thm.jpg
a9766077d597e1e12a715b3026916891
4fbd8a4c8edd8e2f6ead6674d2f4c4e91cd2f2df
7693 F20110209_AAASYQ friedel_c_Page_173thm.jpg
09e5f9980b8d0fa10fe943c8b1f4a94e
a831a826f6c46115b6870263bd45030ae43e6215
51109 F20110209_AAATVJ friedel_c_Page_148.pro
ff73b757dfd0b1b034085d64d21a8862
be65bb658e280446126c5032faccb8b9ed0e78f9
F20110209_AAASLF friedel_c_Page_144.tif
f774dca8378bd07fe72bbfda3dc568dc
b8e07d2ffe027c6a61fb388620b0725cdbd63625
31381 F20110209_AAAUSD friedel_c_Page_067.QC.jpg
4229ccf4b4e5bebf91c110f9edaa7b44
4c3c7374ad5e9fcc42551d11d38b1f63c1e997d8
7897 F20110209_AAASYR friedel_c_Page_341thm.jpg
ad6033817c11014e5dbd2d808a7e7a90
2437e6c8733fea8ac83f3efeac669e99a861067e
55564 F20110209_AAATVK friedel_c_Page_149.pro
28b312775bee78500f2c814e74cda20c
126060c9f935e4835aa0c6f6bb3c68fe4171517a
56310 F20110209_AAASLG friedel_c_Page_156.pro
5f0af175ee17ebb211eb48cd147dc0f3
5e70c53480aa296efa1fef24b78c9c746f4fcda6
31074 F20110209_AAAUSE friedel_c_Page_099.QC.jpg
e053174bd8aff8d121748b1e2720429f
8ef18c698487d76c3b7bdb10bdaa23296a3634dd
F20110209_AAATIA friedel_c_Page_277.tif
82e1c91a5c9df65314630c115d2f67b8
20f824f9201a52f18f6da21748686f84875c35c9
2335 F20110209_AAASYS friedel_c_Page_143.txt
5ba288dd0b3e06634663b8f65e3f5aa1
6800da59ce3b89638d5d974b55972fa3c53721dd
55329 F20110209_AAATVL friedel_c_Page_153.pro
3ca42883ce3907901adf2277b1c4d385
91ae2769bbb7b36f1b7f6cf1aa086a899d4148bb
49041 F20110209_AAASLH friedel_c_Page_027.pro
3f36b1c11f881c8e41d64ead19ca7f17
af91bc5ea6d27fefc88ce59a915dcc7e330e4385
F20110209_AAAUSF friedel_c_Page_137.QC.jpg
80ca474ec7e416d6d6b63bae05d63c62
9087b6763b35d93c06c88d23555e0da6b58d0cab
F20110209_AAATIB friedel_c_Page_278.tif
d7f202b8cb3fdb4bd9c0d4b56d106405
9fb04402a101f379461af1ed8f3010886193924b
F20110209_AAASYT friedel_c_Page_181.jp2
d2def42c98da4471bb2dec186e2ebed0
ffbeed32d93caede931ec43dfecb8b4db74b4490
56679 F20110209_AAATVM friedel_c_Page_154.pro
6b9cd6eb2aa98ac1e27011edc00e03ed
1ce31d38758a2c8af6ad7094e383233dd1f8885c
40891 F20110209_AAASLI friedel_c_Page_019.pro
360c917c04f1f32171f9d1607c598e28
8e40e2638bb0825ff52969f405239c653eec938b
8323 F20110209_AAAUSG friedel_c_Page_325.QC.jpg
c715d1976ad19e9a1e58340c364981f1
5696b85e3e7f6291a9830e2c068b9acc945bcafc
F20110209_AAATIC friedel_c_Page_279.tif
7c619f6058974b7a0048055a7602da0c
add79dbf88918665b8f15df6282950b3bafeec0c
4118 F20110209_AAASYU friedel_c_Page_217thm.jpg
50930fc07d3d0d780530409181ee5b48
0a0404c032d3dd2833c891b157907afda4164bfa
56923 F20110209_AAATVN friedel_c_Page_157.pro
8b4ed33ed07c4dc171b87dde45de8604
305577b50d04c65024405eb0cf916da63368e789
8613 F20110209_AAAUSH friedel_c_Page_197thm.jpg
a9c4d0f8ebe5a46376c3d02a0fe74c0b
58b20d8180133a4ffdd7d4d5c7e96535b3e2b23b
F20110209_AAATID friedel_c_Page_281.tif
d7c30677d8f157d2f759fecf8437c9ab
8f4c60d8d35829afbafe93a96e2f8a77c164b520
61656 F20110209_AAASYV friedel_c_Page_316.pro
6d830374252f41031fdff0ca74d9fec5
7212259812bb31f47797309015ed07514ba5a065
57571 F20110209_AAATVO friedel_c_Page_158.pro
ce831997b8534da2d914eb9d8865ac69
b57aab4f8946f58d80ee49220fb395e2c3a6a817
F20110209_AAASLJ friedel_c_Page_307.tif
709a0a9331b962e74fd3c161517b8208
c5088ca3ca130645f38b7abeafd749c160450418
7270 F20110209_AAAUSI friedel_c_Page_290thm.jpg
b34c19f31ac2bd79f5ea4858cf915a13
930dd05b97098c959da572d9df93ba9931e3ca07
F20110209_AAATIE friedel_c_Page_282.tif
b796909ff520ee99010a98b56218fb49
2d2865bcf811fc6960608663c44f3480b0cfde1d
51747 F20110209_AAATVP friedel_c_Page_159.pro
aaa7f61da38d4827d885abc68ea76971
db7569a58a9b191d9192d277461905f15420edd4
F20110209_AAASLK friedel_c_Page_152.tif
17d05be280a7127a0b4ff1bb57aade79
51d51119cd7f0c70f4c6e235d504bdd3bc38efca
8119 F20110209_AAAUSJ friedel_c_Page_247thm.jpg
60e67f49f1bb044ff12961cffee68269
3c5ce3827dbeb0684136cc059264cad2517b824c
22394 F20110209_AAASYW friedel_c_Page_327.pro
3b9a308d9083034a493ff4144564595a
9a3b2c044630fc1abc42696678db5e1a8624a0a6
49618 F20110209_AAATVQ friedel_c_Page_160.pro
385142413a45970e8e917d8f8bb4289b
351f8d81dad24590c2f8905a9750847560aa1017
F20110209_AAASLL friedel_c_Page_282.QC.jpg
82b3415fd36acd6d5783fc4f70951626
1190a24ab9cfc3b29ff420837cb43d2786995ab8
7564 F20110209_AAAUSK friedel_c_Page_080thm.jpg
846ff7413bd0413698a01d64e72c60af
5826458ff72369569004ccf2c9c97c711d246585
F20110209_AAATIF friedel_c_Page_283.tif
efc391f8cdbc5eb9549cf11a6f13c779
3ec0f6bac99a18af2c3b6331b1db957f07b20565
2046 F20110209_AAASYX friedel_c_Page_258.txt
9c9f2e316c13b127193da8e77f994fcc
a2d8727173b81a508cc6799eb0c5731520492efb
52817 F20110209_AAATVR friedel_c_Page_161.pro
304a8d356a46da006c2eb72259a89dec
5e061612fc27581c63b1ec1e5eaa0fadc7c8d878
F20110209_AAASLM friedel_c_Page_243.txt
19d569be915831573d877b584c09d5b9
ad3637d2737298f311502cc1ae36aaae85f53ea8
4426 F20110209_AAAUSL friedel_c_Page_327thm.jpg
4424e7f4312fc53a1b12eddfcfed974b
693938a28d1c0b8c8fbbc3af593ab870710b7537
F20110209_AAATIG friedel_c_Page_284.tif
e0dc6407557eeaa055b8d6a8581d5c9f
a4dacc175752dacdf9913990c9499d1f07b5acb7
1916 F20110209_AAASYY friedel_c_Page_040.txt
a9e0601c695fd24296dd38e8d1dc7080
8650634ed4f3ab1e7a495a4286c63916b0427d44
95555 F20110209_AAAUFA friedel_c_Page_204.jpg
83563844b47e7d8d7a246727e5b7babc
3bb4ec1922c6fa9b39ec085a6776558bcf1deddf
47956 F20110209_AAASLN friedel_c_Page_204.pro
bb57518fb9ff99b0af14f89986b860a4
3a004bec46f8b5921b4bd033951040b455a592f2
26449 F20110209_AAAUSM friedel_c_Page_299.QC.jpg
1acabe7ed6b8100b692f2b0dc22bae09
62e14ba7b6ded928decff5dfbe9b682af5d893af
F20110209_AAATIH friedel_c_Page_286.tif
ade832f80934b4bf975d6c5967bd952d
64d5624162762200abed5d34b4ea1aa113afd8ab
F20110209_AAASYZ friedel_c_Page_012.tif
4824d516104994816c996ef33eb979c4
d42dd9b7f373b163724e8fc6d57c1b11eea19db3
47576 F20110209_AAATVS friedel_c_Page_162.pro
242b9bda5be77a657a64bf246eaee8c2
c6e38e5825124a5d895fa599e72215064c6127e9
F20110209_AAASLO friedel_c_Page_294.tif
2835b3ab4c7998fe154d43d743d9c679
54e8d3fa5b3772d60f92d04047cbf6b5447fd90a
33129 F20110209_AAAUSN friedel_c_Page_024.QC.jpg
e8866d207f5a6c97c651136824f135b5
0e71137160abd4cf96f6fdd7f8d98bf73410bb44
F20110209_AAATII friedel_c_Page_289.tif
a82159109bf45209b99f802d7a5e2c11
c7ff1993da7f0c78dd4bc1cb5561fbb48cac20d6
99066 F20110209_AAAUFB friedel_c_Page_205.jpg
e9438abb657f91754406b589f11311db
dd41b358ae0e72e5a2b4f871e6cb9526980d0257
47670 F20110209_AAATVT friedel_c_Page_163.pro
506033e9f9cd0c57659e7bf4dcefd78d
1127ed604674d6cebff7b8bdedca1a3ada6afafb
F20110209_AAASLP friedel_c_Page_053.jp2
2b6d8a442fea2702c5699d8a77508a26
178969c19612fbc1120ee6b253f2f43ec42cfc31
F20110209_AAATIJ friedel_c_Page_291.tif
06a1f12228c32ab099c4fd949d44bf8f
348a16b31aadd755c7e1da49db8298d11d5a35bc
102361 F20110209_AAAUFC friedel_c_Page_208.jpg
cc2a883720ec3d4cfc078771abca44ed
941536a4b4df6c1bfaf7c438c4f195ded1540abe
48586 F20110209_AAATVU friedel_c_Page_164.pro
d1c84e0e17428bb841a5f5b7680dd93c
506abce87e447f2a07a935728e0d5092cf543238
F20110209_AAASLQ friedel_c_Page_107.tif
840d13671e194620908809d9e6b460ff
97595aba35de3858e4c7f7f8d2258cb97e7e94f9
8441 F20110209_AAAUSO friedel_c_Page_215thm.jpg
766385f2735339e4eed7c792092eb59f
6514543961a3bd306e0dd84461fb0489e31749d8
F20110209_AAATIK friedel_c_Page_292.tif
f1a44ddc10362b706f34a65b78a62774
ea45fcc1019c16d05ba1d11ece8eb747bf51f2a7
99079 F20110209_AAAUFD friedel_c_Page_209.jpg
826b702ccd772fa72cd6664bc1c675aa
4de855e8f22b26708a83673de4f3bed73b195078
52922 F20110209_AAATVV friedel_c_Page_165.pro
01caa5a93e44fb477e43d76468af0f68
faf45cc6eb04e93c15241501b571f84ffc7397c2
F20110209_AAASLR friedel_c_Page_208.jp2
43b6079a8ef742d8a20653be782a6951
fde9f7cf6f2882e48f496ee1d66ae562eb0d340b
F20110209_AAAUSP friedel_c_Page_264thm.jpg
b6e23622648d18e117d9f96c644d4187
24b727b598c2e99cc30c565e7135cf42628970f0
F20110209_AAATIL friedel_c_Page_293.tif
99a98cfdb2e0a78ec65832a8878b9245
ab003e4a82662589079a82f139b82ea345289b35
97502 F20110209_AAAUFE friedel_c_Page_210.jpg
13079ba160d743319313371df65c0278
3cb97f963d280f9b5ff22e47b4aa10393830fb51
45658 F20110209_AAATVW friedel_c_Page_166.pro
cd1ffd4b43d0e4dff6f34f209f2a70b8
d958c352ef0ff812fd3c13c126fad9a6dbd3e702
F20110209_AAASLS friedel_c_Page_169.jp2
375e75ba62058bf39a94cbebe4c930d3
d40e1953498f6042035f1169c34d5d691af1dea3
31358 F20110209_AAAUSQ friedel_c_Page_252.QC.jpg
1a14d87cf1af9964bb36ee46b1af298d
96194cc95c664cf406fefe5b848808657a311a0f
F20110209_AAATIM friedel_c_Page_295.tif
84a5dec944006921356c79b0115d0ea6
dfae237d519f556df19401a311d794a4613c8e38
57189 F20110209_AAAUFF friedel_c_Page_211.jpg
7fab62e49bffb86694c3178178a928fa
a0199f8f88d627e24da375658e1fdd5469c1c74a
49106 F20110209_AAATVX friedel_c_Page_168.pro
6e166615fedab552b5731654ff63655e
81c333480707e3f65453a6fd8eb27fd8c3d861b9
2374 F20110209_AAASLT friedel_c_Page_337.txt
40eaa2a9bf8d2e1c20c574c97cbe10fb
61615b7f3fa72d38f496a009e9ed260360c42c0f
31989 F20110209_AAAUSR friedel_c_Page_059.QC.jpg
edc1526810af66f6646a1ec9c700f60a
c0abd51a95021bf779a770c4713779e42e0a9c17
F20110209_AAATIN friedel_c_Page_296.tif
067a0fb7197be235796c80ecf8752628
94adff42d70ee485713b720b3273fcbef08610c8
56748 F20110209_AAAUFG friedel_c_Page_212.jpg
dfe09f029b5746328ff151cf00fea6c1
dd9958df635e922e84aa332555557ff9b042d3b1
48288 F20110209_AAATVY friedel_c_Page_169.pro
d9ef6d29bfa4b6a3c48002507d0090cd
15eb4dbe39002671405f380ae7fc95675860946d
1819 F20110209_AAASLU friedel_c_Page_213.txt
9c1d1a325bd7fba2f374e2201d6d3009
0d7b54d4ceff9c7f0e65de113ee72148db6411aa
F20110209_AAAVCA friedel_c_Page_049thm.jpg
296c6e44f395a6c0e76497cb50f7b317
a139573eba4946256bdef20b95363ed69cee776e
4203 F20110209_AAAUSS friedel_c_Page_223thm.jpg
1b0b125508727183471dd99fe7882d1c
c4639b66cd85501f6ad993ba6544a345eec08142
F20110209_AAATIO friedel_c_Page_297.tif
93253809f1dec30640bf85806d24ca00
f4ce4293dbea2a83d88bb37a361d665809ee097f
93815 F20110209_AAAUFH friedel_c_Page_216.jpg
3571df21c049f88721df160a03c00553
dc4fab4265588338b6ffef1ec9b5ee9c27732af4
40027 F20110209_AAATVZ friedel_c_Page_170.pro
f92986de220e9e6b40da91d256c2341c
91abc2dafc6486ea8c52bfa637a5f3c7c3f83226
52484 F20110209_AAASLV friedel_c_Page_285.pro
62d935a36a7c3da378c4531c94f253b5
1a57345379df2ee46a0f670649e3722d1b8834bd
8404 F20110209_AAAVCB friedel_c_Page_050thm.jpg
f344b99a82da0939476f012483b7cdd8
e5bb94cb1d2b72bc8fd96c4615f1ae196939ad04
6512 F20110209_AAAUST friedel_c_Page_170thm.jpg
4c0472c74c716a5e424ce8d65581cb19
d265205843b35a67ecf572ef12d5e6974bb35b90
F20110209_AAATIP friedel_c_Page_298.tif
4d7ad0e9e2e27689f5038d2988281ef4
c62b34d51d24c75c8bda5f8d4afc133cb2bcc384
56160 F20110209_AAAUFI friedel_c_Page_217.jpg
208574f4ff02b88573fe8fa2227fff80
dea885a48a2426dc8ea41da4f09911b86865eb81
33626 F20110209_AAASLW friedel_c_Page_069.QC.jpg
b0f5d2e4bbf2f8a261582f32f049be63
0655e71365125079911225e55f94b03196ec6481
8413 F20110209_AAAVCC friedel_c_Page_052thm.jpg
3bd378b3d1149736ed84263cf701d53f
36b6dd91679040f81c081d82acb42b06d4380eea
30915 F20110209_AAAUSU friedel_c_Page_123.QC.jpg
6057a485993918acf2bf0be2d397482c
7b8330dc63385dd6245a15abb18b7251ff146fc9
F20110209_AAATIQ friedel_c_Page_299.tif
98253a439d1d08763ccb0ec04697dfa9
438cb00e2d2f3371ee1d85874108647110c0cc81
97511 F20110209_AAAUFJ friedel_c_Page_220.jpg
8623ff80f22ca1867adeaad6a88bf4ee
b310616f746eb047304aa5139a3908c2c9387afd
F20110209_AAASLX friedel_c_Page_056.tif
8415679699e4855a673a2fb0f1a95a7c
5342701105c4c01bd6fc1480ebfa79765ee30b9a
8133 F20110209_AAAVCD friedel_c_Page_053thm.jpg
e0fb35338eeac4de93e44fce1dfffbdf
f724ba22e8e0cccfb933b02dafe9627bd265564a
8300 F20110209_AAAUSV friedel_c_Page_133thm.jpg
8cc2bb86f9f255003fd7baaa47aa0d3e
eb12cb631f1eaad616c08d315ca99c1a3dbde733
F20110209_AAATIR friedel_c_Page_300.tif
c3d64e5c3395ed5ba55f56a692b28b58
f652124c5176b43b8d82719e24ddf6ff8e3ed403
89252 F20110209_AAAUFK friedel_c_Page_221.jpg
ff5b5e9d46feec805ff8634504e9c71e
56a439afd5cfedbb5c452002338f94054ffe6295
F20110209_AAASLY friedel_c_Page_013.tif
4488bf2c938e204e4996dca08a289a48
30554f70740af9a41f12fa7631807ff780c8e413
8121 F20110209_AAAVCE friedel_c_Page_054thm.jpg
08f63bb719423cf5fbf1caeb7e59b0d6
cf4ec3b98ff27fe799e28184406c805b7ae61e1c
8150 F20110209_AAAUSW friedel_c_Page_119thm.jpg
094a8388ed2d2cbebb9f81614f45e636
1e9cf50c8379d39e21b44bf6da83a39b933425d9
F20110209_AAATIS friedel_c_Page_301.tif
674796dd6bcd9543af71e05bf315fa53
141e4e920ae4bcbdf001e288bd75698771585a68
90659 F20110209_AAAUFL friedel_c_Page_222.jpg
563f0ec2c5bc7952b2c4a90db343111b
337aa74e74b96a48c3441bc7933ad4002a6e707a
99421 F20110209_AAASLZ friedel_c_Page_038.jpg
1d8bb89465141e60c7672994c483be03
fdad4c0d35a4bb9a3a83ba6e8ce997ef02aede61
8232 F20110209_AAAVCF friedel_c_Page_055thm.jpg
c77a29d606441659e26216e5d5b6cc47
5b963bb0410587e2e773019cf0137359cd4080d0
8446 F20110209_AAAUSX friedel_c_Page_187thm.jpg
376e27bce2423221e8c393c3d3b311d6
52e4a99f070107e432317a47484ce643cee1b307
F20110209_AAATIT friedel_c_Page_303.tif
e8475853bb40165486111d4f1e413296
566a9d27da81ea68a838b6eca41db23332342022
57829 F20110209_AAAUFM friedel_c_Page_223.jpg
21f2da41dcadda03d8eee5898f7f5c0b
450552752ae049816845718c6f848911a566228a
F20110209_AAAVCG friedel_c_Page_056thm.jpg
0d4508ff2b24d8274cb93f587fd04d38
f21a4ed6c1547fbe2f7cf6c3ab42cc59a7cf6aff
33271 F20110209_AAAUSY friedel_c_Page_276.QC.jpg
3e44c93ee8fcb17ab398ee23d9b9040f
0928e7ef024dd4d4b1b2b0b6922a51e43bb9a616
F20110209_AAATIU friedel_c_Page_304.tif
d0f20198681e9b14678c369f7da199b7
75bb36e6ca7851dbf87f645ea722e3dae4274fb1
77306 F20110209_AAAUFN friedel_c_Page_224.jpg
68f36de44e6cd68b4c371a7f6e974523
26086cba1fb4518d096f511fa620e044b97c52a4
F20110209_AAARUA friedel_c_Page_183.txt
7bfe502102fbb407ef66e06948072d01
0642c5dbd316c0c67a8d529823bc99a60d2b5606
8240 F20110209_AAAVCH friedel_c_Page_058thm.jpg
b2727eeed15191c402886c39115d24aa
34b798672f2b1b960412fc85eae2f0d45bdeb95c
16075 F20110209_AAAUSZ friedel_c_Page_100.QC.jpg
b0ee39ae07808f86be277f9c9ebca041
da9b63db471236fa94f48e6d2953748a0092695a
F20110209_AAATIV friedel_c_Page_308.tif
9b491cf6f33508816242a3aaaed40acf
435c1511b2e238b7dd42ca6243836c47557359f2
104251 F20110209_AAAUFO friedel_c_Page_225.jpg
24bb64474648764bc7b9a7806dda9597
145608ec10a7c4f8c84c4aca3cd452a52a4ba6e8
31535 F20110209_AAARUB friedel_c_Page_210.QC.jpg
f6806c515d088e1fb0d31776e018f784
fab431b3bf8ab36d81c0c4ed004b1010f6bdbb06
7907 F20110209_AAAVCI friedel_c_Page_059thm.jpg
742579e891d41394ed1c166d535616c1
411f281dad323f5df8a1a285db63f36eda314e8a
F20110209_AAATIW friedel_c_Page_310.tif
e6a4b7ed17afa7088f9db00f37e12ee4
368d9117f0f7fb442381689e5faac843a789b420
97840 F20110209_AAAUFP friedel_c_Page_227.jpg
1aaee3e75787c2ad7ceb7e741260bb1f
caf5326cdcb17f26304a522df2f5540ee1ffd1cf
54631 F20110209_AAARUC friedel_c_Page_011.pro
c3d1d54e92184d5f2ca252535c1abd5a
f10033ede8ea8a1153b65d43faaf906c75e61875
F20110209_AAAVCJ friedel_c_Page_061thm.jpg
d33c427492e01316886f22fb9f577f30
289d7579d79a4bd68eb98c240bac63e59097b5f9
F20110209_AAATIX friedel_c_Page_312.tif
eac2e3ddd49632cbee6029de7f970541
ee07d30e5f2b1ae518d6c2dcc7c53e9ccdcafb2a
105031 F20110209_AAAUFQ friedel_c_Page_228.jpg
64bdca36b913e56ada39a95c45a4c529
d0793643b606cad21d3906cbb964b31332d3008b
1051879 F20110209_AAARUD friedel_c_Page_335.jp2
307b6a515311f6e3d784acc29469decc
c78ecf8147326791e9daf36e52a0e19df74c7af6
8271 F20110209_AAAVCK friedel_c_Page_064thm.jpg
ca24624075d0140c0885ceb98307e074
596add7f4ff1158256a375078148a29ca3d88d87
F20110209_AAATIY friedel_c_Page_313.tif
556c54ea1d98a5a23325fb6bf49b9e76
750e36bb2f00a73e51d512e3bd413fa252c36e8c
96614 F20110209_AAAUFR friedel_c_Page_229.jpg
97cd681e25c05c7384f2f38bc8e88109
14cb267ae8bc6155df433a9e4491ec3dbbb6f93a
30677 F20110209_AAARUE friedel_c_Page_239.QC.jpg
53e493f7f18eff4ddd339d7096ef2c0a
d66e3cbcdf428f1878a6141d6379e79a9cdec8ef
8040 F20110209_AAAVCL friedel_c_Page_065thm.jpg
ef463bdbe0372c4d25ec2189e6e447f8
be97b5232576089219a595203cd59d06d131c903
F20110209_AAATIZ friedel_c_Page_314.tif
c9da0cd3d02c1bd40da5e14139e83321
bd942863df21784dbb13be433c9036e29a354776
97145 F20110209_AAAUFS friedel_c_Page_230.jpg
ad5805a4ad7f4e87f7055ca039350246
6001dfc750ad57c59a7a2c3d08d0b26679b58aab
F20110209_AAARUF friedel_c_Page_233.txt
2b809d9f0c44d4484c9d1eeb4e3b03eb
747445eeac8ebaf6e60ea539f9084857f657ee60
7924 F20110209_AAAVCM friedel_c_Page_066thm.jpg
3b86c9067e38d3e3bfa1949288d6541b
2ed7855b14e58f6fa1c3000a83a067464101a418
95906 F20110209_AAAUFT friedel_c_Page_231.jpg
ee9f9512e2867aaab0aa2006fb4f2d91
45917e89c528e4ea42f50d18a8e14f76fa119904
F20110209_AAARUG friedel_c_Page_272.tif
f27298b73aee82302ae888d468f35459
1a28fb79cce27665c7d1e3c2ababb52bc6c1225e
7971 F20110209_AAAVCN friedel_c_Page_067thm.jpg
f83e397c0122720486b1986fcab9eab1
dd300053c16eb42f4c16aff1b70aec542f8eb722
99189 F20110209_AAAUFU friedel_c_Page_234.jpg
cc7c5b323dff975def7ab1cd8a75d374
fa56e935bc5b711e88dadcba5b72fe9279c2ea2d
33943 F20110209_AAARUH friedel_c_Page_265.QC.jpg
6aafe8c548dbe73edb6c7cb4fd56ec3b
ead67908d6c935c2180a609b6dcb851a38aa3a21
F20110209_AAASRA friedel_c_Page_022.tif
6a3d3f80b2322ab562f7fa48239abe5b
19fb55c8c0666d7af1c26d2c5ad0f9c8f008b7ad
7882 F20110209_AAAVCO friedel_c_Page_069thm.jpg
e8b7d6427c1c6bea26087de989563872
d4cc6259a55bb44542d8b3c0f32c8c32a8285ab4
96578 F20110209_AAAUFV friedel_c_Page_235.jpg
82e9c32c2282b206e4be56c508a617bd
5fa97777a9bc88883ff750af1d4f91adae7335b0
F20110209_AAARUI friedel_c_Page_087.jp2
d13d9b5689e97daeeb8d1662ac8e14b6
43d7dd5f8188e2b491f51dbbaecfab09871cccba
1443 F20110209_AAASRB friedel_c_Page_036.txt
1936197d587496f79b788d9b91d13be2
02248eee92ff14e660d432566d62f8758b945260
F20110209_AAAVCP friedel_c_Page_070thm.jpg
866125bef98636be6dc3e96ac76bb1d2
e7228908632e7c935647a004a23ca7ba68bdf090
93938 F20110209_AAAUFW friedel_c_Page_236.jpg
c1270c273ed1a25b049cfd1a7622e529
583f21382978c47b71aaa9cbff739941991d4f57
49904 F20110209_AAARUJ friedel_c_Page_104.pro
67b2c934e0d8ff1d9c8dafab525159ba
ea24d20d29fbca2b5d93b267181d187f4ac195f7
7609 F20110209_AAASRC friedel_c_Page_027thm.jpg
eaaad216fc56f086d4e11f1f8fa5b316
6d226fd1b01d95145204bb58d9c420a03f0de801
F20110209_AAAVCQ friedel_c_Page_072thm.jpg
7c0064508f04617233a8e647af248cf3
1108f1aecc87d2a67e97268cf56cb4b31ba468dd
34106 F20110209_AAAUYA friedel_c_Page_228.QC.jpg
b3fc872689728cacab898746c39a5cc6
5386cd4e988eb8201a6a91b1489d589d9f9cdcc2
100792 F20110209_AAAUFX friedel_c_Page_237.jpg
060b1700a9feb43cd18702ec722a0f54
db5d80974f82ce5c6123e7357d3b0892c7bd17aa
F20110209_AAARUK friedel_c_Page_096thm.jpg
130f5a67cbc14a93375232bfdf4a31f7
9ac52e63ea6ee1b5fae9c7b4e92bb9b2383e10c2
F20110209_AAASRD friedel_c_Page_256.jp2
5cf134bf3feb40a9ec92d476c10e8195
394cbe8aab488a7215735054184c7e607f0d5488
8059 F20110209_AAAVCR friedel_c_Page_073thm.jpg
f25fffea66d3e15643f1d441dcbcbdc5
32963d23d4bb6e611e68d804702a1f382384e438
31184 F20110209_AAAUYB friedel_c_Page_231.QC.jpg
aa6c6feb4f4d4dfea7200d26d80a1472
8f7bd08e48f6f2caddc91810b8eeca1ad6d167ea
90776 F20110209_AAAUFY friedel_c_Page_240.jpg
9622aa209841c2954374b105ac711aab
e5358559b173180ff05927c444ccae1f2f5ccc34
54071 F20110209_AAARUL friedel_c_Page_131.pro
9ae64ee7815f401f80a3a95dc96c4d82
6ccb08dfbd3752ef7eb4da519eb79f9ef256b70f
F20110209_AAASRE friedel_c_Page_020.QC.jpg
c57223421596370d5d4d0119803fd923
fa515a2e4ec6bd0f7c6781124e317294b0288930
8109 F20110209_AAAVCS friedel_c_Page_074thm.jpg
60f7a60215fce3582a1c1a05e12d1842
1bbf1df6c0999b3312ca3d398094c6839b3e8989
31981 F20110209_AAAUYC friedel_c_Page_233.QC.jpg
4b6239a5e5a1c7fc2039280670dafad3
b7fd9cda179034be5470fdb1b9c03a908a8f0db2
93937 F20110209_AAAUFZ friedel_c_Page_241.jpg
42ed12a5c396a41e2094780a3cbdf021
72bc0d899a4e14c5b23dcf433869fe48a3fac891
2436 F20110209_AAARUM friedel_c_Page_012.txt
c57b678bf658ee8e48bd84f255809aef
97ea331bbda0f2f6978ed0d46df1c4d1ed34b99a
46700 F20110209_AAASRF friedel_c_Page_123.pro
eb19a5b4091aa12fb6e1c37ae234a9e2
7fafca03fa7ec19e1520fd00fdabd9fa91935052
F20110209_AAAVCT friedel_c_Page_076thm.jpg
d9fe64a3f8ddc0bc5cae4b633a7e9d48
9fd67922bb868ce0aa8a08570e823c331366ae33
32453 F20110209_AAAUYD friedel_c_Page_234.QC.jpg
e6b686d0bbd77ce11cb933622514eb0a
83bab378d2a18faa7ee9f2a9f5c21c7eb654556d
35291 F20110209_AAARUN friedel_c_Page_036.pro
edeb480a1938c823769eec7331e05cdb
6fa8d63db17c6489bde16a85ca843ee16f4bd4b6
F20110209_AAASRG friedel_c_Page_067.tif
e4470b6d7c37dabd39db72401491d14f
a007a418d2ffe78b461bbd9b26f1488695bfec61
8346 F20110209_AAAVCU friedel_c_Page_078thm.jpg
cba3643b4c51b5aca2cdc31c5258e644
945b338e15a2aac47f50b04b72a48e1a89271b1b
31123 F20110209_AAAUYE friedel_c_Page_235.QC.jpg
e8e1b5f1434b255291e172f1a3113225
cf895acf8aae36331cb1c046fa0ce6afd2d9a78c
2419 F20110209_AAATOA friedel_c_Page_178.txt
e6f35987cbf08d0efe2b80c8c892afb5
986d43dae0dd62c13fdf5a9286aab88d7c1b36ad
F20110209_AAARUO friedel_c_Page_101.txt
eee809c4ed8c7e53a6ed44ba9be9aaf0
80fdd4e582530bf46a0d5cb6ae01bd9f101eb490
45524 F20110209_AAASRH friedel_c_Page_236.pro
72d833bc8d55f0bd74dbb684922a5d3a
4e0b8475ee9e241b4c0732147790dc7460fb6ada
8056 F20110209_AAAVCV friedel_c_Page_079thm.jpg
6307fe31338318ee45a96b44b59d777a
977645e6c161ccdd0352d684cc31cc95d8f62ff0
30369 F20110209_AAAUYF friedel_c_Page_236.QC.jpg
1e8af25fe4646a5e10a82124213e1dad
922f8bb262b24863bf577dcf1c1bbf05957fdcc1
1810 F20110209_AAATOB friedel_c_Page_179.txt
634f38c218e8b6574d344c98ba8fe474
acbea03fe3e9f161e981918fd759e583507cb409
18108 F20110209_AAARUP friedel_c_Page_008.QC.jpg
86d24ed2d8074aafe610aee08b4eb7a1
d2fa6e2268c853d14d91eaa7d4cbdca501378158
33286 F20110209_AAASRI friedel_c_Page_273.QC.jpg
6162b401c5b7e24080e981375b5dd69c
33b87cab3c8148a13eedeb25fa8f199474063561
7219 F20110209_AAAVCW friedel_c_Page_082thm.jpg
11d3bff48ac751e91274c9ca1840076e
091e7f0cbcad8e0c64a41fa99828e07c5851c756
32477 F20110209_AAAUYG friedel_c_Page_237.QC.jpg
cd79ddf211c7a5d0a3bcb7e8517c1dc7
c1df11ddd841bcb4d4fc7810352e38a212d0903f
1934 F20110209_AAATOC friedel_c_Page_181.txt
3982fec37c0647ada9f72d2047f49fea
2e8f6352b8c1cb9fb388bddd1c723d9d3690c022
52035 F20110209_AAARUQ friedel_c_Page_022.pro
c0faa4d2c47b585e13373fe4e3b48356
6888c3ec85572140f586630e48aeb1aad87eb18b
33892 F20110209_AAASRJ friedel_c_Page_062.QC.jpg
b043bc537f7430fddd27dca48bfb0131
8b4e00d0babd0d898aec94ad6fa1a8f15a05626c
8503 F20110209_AAAVCX friedel_c_Page_083thm.jpg
528637bf9bc769a13b2fbdf0ecdf0ae9
e81badd070ef227aae2b6ea8b61fedc5e4a911aa
F20110209_AAAUYH friedel_c_Page_238.QC.jpg
56a4949182ade459dd4f159ab7d2986b
a27672c9a0ee40b2d23c231eafabec199c893ffc
1917 F20110209_AAATOD friedel_c_Page_182.txt
bb7b54e21bbcb9a63fb068ade3c1e4f0
c89c8e06eb6de7cabe9284d725af3e70b0656c9a
96821 F20110209_AAARUR friedel_c_Page_119.jpg
6aea920d3ed38dabe451ef06957a9ade
5ee91d8c79c15cc6366f92f199ee3cdc359ffc4c
F20110209_AAASRK friedel_c_Page_328.tif
1cd488309ec7dec9179027d8d8e445df
b11c44a23cb972f44a47882c3a5c8e2f935e0910
7602 F20110209_AAAVCY friedel_c_Page_086thm.jpg
6bcc072211edf7d7abfca1ed5f599298
7cf1fc043617c70c762091a9c5701fe75f093268
29871 F20110209_AAAUYI friedel_c_Page_240.QC.jpg
4d837bd80d6a8eb084d210749fc154a0
c64f192ecda3e5518915fab180270d338560300f
8092 F20110209_AAASEA friedel_c_Page_275thm.jpg
e984960814f1f7a0174501499e402c6b
6583482ec10ba89aaa8020ac48b7dbcdc7bf96a7
7734 F20110209_AAARUS friedel_c_Page_013thm.jpg
67713666504f4ff0c42f4c4a71ae8e1b
8c1fc1e7dc0a86cefb4ed4acdc3f15a943548a2a
101752 F20110209_AAASRL friedel_c_Page_063.jpg
8887fb03507933dcf584f94242f04d63
452ea729aecd912df0e768d771c108bf8d433632
2433 F20110209_AAATOE friedel_c_Page_184.txt
5e6dc23ae928872b14945a8b226a1acd
ea508e9b592e35cfcf45c364813aca2257e2c0fa
7852 F20110209_AAAVCZ friedel_c_Page_090thm.jpg
fb8544b52b71bcaab036a9c14ef639ad
abceb6a34f5177636a3d793b93bad054cf9f9ddf
29789 F20110209_AAAUYJ friedel_c_Page_241.QC.jpg
29132638e5baeda1097b1f686a263908
c9e7e96fc1dba7fe9acd49c0986e13367b313802
260376 F20110209_AAASEB friedel_c_Page_325.jp2
d9019335e1db22851e23c93f0d44b5ae
a9d672773bb3f29b21900402b3dd7d509a8c786e
2168 F20110209_AAASRM friedel_c_Page_246.txt
d970b7f4b5444ed65c6323a066badad2
cc9195f783b96a3aa144f32c58b7eb6581c9cbf6
2096 F20110209_AAATOF friedel_c_Page_187.txt
8e99e620e0acc14153dfeb9c8c3e3827
83c542ba2e289ce133fb4fc499c9841f46177104
32299 F20110209_AAAUYK friedel_c_Page_242.QC.jpg
4b1843b7333edc18c06ec9af05c857ad
0708f38233538b873ae5c6bf64bee202b8106668
15014 F20110209_AAARUT friedel_c_Page_344.jpg
02ef85bdf3f3de026b0b5d8e767070e3
e8be007d3aacc1c4be9ac4f856bde79156afd980
8764 F20110209_AAASRN friedel_c_Page_122thm.jpg
09a9f6adfeee334661a7e27cb112b57c
298e3ebdb8c3b16c1a84611bebf3ed9a8d0c5657
2445 F20110209_AAATOG friedel_c_Page_190.txt
b64332696bf4d639a425910da8cce1bf
95357bd580ac700bb12e94888405eb603a7a1a6d
32793 F20110209_AAAUYL friedel_c_Page_244.QC.jpg
0dd60ae8435ff0171d0133d2a997339c
1de40d2c754c877f43279f167522cc2d68543867
F20110209_AAAULA friedel_c_Page_102.jp2
ac5931e485711d97d9134c876e221c93
029aee2e35c3a34c757656f78c13e94d468bc9ff
1102 F20110209_AAASEC friedel_c_Page_319.txt
af25f07538b09813da3ac00322aa96d5
f162c449c5081684cf3c4a03e5d6e3615e67c1ee
8438 F20110209_AAARUU friedel_c_Page_321.pro
f3f65c063c9063b32383f4d0d0e09c91
7c4c51d017c5091bed670f7321c9bf422c287346
F20110209_AAASRO friedel_c_Page_332.jp2
505a51d93a77a3fa7a1126d5468b8f39
56b07ab3a7f6c72d3802e53727e0902fcfe613a6
1748 F20110209_AAATOH friedel_c_Page_194.txt
bf079eddbe303b50edbf4127d7e47662
9576f516fc808f31c933fcc2c2ddc02b47122795
32072 F20110209_AAAUYM friedel_c_Page_246.QC.jpg
fb2de4b357bad12768b9eea15d4a1d7c
2c42acb457513d5de0c4652742a44070f1f76437
F20110209_AAAULB friedel_c_Page_103.jp2
ce3eb25d3f447d6abd84115e56b1dca1
5a8adaf9992b6e2b97c1e78ad249f72b505cc950
2382 F20110209_AAASED friedel_c_Page_325thm.jpg
4548bf2ad6a7997503d44dedcd6103f6
3e203cbc3d204410fc2361163171cb307e2f84ae
722609 F20110209_AAARUV friedel_c_Page_015.jp2
4cf994e8ef018d1affd6e3c81180b3f0
8dfe0b6fceae87f7a126bdab1c187ad2019f134d
F20110209_AAATOI friedel_c_Page_196.txt
bc8603cf657c3586a7aba0fae3807968
bc7af8d69030336bda18a333c1a5f2c21cbd32ab
32939 F20110209_AAAUYN friedel_c_Page_249.QC.jpg
9cad372b6fd09724b149683bab8567de
609b879ce06a2da651cb4e306109cc96ff0312ea
964387 F20110209_AAAULC friedel_c_Page_104.jp2
b238146162074001e620e4c8e613be76
7f23e499267f05cfe4ac4c3524ebfa9207cfd608
106006 F20110209_AAASEE friedel_c_Page_053.jpg
9a6e2381a822f784c14cc54f99303f23
c4869d36c089503983054a844f6571dcc6c6b4bc
F20110209_AAARUW friedel_c_Page_268.tif
c79bdf0e1c54a9e857fe06ccddd791e0
866b5e65ad06e0e2d866444ebd36cd356c917f21
F20110209_AAASRP friedel_c_Page_197.jp2
f12c3c3090e599728496ee7f21e68cab
c5e5033ea147844a872870b5876363ba36811f04
2364 F20110209_AAATOJ friedel_c_Page_197.txt
67cf93425bbed1382f8be74e69c588a8
e68c7bcd0e7604ae9f80eda843f131e4bef182e6
33986 F20110209_AAAUYO friedel_c_Page_250.QC.jpg
44e4d7935fb9c4225dce267cf687f204
4294dbca6694759cd13d17e38982fb204576493a
F20110209_AAAULD friedel_c_Page_105.jp2
43994bd974054728a96602bb81704e65
6f179d19697b442f1975cbf00e16621b64b4aafc
2177 F20110209_AAASEF friedel_c_Page_244.txt
a1d80b699263ce97f1cfd12b9b8075e6
e0c850e21f137e14a881fa525241cd8a3daf7de7
32550 F20110209_AAARUX friedel_c_Page_208.QC.jpg
dd9bcc253555d39d0b51cbeb266f8cda
287574233249326ecd1941746d3ad4b0a1c56d0d
F20110209_AAASRQ friedel_c_Page_173.tif
3b1e99e89814dd9bdc0e7b54bc7e6aab
b3870fb777170eeebc8b405dfcf5ee3db65d1ef1
1809 F20110209_AAATOK friedel_c_Page_198.txt
ff2947c88ac54db7b380eae996ea230f
06031e4dd61008bbcdc82c358f7fccb05158d763
30665 F20110209_AAAUYP friedel_c_Page_251.QC.jpg
8e5ef9f3d33956202ebff7c7b9cc143e
c78f5200cafb4198e687a7091f43206684d6e348
1032607 F20110209_AAAULE friedel_c_Page_107.jp2
9f94dd38a7d1262c0e650eb2e7dd7f6f
18115552b53958976a39a0bed6e66c7b25e3e8ef
102226 F20110209_AAASEG friedel_c_Page_069.jpg
4f89a4e9a87d00f9a86965f5d85fc557
a8a000c75f39007a02dff54bdf32385d88e51d22
119479 F20110209_AAARUY friedel_c_Page_331.jpg
0c6c321dcf002c6ef4c315ae8c1bc588
8f0c8bd762a9fc62a330ed3cab490edf311815ba
F20110209_AAASRR friedel_c_Page_102.tif
0d1e97301c810ade2b64121160b2c9af
0b055e77fb9e4416f243837487c88fd119f228f3
31265 F20110209_AAAUYQ friedel_c_Page_253.QC.jpg
2dc84e2e4324ec0d42c920a83650ae23
95d2b94edf1fc1b1c30c44c3b52b655f8f20e0d5
F20110209_AAAULF friedel_c_Page_109.jp2
347974e39ad0410dc22b074b078a5d5a
16634da17ab8b1d51c8f2f28324bc509d887adc0
F20110209_AAASEH friedel_c_Page_102.pro
97db5569b2d01ea814265e8f256d859a
34b5855c7bd422021a90befa0ed881e26c7e3956
30415 F20110209_AAARUZ friedel_c_Page_002.jp2
f98aaa4a1b18e92c7e903ea8e0637906
92853d162562d2305a455ba414a7150bb5204349
2545 F20110209_AAATBA friedel_c_Page_145.txt
1a1d3734b8fdac82c0c0c35409da78d8
236aed4305ac409aae52f323f166f5809055a080
47352 F20110209_AAASRS friedel_c_Page_099.pro
3d41eda7982dd5d8e3195c443426901b
f642249a8c208c7327076e12dc208adc79395dbe
1775 F20110209_AAATOL friedel_c_Page_201.txt
b2f93d717ca5cff49994c085746f3ffa
ca950632906c89e5c1cefffc2200da6d82bc8a85
28495 F20110209_AAAUYR friedel_c_Page_255.QC.jpg
5044a30c3f419c4233fae6565fa908fc
bdb2a8c0397c8f2fe286aeea3228a350793e9b98
F20110209_AAAULG friedel_c_Page_111.jp2
6326dcdc3c7f285f8b00f281be17453c
9e6ac390d3c943dafd4114921daebb93a4ca4dee
9111 F20110209_AAASEI friedel_c_Page_001.pro
d91fee6939e2b86d972428d2b66e48db
9e1d961a9fd26232275d4621cf99d335de65aaac
16417 F20110209_AAATBB friedel_c_Page_195.QC.jpg
206bf88a3b78b3ec8492d77d9c0cd284
4b30f7ba2554f38d8d4873c493dbdfd837a440f4
1568 F20110209_AAASRT friedel_c_Page_343.txt
23ebf4bad6e5cd84f1a8c7d0adbd2b3d
ed7619dc5972bb77d82dd2e622c887c95cba2661
2218 F20110209_AAATOM friedel_c_Page_202.txt
35dcb1adc9d2135c1fbbe0e42618ac6f
453261ad41ce10daf335efe097793f3178dfe710
8265 F20110209_AAAVIA friedel_c_Page_331thm.jpg
e95c168eb95a3f3ed4d3435dce2673c2
001f6230d41cbf070a09de1c2ef341c93d8e07d7
30944 F20110209_AAAUYS friedel_c_Page_257.QC.jpg
58ac0a13cc9d04f2c159e0afd37bfac5
9d1669b1348381be328e80cec12998a502ffa779
8035 F20110209_AAASEJ friedel_c_Page_158thm.jpg
e77f74ab29f8347b1bff3785a2208b63
f1596fa1c086d0b32ecbe02d350387bff763f9ac
7810 F20110209_AAATBC friedel_c_Page_088thm.jpg
183e82ccc2c99d36c21744bbbe8ba086
0ffaaf7bdba53869b9d69233007e0750d35804ae
F20110209_AAASRU friedel_c_Page_026.tif
c70dbc03b60bdfc8b7807f93d7cd4834
1a5d178c5f7dd6cdf7805f6f08ea67932ed0b046
1933 F20110209_AAATON friedel_c_Page_205.txt
73f66cf117a61639c59b691e66450b91
a6e42865f454b9b8411bbdac0bd5ef0a497341e1
F20110209_AAAVIB friedel_c_Page_334thm.jpg
784e4b8d38aa2a1dbb593e7ab1769a9a
819343fc6e9982e7203ba455bc9c6e313ca3360f
30800 F20110209_AAAUYT friedel_c_Page_258.QC.jpg
362553afa46c9c9d5e00740ab1a6b3e5
7bd2ef341e62cfcd562f85aecd3dff43c531655f
1051931 F20110209_AAAULH friedel_c_Page_112.jp2
6cfc3fbad85c4622eeac0d422a6dd1b8
e6f86b057ce96feccefbb290f0cb982e94aa41fb
863324 F20110209_AAASEK friedel_c_Page_324.jp2
a82bf88a8739725cc9d91154bddb8b7d
f7f221701a24601377b5ce38dcc2ec070a411bd6
460149 F20110209_AAATBD friedel_c_Page_326.jp2
1232e8ea577ef4fc44d9215cbb68d7c0
01820f5a147e47cc117f9b0f2422e453fab8f708
F20110209_AAASRV friedel_c_Page_145.tif
958d5d67d7b5e3691191ef746b1a4a12
b3fab66029a695951a27958c37065649d22e7ac8
2186 F20110209_AAATOO friedel_c_Page_208.txt
ca30d67c43a66fae865642ed426436a3
f367f4f3bdac9fc7125490de437a5b352e9898b3
F20110209_AAAVIC friedel_c_Page_335thm.jpg
3a82f95f2cffabc6e9254050e9590232
3a9eaf8a6e2c4a43b82f839f646a9f308d7764df
1027566 F20110209_AAAULI friedel_c_Page_115.jp2
796fd27295da5b0ecf927c857f8a56a8
a1a78e06c018c52c62ffec499f6c7472c7432628
49777 F20110209_AAASEL friedel_c_Page_066.pro
9bc7598b682b8bad0c49bb9847a5e0ca
9114132d065fae5752d1fed040af128b76cc9369
F20110209_AAATBE friedel_c_Page_120.tif
35accbda5ca6a4d07c4f1fd45d2ba137
4ecf538c12df27e7a905365e52b8ac1d97f187fa
2352 F20110209_AAASRW friedel_c_Page_125.txt
131880736953f9a1282ddddc5afa7e1f
dc0a90e8542ed9c2abdbe50836eb9eee9d968462
1927 F20110209_AAATOP friedel_c_Page_210.txt
ce5173f3409458fea3ef7ad111790755
e188074a663f3d6769948fd21bc383ff355dfa5c
30179 F20110209_AAAUYU friedel_c_Page_259.QC.jpg
2233cd558cf4beb1869d3a59f004841a
3a1984e99d830a73248c4c16074f58460058ae2e
1032006 F20110209_AAAULJ friedel_c_Page_116.jp2
724146002afa3138c05e2071c1655f09
3d5e49d4a44326e6a99f3273baf543c65ab237e2
F20110209_AAASEM friedel_c_Page_270.tif
474866d722cd06e28f3bf0c8ad3afbf9
30949f6d6a782c43658c03208680d077c3316080
402564 F20110209_AAATBF UFE0015620_00001.mets
cfc944cd25fa840f57caaa4cfebded08
2dfdf4e596aaacb40a322f816d4bbafc3420a1ed
31466 F20110209_AAASRX friedel_c_Page_134.QC.jpg
252acc5a68fec52f64c820e837b98b54
a1865488a71d9f13560546dea2456d271bbb895a
1085 F20110209_AAATOQ friedel_c_Page_211.txt
b55ed66c329e381c816e818861da7295
75e86594144ec26ba769342cf8883bd97cca8221
8163 F20110209_AAAVID friedel_c_Page_339thm.jpg
102f44311933402e25cf35b6a483c831
eb5bc85db7791132b7bd34945baf8c3e7f65439b
33911 F20110209_AAAUYV friedel_c_Page_261.QC.jpg
2d64b33882fa27968f27ae2c5ec6500c
810486e7c3be9a7c0af5334e13b01b66fdbaced1
1022583 F20110209_AAAULK friedel_c_Page_117.jp2
573e3b09f75269d1ea654686b04ab110
b04af00541d1c1c30d0ba75bbc8f598ea8970464
54958 F20110209_AAASEN friedel_c_Page_186.pro
93f4b6226ed58ceeeb5f70106a134690
122536c33e2b969c99467a695d1bb84a3b803916
48888 F20110209_AAASRY friedel_c_Page_205.pro
3f349d9ce73fda4c25c0ab79d6a47827
21644f338f82c4517d6e73b161c14ec72f1abc70
F20110209_AAATOR friedel_c_Page_212.txt
b575ea574505182bee96e4cd2cca373c
8102d63f03117b43ef435d4ac964f9917dc837be
4711 F20110209_AAAVIE friedel_c_Page_342thm.jpg
e6c3973663aa4d02ce0e8a8da5a1074b
9b59a15d4e73447c1750b9dab16737fd2ed89040
10499 F20110209_AAAUYW friedel_c_Page_262.QC.jpg
5480e3e5a9f0df8e0ac37332d3dafa13
e7afd4b3f1e3ee0d7da5b58fd4324aa5fb13bddd
997177 F20110209_AAAULL friedel_c_Page_118.jp2
6802ab8e0b2640fd1d9a05203a564420
ba82981a2ca9fac1b8efb4386615108b51422597
111432 F20110209_AAASEO friedel_c_Page_127.jpg
e8d65cecd187b51d6a75d816e566f81c
a59d1f4011e2acc27fc2328dd24ec2d614f029dd
F20110209_AAASRZ friedel_c_Page_095.txt
2e18d7858b8af9647e1286d014fd9731
0369c1d6c474f7f4b6a949ac06fc414325b2c39b
2264 F20110209_AAATOS friedel_c_Page_214.txt
4bcdee39bccbdac70f5b1c3d8dc9bc8f
d11caa618892da5ea4ffe921703509357661bdcf
1588 F20110209_AAAVIF friedel_c_Page_344thm.jpg
9bb8ee99d3e31146b0658bc4d7fa4b41
ac3d1b3e9d625522c32e19af87442b2d32d53e46
28812 F20110209_AAAUYX friedel_c_Page_263.QC.jpg
7e6a8d5759d63dfaec1653b1514f3647
751594ddd1c6b61494549e14baa56eba493476b0
F20110209_AAAULM friedel_c_Page_120.jp2
6915c65f2869d77b5195a6050f532460
818ef7e7c265a715fd236e7e2213e96daad5c58d
87439 F20110209_AAASEP friedel_c_Page_041.jpg
6b8c9310bf54b8c7d44150bc1424bb9b
86f03fdc46e1dd7f51b6d7b27dcbec917042acaf
F20110209_AAATBI friedel_c_Page_001.tif
d0fd1908eb9e87491257bf43fbd4e52c
38cfb8bd52599651709547c95fefc89788c93419
2118 F20110209_AAATOT friedel_c_Page_215.txt
2fb84a5c440e510550786bce5cf9a473
be0d82d94e2d3f4b0a1b1f1ab5d48c032932b6cf
33955 F20110209_AAAUYY friedel_c_Page_264.QC.jpg
c17ab03c6a5f2743556026e591e24cfb
a577489d670dd3061b9e70775589581a8218b826
1021696 F20110209_AAAULN friedel_c_Page_121.jp2
94e7b9a5b966f7fea8fb1b7cdc1f805e
d16e8a2d7f4795ebb4345e86b768810a57a55877
47697 F20110209_AAASEQ friedel_c_Page_087.pro
e5a42d379541e61170ade52470aaffb6
993e1b6cc9d6b66c5049fa6aaf87df595acc9993
F20110209_AAATBJ friedel_c_Page_003.tif
8e34b801903f3bf59141e2271f7e1e7a
59341c0db76a629a8e2dde87a0f4e2ee535723f5
1772 F20110209_AAATOU friedel_c_Page_218.txt
686c0b6c0815dde6b93f46f81e346309
d891ad3ff13222b16f03a6450e901b1a11aa401b
32242 F20110209_AAAUYZ friedel_c_Page_266.QC.jpg
4fedfd2186dc12e66d20ba24a4748e29
e727ecea99357d152a7fa0803b20c58657118d0a
F20110209_AAAULO friedel_c_Page_123.jp2
dc4c65ffe3f442e879b26fc12e4ac943
9bd4d83af0c13a92cd851c1804808a856b05fb55
1614 F20110209_AAASER friedel_c_Page_299.txt
8e5c71ca607a5d06a7e92c2ab699b8b8
fe135049f1689e4649835a5cdea22de1ce324d01
F20110209_AAATBK friedel_c_Page_005.tif
5a191c82bebd07adb6f4ce0f0c3f5d78
1a3ea3b21a215f10fb77d66f35dc321175dd970b
2298 F20110209_AAATOV friedel_c_Page_219.txt
24cc8385fbfa3d77030ee5e6a69497e2
974ea51d46c47e6b4ca399974e8504b1ee957c94
1051901 F20110209_AAAULP friedel_c_Page_124.jp2
5f707f0429f0d4977e64d15237317c03
00056c441dd3ad26201f2f81c05bfbfa634a46e6
110415 F20110209_AAASES friedel_c_Page_219.jpg
5ae60eec95bc99b3b1335a6e3206e903
de169cfe18e87cd36bea227bbef604997dc7e998
F20110209_AAATBL friedel_c_Page_006.tif
ab6db1d1464ddc4984f3901b309db44f
75b73ad6a86a2fe24be1d7c83d7b0559f0726fef
2473 F20110209_AAATOW friedel_c_Page_223.txt
1aa66dc8638224abb182211a50e95396
77e492eebad8e0d5e2b8d768fb6b4377c7674598
1051893 F20110209_AAAULQ friedel_c_Page_125.jp2
e00a4d58a05439ba372af16d4c620d1c
86c29ffa8b1db52b2e6955237ffe84ba0be7b766
48163 F20110209_AAASET friedel_c_Page_253.pro
9d5311db63830c39131b28f09ac61158
3d077906cfce4de5a00961f5ad058b591d36f153
F20110209_AAATBM friedel_c_Page_008.tif
1397bfe875f2daa24a5db0257721219e
50f98b6b48aed4da451b539f7d7a1e6a8a347cb2
1756 F20110209_AAATOX friedel_c_Page_224.txt
b1c08d4390d30307343a932bcdfd27f4
10dbd80fdf44dc0815ae2d8385752e49ca75440d
F20110209_AAAULR friedel_c_Page_126.jp2
17e28aa8a5b34f78429c4a5191f4a41d
8fa7267da0b8e3929083d5ccedc40c344b90dd2b
31713 F20110209_AAASEU friedel_c_Page_332.QC.jpg
943e282a2b4dce1a1adeffe276b4095c
a7afa331e8bd61bbca9af91b88a22de21437daa5
F20110209_AAATBN friedel_c_Page_009.tif
5c4f5940bb739a37dbc12afa8b0f413d
d85dee013fdb1d38551e9c9a306290bf024ff31a
2015 F20110209_AAATOY friedel_c_Page_226.txt
8a8d6f723ceea4c90fcbbb07e1fcfdf6
1c33608d87672d4ca2fe04f28d94b79943e44c63
F20110209_AAAULS friedel_c_Page_127.jp2
d766a7fa8c6dd4b2ea1474dc415208e9
88eada4c282597e3bee19505164a40bc36f63c8f
105569 F20110209_AAASEV friedel_c_Page_285.jpg
a7152875e67d81de5bbde703ac70c1b5
93631f0c220a0b74a9c9272578192c0453c6ced5
F20110209_AAATBO friedel_c_Page_016.tif
998c6db3b56ce3b262050421ea6df57e
ab10c85edd10c231f40b4efaba791e0313ff6053
F20110209_AAATOZ friedel_c_Page_230.txt
01e8c8da00c54a95cfeff7260b6fb3c5
80d5b73d12366587760205519630f5d412c4e345
1051887 F20110209_AAAULT friedel_c_Page_128.jp2
4116a6c4462ec44e08e97e6a8396fb30
1d3e633c329e2c70c67402694093020ffb9ceeed
48610 F20110209_AAASEW friedel_c_Page_220.pro
2ee6c326cfe6a383a35245372b17f2e0
5c26b3acf84483be6d8b63c8cdf5387f74306c91
F20110209_AAATBP friedel_c_Page_018.tif
2b3645ea968ce111bdd896c3cc7ba915
a88e8f90dfaf69203b9cf1384e451050a8fc00a2
F20110209_AAAULU friedel_c_Page_131.jp2
806777c743e71907c33506c527d6b1f8
64f7dabd27e2e2be35438efc993155c90b7c6509
F20110209_AAASEX friedel_c_Page_015.tif
87da09097bd3aaa18d58e0fb3d57069b
0a58c0d62738395d27c76eb9c40d9f3af353089b
8231 F20110209_AAASXA friedel_c_Page_208thm.jpg
edd4f965907037f91965b33de385d12d
2b5780ff29b971623bc02cede3d0c066fbfc714c
F20110209_AAATBQ friedel_c_Page_019.tif
c8d7a088ea52cb2bac667f00c2c693f1
a6a2f75e0c7d76c3d10981c1f77fe7686788c1bf
F20110209_AAAULV friedel_c_Page_134.jp2
70ec3d6a060cf9074c0caca5299ccf2c
576c082638b414ec037d801f967969d68d483289
F20110209_AAASEY friedel_c_Page_315.txt
b31b774c902ff91538032dc94206ea03
a27abcb9f01cd7d450cd6a8c6889263306a6eead
7814 F20110209_AAASXB friedel_c_Page_336thm.jpg
9ece137eba0fdba7ec85804d3775bd8d
5e1b2df02d55bbff703b4c26d765478ae3eb5206
F20110209_AAATBR friedel_c_Page_020.tif
062d9432a4387f585e93071c82967333
6bd2b74f673d16e03c84bfeffe2c52312fdc866f
1051957 F20110209_AAAULW friedel_c_Page_135.jp2
894790dc556cc9dca0a05cbab4a20be7
e345b818829fc0503d94159cd7d50d53e7dbab15
1825 F20110209_AAASEZ friedel_c_Page_115.txt
c6bca2c84f0bb9f085f422d79cef93af
2d2075d0e81199e5177a29d5aa6b927a8c1ab6e9
29135 F20110209_AAASXC friedel_c_Page_082.QC.jpg
f2226fc1c0f132c0c724307e1bedaa00
6cc3e3e1da1bf4b2dd954e1129081c810557f121
F20110209_AAATBS friedel_c_Page_023.tif
aaea0a394c0fac377ac5be73095e90b3
1fdf978a93887fb0634aebf4ee0bf94651abf320
F20110209_AAAULX friedel_c_Page_136.jp2
bdfd75ebae9a1b52984ebbfd8f3aa1a4
062da043e6d9b523528f72132fd597cf96450a67
2212 F20110209_AAASXD friedel_c_Page_237.txt
356e28b712e274b26a97e607ceee32dd
71f469321becc7bbbdd8072c54fcc4840544f49a
F20110209_AAATBT friedel_c_Page_024.tif
e613dc08dde43c5c4cca5fa0c97f3641
8c0712b8f5e311a6c2758ea593536eee39b261a3
F20110209_AAAULY friedel_c_Page_137.jp2
5e8d8abef1ca896d88ef06ae80458676
33a92244797c8c93f9d4a245f6f1f3e8bb644b32
8539 F20110209_AAASXE friedel_c_Page_202thm.jpg
24c6526739a5938d2d3d02ff725e60a0
82e1f521faee85d944e266514f766fe79b7a52b2
F20110209_AAATBU friedel_c_Page_027.tif
a6db7a916a1ffe4275871828ee44e390
db8166acf2dc667519f0d40f61d5b9191b128ff2
F20110209_AAAULZ friedel_c_Page_138.jp2
d0d9547cd7b1c1f0ee9a3435dd2f7055
c29e86b5ee7b6814f591df3f4e248bf0d5fff644
130915 F20110209_AAASXF friedel_c_Page_320.jpg
c2fde321e34bf27e6b77707c41bfeace
240ab0185625970b6d558978bdce990e2dda5420
F20110209_AAATBV friedel_c_Page_028.tif
d302b72ffb390fb39b2de2debdd44b26
798bb44508f841210b18ec163f318caab12c3a03
F20110209_AAASXG friedel_c_Page_025.tif
bc4f1e7abc4e20272bddf04bbec41777
57f647deae37c501a008e5d6157833b62a31fcc9
F20110209_AAATBW friedel_c_Page_029.tif
c0ab74c5ee923a9b46049b960103fd4b
071d5f17d5f0492b75474acdba2801f0c9b92658
19608 F20110209_AAASXH friedel_c_Page_177.QC.jpg
586e4858bd02701caf899a41ef7db9a4
219ab1790bf43ea4bc3b210dacd21f126671bba4
F20110209_AAATBX friedel_c_Page_030.tif
328bbd8ec61359b7eb1d1d37d50a8526
47fdbeb9628f7a482fdc5a3b7c7faa8bcf9b7266
49443 F20110209_AAATUA friedel_c_Page_096.pro
848f7c8d8f8495b313793b8545ce54cc
982ac90e4a5a181d6563c71ca001e2dc09461b7c
F20110209_AAASXI friedel_c_Page_165thm.jpg
325a137b3e8f30c9d7bdb520b63cecf7
a6c084511f2f321bef171cf0eda753f70e2ac89d
F20110209_AAATBY friedel_c_Page_031.tif
11a1009e98bcca61bd45986fe459c29c
fc581c7d3dce0d8f44979a2a5dba010eaa7a4ecd
47988 F20110209_AAATUB friedel_c_Page_097.pro
44074e5cb4a12b5b59e0e8fe52e8ea89
8b69b90d434d1c1edad07d69b3565b80595bc834
6284 F20110209_AAASXJ friedel_c_Page_191thm.jpg
34da5960e7cc240df80722d3f755eff5
37bd56907d94cd45a895240518e57c47e704e6d1
F20110209_AAATBZ friedel_c_Page_033.tif
739b309239f1fd7ee4a50558fccf2ded
3d4da4a13627b5dca62b407af59ce68a21e160f4
47760 F20110209_AAATUC friedel_c_Page_098.pro
bb2033f3f08513a4aff9f4a48e463764
0c219628fb0968bad7257cc3b54011ed36e96430
49688 F20110209_AAASXK friedel_c_Page_038.pro
632ddbd3b8f33938394298e724f8d990
d6b47ece03318cbfef9223d0d25f25f46966a92a
22632 F20110209_AAATUD friedel_c_Page_100.pro
57d79b521b4693fe1bcd01065a239f0f
c53637ece0ba46c5930583b373f926695b310824
F20110209_AAASKA friedel_c_Page_246.jp2
efd4737229e32c7e47ee628b84c81461
12c4f68b33b2ad2a9ec0e96da12ee975d55efd3c
106875 F20110209_AAASXL friedel_c_Page_137.jpg
7e248f59945cf716ad7a532d7adbb9d8
d2b62b5b54126ddf718e4af4968dac9944ce2c79
44801 F20110209_AAATUE friedel_c_Page_101.pro
882a7c495b8fa1ac89f09ececeb61550
87b52b4724f18d65d008092a2c8ed19aee6c69cc
46897 F20110209_AAASKB friedel_c_Page_119.pro
80a586b293cf7602ba980ceb82e0db84
f97107f7861d03bb2f778bc7c2a4ae3ace61e006
1021608 F20110209_AAASXM friedel_c_Page_279.jp2
ab9af1d829a9779fd34159e25b99ce1e
16d451ea848916babcbf50804ca2dee466a1cd0f
F20110209_AAATUF friedel_c_Page_106.pro
c38291bf20e830aa1d48f1c25ecb462f
4e4299a44f347a8ef1cbb1c50872593181e02ca7
F20110209_AAASKC friedel_c_Page_193.tif
8f937568762cbf30afe0dc5a3be84d40
b46555436605c68e957aedeaf054305a3cd170f4
1885 F20110209_AAASXN friedel_c_Page_162.txt
e271ec657c39d8bfb2bc264c9954e332
5525878e6fb073beed481f43bd3a4f61a2541a53
46059 F20110209_AAATUG friedel_c_Page_107.pro
08856d28caa5aa63fe3e178741d41ba4
bb6ed7d1fd54fd1da642f85ddf71f7fbe708bacc
F20110209_AAAURA friedel_c_Page_340.jp2
91893143e70f069703841d33390075cc
a7eaf9c409efac03c102ddcd3d7ddd97a60ab13f
34968 F20110209_AAASKD friedel_c_Page_122.QC.jpg
4cf81cb93b117c66b0373d9baa1f1eff
ce1f6e6db5fef804466fd17a5a45051d16ee2fa8
32167 F20110209_AAASXO friedel_c_Page_075.QC.jpg
399b3b285cbf815020bede3ae4bd276c
002bba9d1a468a8ccbd661a9fdfb1c12db1ed53e
48232 F20110209_AAATUH friedel_c_Page_108.pro
643c63a9c657e28d8b7e04fea7a1fb7d
239ba121cfed3c65b7cae08cc5bd71418fbc0295
F20110209_AAAURB friedel_c_Page_341.jp2
f519bdb8f790e01a9e07c2a952216259
96586ddd04c341e585f7afc708bbe7db9d93e4a4
1967 F20110209_AAASKE friedel_c_Page_209.txt
7d235eec90daedb8e5deca64a2449b68
3c0e2e6299c08476f0cd4e73d4458557b48522df
1038117 F20110209_AAASXP friedel_c_Page_298.jp2
116ca02000fc267bf38b1160ace6f4ba
0a903b0eb1e6d41e2785b5a3933af79a06ba4de2
48256 F20110209_AAATUI friedel_c_Page_110.pro
b56f2c3f9b3feaa1a7f15dcec775f9d4
44b10a7d119859569de37911f38993c6d5ad767d
688699 F20110209_AAAURC friedel_c_Page_342.jp2
01307967e179b901320c8623ce204b67
8bfeedf4e1d80c16303ffd51b9ceeb530cbcb57a
F20110209_AAASKF friedel_c_Page_219.jp2
c783bc6cef4d4cfa3a71b0de1a866c40
8dd2ac94de9917399b563b5a7d0daea2d16c835b
F20110209_AAASXQ friedel_c_Page_075.jp2
311d197f954b8d8265fb7b20328eb70f
a19f87622a8c83c1c74f9ae7d65962e34589bad9
47570 F20110209_AAATUJ friedel_c_Page_111.pro
7ccf7454b72bc6d6eb25d666949035d3
dd4d2771d1e46280f43c41e24717be0bad56ca9d
861747 F20110209_AAAURD friedel_c_Page_343.jp2
fc5f0b6f4f501e8380314e07d8f7b411
e323a86bfe986ba6aaefa88fe01a6b084e79c0eb
F20110209_AAASKG friedel_c_Page_217.txt
8b057f75aaf5a982986a954be9d8a387
6dea310c316f555cace538238f1d59e8f95bd7f1
F20110209_AAASXR friedel_c_Page_320.tif
38f69abab998a662728725659d1f7652
92ff211f8b4e27f316b6992545ea949db5b0da1d
46357 F20110209_AAATUK friedel_c_Page_113.pro
3e68135ef0830ade55dba750c16d6c67
7c0660b99bdb5b6d0653ed921deacea3fa3675d7
140045 F20110209_AAAURE friedel_c_Page_344.jp2
221e632d421d78075dbb238e4d89e5e8
5eea88b79d900a283b242d4faac6086e5c35f93e
2435 F20110209_AAASKH friedel_c_Page_335.txt
ab7ad1880bee941748ef0eab8a2d9961
abdbee5767fbcbbe93d6627a5260a8ee8b98ca63
F20110209_AAATHA friedel_c_Page_229.tif
e9bf812d816523efb5f1e74b657f4e91
dc2fc0a0af0d24d1535e733cbd46944590996824
7591 F20110209_AAASXS friedel_c_Page_014thm.jpg
e1e2cecc64ca63b71ec725df80831af4
3b1526ac2079ac6ebe5b96fdc3faf03cabf77999
45550 F20110209_AAATUL friedel_c_Page_114.pro
2165be24bffe31cf6c0f81bbdaceeb8d
d6f5040d1f3239e114dfead47d667852f0baf508
878750 F20110209_AAAURF friedel_c.pdf
df1a6f9bce73cdeeafd043f665d9dec2
d41eea0e71ebd477180357fc10c51af70f90016e
F20110209_AAATHB friedel_c_Page_231.tif
972b8e77f6c50f46ef91a2804d8bd9c9
4c7ddd9ef7798bc2e9d5fccd84206a4bba617d79
31816 F20110209_AAASXT friedel_c_Page_108.QC.jpg
4c7404a5e593e40bbb5b282af270bf69
9454c6b3f29cbc8175a9dfd89d44dbc142d51093
45858 F20110209_AAATUM friedel_c_Page_115.pro
c1adda385a4b0c470ba091537bb332e9
18fbbaa40f4ee36569bc8b1c83f35fe6dded47b4
20630 F20110209_AAAURG friedel_c_Page_322.QC.jpg
29f06a54208e0bee325fab352ea17575
20561b515007d6a84a7bbeb3f01acef487d1b9bf
F20110209_AAASKI friedel_c_Page_254.tif
3401e16226a1371246e7e7ed1a406abe
17913e667d2d8311702e60a481aeede013ca03ac
F20110209_AAATHC friedel_c_Page_234.tif
786e8c0f54996d0c75f3a54e164f41ca
4a22905aea2d5eb833d3316a5d060ade56956190
7848 F20110209_AAASXU friedel_c_Page_239thm.jpg
d1f70ef097f1c3f97970a78ab51cbae5
f74ea839df5aa0753265a76da1d29ab202c6fd80
45739 F20110209_AAATUN friedel_c_Page_116.pro
61be05dbb9252b1ec9b387597bfe0c7c
e7345ff68e2b8e29fa14fb26fa0ea0d5aa4f920d
7956 F20110209_AAAURH friedel_c_Page_257thm.jpg
da69013bb58d0233c1e4e74c549d81e4
2824faa7f357630cae798bcdfe1185a30b7f02d0
F20110209_AAASKJ friedel_c_Page_071.txt
5936cb2d37bbea9f98efe8462cf4b667
4d16f06a1dc66edf87808b917319024856d046ac
F20110209_AAATHD friedel_c_Page_236.tif
5b59e7a0f8e374de6aff955c5914dbdc
2a517c31507fa603711dd8d304a8a41cae296835
45480 F20110209_AAATUO friedel_c_Page_117.pro
c5a0a543b89b23d2b056aa0a6a816555
dfdfc416e8f1084db503d57f2520d7888d134dd0
F20110209_AAAURI friedel_c_Page_099thm.jpg
c4bce5c9b93316218f93d50977df0eaa
3de64d80a58644d6446bba69061f1aa33019346e
8315 F20110209_AAASKK friedel_c_Page_337thm.jpg
a75c75add40e9af19fca25836df30648
9d35bfb3580e99fe813d24a007a749d3bf48fd87
F20110209_AAASXV friedel_c_Page_201.tif
2618e09518a913389373ac9f673d4f8e
1c46785807653d93b840f05f2dce772ef2981314
44136 F20110209_AAATUP friedel_c_Page_118.pro
09171367e939447325fc256d549db78f
8302f75987afe45ad3f5a8139daeacb667cb1a22
34835 F20110209_AAAURJ friedel_c_Page_047.QC.jpg
23fc5e4d3c3e3883a18ac721c8cedb1f
1d29d4ce6789a4bce12d0c007a59fd3288efcc54
F20110209_AAASKL friedel_c_Page_054.jp2
ab57169adabb1d9a563e617b08dbf0de
8b4dab105ba45fc81c8c128828a4723d326721eb
F20110209_AAATHE friedel_c_Page_239.tif
eff91db7c693185078260fd83786fce7
8b9141ce2601aeb06503995a1df7b4ead83f470b
F20110209_AAASXW friedel_c_Page_310.txt
0f8f5c4477194bdf73caae831bd68b48
34dc2cddd00567b9ab2e4c08547fa1c20a4d9d35
46046 F20110209_AAATUQ friedel_c_Page_121.pro
72db2525452e0ddd831f0091b8c38304
fb604bcd9f1157b66e3d9d4b760a322082c113a6
32049 F20110209_AAAURK friedel_c_Page_111.QC.jpg
e4f5b195c10fcb7beb7cd2c3a108608c
488e1eacf3133623e687a0b1daca6a941ba1513d
F20110209_AAASKM friedel_c_Page_076.jp2
a40666da93be45478c788b6a7e735a2a
d5c2da210ac2e37a04f614baa8d53e8f282f8e8b
F20110209_AAATHF friedel_c_Page_240.tif
5c48da7b6936336e6a4cf1dabee7943c
441b5f96b80dafe34547c0119ea87c4f7ee44084
F20110209_AAASXX friedel_c_Page_141.jp2
8e2da8b4d2adf68f9d6c22111399006a
b2e6904f0f7f14e15d4c403c9f3b94e6144a1f11
7295 F20110209_AAAURL friedel_c_Page_089thm.jpg
73a921a468a71816a514f35027e1d1f9
da83061c31e6cf2adec0dc11eee3178adcb755aa
F20110209_AAATHG friedel_c_Page_242.tif
5c109635511a446a418200d0fbd4fc5b
0efbf0046f7895d86a77c9ed6c6c4449fc082d17
F20110209_AAASXY friedel_c_Page_097.txt
a0b78a4a88d643eddf54758526828510
ac36ba46437a34f6afc51c914162af45f66315e1
56835 F20110209_AAATUR friedel_c_Page_122.pro
082e6cebc0d2e2c8fdda05beb3d3ebe0
d6f49ed09e8e6ec20306cdb0b5e257a4ab997b15
8158 F20110209_AAASKN friedel_c_Page_140thm.jpg
68a4c862b70c4587a88aafebf2fff968
1fb51cbefc416372726e383df73e978c2f818aac
2648 F20110209_AAAURM friedel_c_Page_262thm.jpg
69545512be8a132f64b9836c0143a389
7092ea0abd5d1ff36203bb0b1581a9f86fea168f
F20110209_AAATHH friedel_c_Page_244.tif
69541151e9f43bb286e5026212956d71
13dc91c80c3021b506bcfa33b5ab0f816f7f5ca1
F20110209_AAASXZ friedel_c_Page_027.jp2
fc5f76a6149f1796de67cf23733a0111
225b237417c290c82194809b9de51ad3145b34ef
94090 F20110209_AAAUEA friedel_c_Page_166.jpg
ea8f99551569c141aa22309714e8f04e
28a1cb67d6c5361ae5c2039c6d27a27d3a24570c
55296 F20110209_AAATUS friedel_c_Page_124.pro
f13bc0b1319e489ecb253f551451d30d
7a4268ab889ef37479f807cba46743b2255d86b7
F20110209_AAASKO friedel_c_Page_213.tif
664ae38c77b0feb41c0e2bed4c32a4f1
9f003009b8be121aa0ed205fdc69e91cf7ad4b73
F20110209_AAATHI friedel_c_Page_245.tif
c5ae23088e71f441c4d8f91ab8f766a6
37e62f351b1007f7f8033b2595a06b9fecb250b4
107341 F20110209_AAAUEB friedel_c_Page_167.jpg
a58a5b4d0db3599a419fb547bbdfed40
04d86725b6329e3af61286c535e50092c3ef37b5
55707 F20110209_AAATUT friedel_c_Page_125.pro
43de72bd8b843562df2b25210135c166
2953454da5e4e0d7a429285059c0a3c4be7dffac
8129 F20110209_AAASKP friedel_c_Page_136thm.jpg
5801545bbcb21798861aed817dc30888
712cc6e228136d5969217f339320d35c38e1cb01
18055 F20110209_AAAURN friedel_c_Page_005.QC.jpg
4b5f1d260e2fb2b71080c0e50731f612
42fedf9edab4b99ebf1297ff199ca3c101ecb3d0
F20110209_AAATHJ friedel_c_Page_250.tif
fd4ff9380efb1838fcab1d8e13017de4
4c6a921e259eb2641a0c4a110ebc3071282b911b
97316 F20110209_AAAUEC friedel_c_Page_168.jpg
de95b56f860b829812efa373e993e8ea
630a094eafcb9a391ce29f38fc635a6be9acb2d7
53523 F20110209_AAATUU friedel_c_Page_126.pro
e035c6728a4679ca5287c94d6157e89e
54309363447dc8d217946eff71b4389cc186a58a
4712 F20110209_AAASKQ friedel_c_Page_177thm.jpg
0de2121bf5c53ad87b423aea83928606
7dfe71bb85a618606b78113c01a531586949b505
8344 F20110209_AAAURO friedel_c_Page_256thm.jpg
fe94b1581d93ffa28b8e037dabbfcc0f
253e8b6189506adb7c02fca12b9cee6eaada303a
F20110209_AAATHK friedel_c_Page_252.tif
6a7f38e2acf34eba74aedccfbfeab77a
2c96e9614005aca0b50b762163087f0335d274a6
86464 F20110209_AAAUED friedel_c_Page_172.jpg
1aae0db98beb5841bf57a8f13e7e83f9
78a2aa5acf3783d04888314cb30a9f6dd0e478f2
58991 F20110209_AAATUV friedel_c_Page_127.pro
5ead4a93b6d5fa101bfba38274e0360a
9dbe949fb422dbc1085c58f51d3d453142e7475b
8208 F20110209_AAASKR friedel_c_Page_160thm.jpg
46719816947fbca54c4a36eb70e1621c
9abc569b135416c287aadea523241cfdf3b6427e
8447 F20110209_AAAURP friedel_c_Page_095thm.jpg
805c69a396326b2aa6af04d1cfc4bf1e
4b23b604fe6d98fc99a4b32359005eb14afb147f
F20110209_AAATHL friedel_c_Page_255.tif
31124e4af55a2dafc17b803dddb97ae3
cd16073ca4deb16766f017e663e9f79f6d9e9234
97597 F20110209_AAAUEE friedel_c_Page_173.jpg
79cdfa7be6ba26d115c238028611ac91
ee2830a079615315a2929733051934b5fff7694c
56599 F20110209_AAATUW friedel_c_Page_128.pro
2fe25c9384407f8aca5656d9dbc7328a
af76c8eca3e7acc49ce070646adad08d69eb9394
44317 F20110209_AAASKS friedel_c_Page_222.pro
bc68c718dee6f27cbeba7e195127f0c8
6462565f9199ba9cddf95a7f2018c7eb7da85b2b
8014 F20110209_AAAURQ friedel_c_Page_174thm.jpg
8e7f86bd94393deb41494303c4a2dcc1
2dfb5590aadc9413763c1d748f25dd759f8ecfd4
F20110209_AAATHM friedel_c_Page_259.tif
684489ba307e7bd92885adf4767c2429
bd2aad3efa6a2ac73f4e9c48b7c7e8333b38f9d7
97069 F20110209_AAAUEF friedel_c_Page_174.jpg
9172ece96da9e5e719b9d402b35dd4b7
5d6b072e6f09ba438353ff2a3332580222af99d0
57787 F20110209_AAATUX friedel_c_Page_129.pro
9a2870be176b49016a8467f5afad8c41
cafd807f99a1fa6b96ed0266216b0adfcef5ca54
7996 F20110209_AAASKT friedel_c_Page_131thm.jpg
a9d1790a3df4debfc1b1e875f7ade755
f193992d089f2deb12af312646901d7c6419f334
F20110209_AAAURR friedel_c_Page_038thm.jpg
5cc765ff294ceaa326ef1d1db0ebe32c
6a08da29ba254fde2572a4328bfc13de5c5581f8
F20110209_AAATHN friedel_c_Page_260.tif
89d67f46e2bbfd1b15b5388dc06fd112
1285df9c762e9dfe2c368df0884ea24186891ee9
97825 F20110209_AAAUEG friedel_c_Page_176.jpg
c971745801c2789bff43158c937945a5
a723a83ed2637c5ea7396c200483bd4e0557a692
50422 F20110209_AAATUY friedel_c_Page_130.pro
49392d9dde37be72437a12f761019c49
eeda46b001b05f368f792212be155851e7136856
F20110209_AAASKU friedel_c_Page_022.txt
86d4b7110dc97786b67049feb9dba2d0
ab8ad93a34e1b81c6689a49f51ef639e5042dd43
4793 F20110209_AAAVBA friedel_c_Page_006thm.jpg
a56dd667e8b3c6734eefd4cbb3c46bdc
4002172c6e853733169a1f002a5136482863e97e
8084 F20110209_AAAURS friedel_c_Page_176thm.jpg
d7e942fac9835f361ac753c49952aedb
1ab534f3dbe8e42bd097050dfb2374f782f5bbb6
F20110209_AAATHO friedel_c_Page_261.tif
271de4aaf8d836a1e0bb3ebadc82338f
89436be38c73c309ebb8c23e9403c9887fa5b973
59335 F20110209_AAAUEH friedel_c_Page_177.jpg
cc4407ce7245420c4007fe8cda7f14b3
6422e4e1e2c9b67d1ce4e0e9fc85e38a8f1f7498
51504 F20110209_AAATUZ friedel_c_Page_134.pro
9c1ef05f14a386697c8037e5aedf321f
db1e94687b47f82aa877439c78192c91168407f5
F20110209_AAASKV friedel_c_Page_243.tif
f5db547b7581126541dd7cd9eb85f506
a968fa6f0236dde9bf6f96474e603da100465d1f
3942 F20110209_AAAVBB friedel_c_Page_007thm.jpg
618db083b6d85eb951f33d6aa18c71e4
bd3c296f671c62603da2a4b4375e8bdad9d3a75a
32478 F20110209_AAAURT friedel_c_Page_021.QC.jpg
b37e1b81b4dc5510c2c2761543315099
2dfbacf034ad4df54cbe4f628b00099562c3ee31
F20110209_AAATHP friedel_c_Page_262.tif
f682a3de8e57deb36451efcfc52d6777
5e54199e4d60e49a8e5d82e6b9888928b621222f
56426 F20110209_AAAUEI friedel_c_Page_178.jpg
b3a84cad23f1e16d246a2f96a87ec363
36f7a50d60618521da439a0788de697d15f17e96
4704 F20110209_AAASKW friedel_c_Page_329thm.jpg
5f6ad9bf11f8854612a40c48c617b299
93e90e352a1529dce9aaf4a2211ea7085cc33df0
7198 F20110209_AAAVBC friedel_c_Page_012thm.jpg
0dfd6bc3c0719468ef36b3716543b676
2c0de9a5db56dacd40cdbd9034752309b3d2ebf0
33014 F20110209_AAAURU friedel_c_Page_256.QC.jpg
1075c266a913503f972967921273ef0d
b4e1174e5dfe9b5be326e5b2fd776c515f4a011d
F20110209_AAATHQ friedel_c_Page_263.tif
6c63a64610ba624b5544e027e4aa1acd
baa96f683406b7acf88c30a4e14adea296276c5d
82084 F20110209_AAAUEJ friedel_c_Page_179.jpg
5dc98d40c17a8f1b4b197f2f7b926afd
f9562703a78866d8de8a51305275c904096aeb30
F20110209_AAASKX friedel_c_Page_234.jp2
1b5f323bffc30f6564d37973e84aefe4
219086c3290847c08b555d9bd591027366739164
1440 F20110209_AAAVBD friedel_c_Page_016thm.jpg
7c946262056ddc55e7284f92d7673343
7616fa85f5ed7b63681eee8d270b87698ee58793
27886 F20110209_AAAURV friedel_c_Page_089.QC.jpg
cd6560d5b3b61e51a1a160b6ae5e61c9
5cf89132987370ff7d7c9a0be39efc0e04be5041
F20110209_AAATHR friedel_c_Page_264.tif
b35879ed610caca87c7edba6c62bba39
7734842521568a4160eaafdcfefe8cf7a74beee2
103146 F20110209_AAAUEK friedel_c_Page_180.jpg
ac43aa2d5ac8dcca3f657ec2e3e48c94
02794176deead32a2f932ba774ed7e27498bf84f
95969 F20110209_AAASKY friedel_c_Page_312.jpg
c819792d9c8b47de2ee8a9a0d49fd243
dd675399971a4bb48033b6b488d7cc01256ac590
6507 F20110209_AAAVBE friedel_c_Page_018thm.jpg
4d394555cdcf4cd66bec70c798befde2
30293cc66e5497df9b51bd1566c23cbce9d2dc09
3873 F20110209_AAAURW friedel_c_Page_008thm.jpg
f5c7690823f0aaa098a721156a44ebb1
61cbe8787e419e32aad7276fda298c690036c5f5
F20110209_AAATHS friedel_c_Page_265.tif
cef961354724eb1b7a4f446b647d44dd
ad1a77bab00b869976fabe94cecc891b20c6bb1c
87960 F20110209_AAAUEL friedel_c_Page_183.jpg
dc88dfdb19be5875a748c6c15bd21c66
7dd9b65e2a7f058fce5bdc522520f4cd350421db
F20110209_AAASKZ friedel_c_Page_125thm.jpg
5afc9c01b26426d971bf838ddf6172d1
57ce1402830ce90e1c04c7e1d815869ec97e955b
6902 F20110209_AAAVBF friedel_c_Page_019thm.jpg
281123e1523cc01fa54fa4b0e9821d5c
b7be5e9d59a2507be656475fbe814a0b2025cf42
32768 F20110209_AAAURX friedel_c_Page_078.QC.jpg
a8167a01c15704a8c7ce63c063863f6b
0ecfb29f946409126dce84e09724c18dd7602bfb
F20110209_AAATHT friedel_c_Page_266.tif
50788700d2504e31f6fe255d98efe66c
7cfa092d73fad84de24a04f3e47acae8fc503c22
56672 F20110209_AAAUEM friedel_c_Page_184.jpg
b7db7780a83c9137f6f5410408f4ea0a
0b105048e164be79ba1182953bfd973f7b1915bc
8326 F20110209_AAAVBG friedel_c_Page_020thm.jpg
8d17ab71f0b1661e423eb08ed8c5a64e
c6fc2b8b63cf6339853a8be2568dd938e86d0709
8283 F20110209_AAAURY friedel_c_Page_311thm.jpg
bde874d59a1be8248a615f08f38893dc
2c027874a8bb10625040b7220be8c889530b9994
F20110209_AAATHU friedel_c_Page_267.tif
b958f1ded7c6e05ba58473f08e69de27
0a581022e096200f21b5f029083e086c4a9ad8b6
76793 F20110209_AAAUEN friedel_c_Page_185.jpg
716e050aaee2afebb9a5231f44dc2270
637da16e2be5a264f92ad9360b444f873d54f942
7850 F20110209_AAAVBH friedel_c_Page_021thm.jpg
4803062b09b06eb11045e5ad9184ca27
42b76f1034c8656c2d61989165c761226e953503
24893 F20110209_AAAURZ friedel_c_Page_179.QC.jpg
13734bf55e74926db1936d8d3dff1270
f27abe75231e64510f7f34a53c0051efb7919747
F20110209_AAATHV friedel_c_Page_269.tif
5e9de5cb4aa50cb66056d3cfc0d538fc
b9d56e494a65424895dd063d601f0263f45fec41
106671 F20110209_AAAUEO friedel_c_Page_186.jpg
6adb09fe9a1366956dc2f45acf8e9082
c2c899aeedadf241c4ee1ea3e7125d68fe90f064
8373 F20110209_AAAVBI friedel_c_Page_022thm.jpg
db8dbdc5112f9c1a47ea0726af30c392
c1d19aed668317e0c9f4f8735ef5cc9179f6329c
F20110209_AAATHW friedel_c_Page_273.tif
0a85f7072c7f89bcc8e448a6a27dc735
ef606ef32529754f4c7d1a39745a1753a7be7faf
104390 F20110209_AAAUEP friedel_c_Page_187.jpg
0063c962fecad7818c29b8979739930c
18dd92ffab3b6ec83dd044bce283832b82715a1f
8302 F20110209_AAAVBJ friedel_c_Page_023thm.jpg
5a1362ff4fc04a3e382dd18cfa4881bd
ea9a57645137b6041e0560e59bdfb3efa43e5d0a
F20110209_AAATHX friedel_c_Page_274.tif
4369a8fce84e65ab0649d3d68824d68e
aaa2ae3f4663d04296f9548699b06d82feaefa04
99192 F20110209_AAAUEQ friedel_c_Page_188.jpg
775cca0e6ebc9a3dad5ffd4ba3991d8b
4c91ea2337cc78942759b50e8cd0a30cd4792a74
F20110209_AAAVBK friedel_c_Page_025thm.jpg
2bb1bd3d378b1810b0c7e1aa9e54415a
337cca4ce474ba0e6acf8338cc6b3edaf2da1a5a
F20110209_AAATHY friedel_c_Page_275.tif
4ee4a60c2718ee1bc3e8137482610f47
3b56c99270553e9a7edc60cfdba0839600a68c18
77569 F20110209_AAAUER friedel_c_Page_189.jpg
9bf9737aad75ea742698e4709fe52783
62c73218e9b4fa631501e435030434521146aa85
8309 F20110209_AAAVBL friedel_c_Page_026thm.jpg
8d031e2c912503ba6665924ca9d19f42
150e01895ae7226b5b9edc1094b037aeca528cea
F20110209_AAATHZ friedel_c_Page_276.tif
686603c61658d2140077a78680bbb64f
9014208a9d11d09ce4fa3ba6e55ea0462e1f8fb9
104763 F20110209_AAAUES friedel_c_Page_192.jpg
aca6d1493155a274d7c7a024e2eb7025
0ac50ed7da1bf3766e856b739b5d5fef8a1345bb
F20110209_AAAVBM friedel_c_Page_028thm.jpg
f66de1c84cd094ad75d2b6944f685485
6d94fd900c5a5607f47d5a0f77a0819c88152ae0
88892 F20110209_AAAUET friedel_c_Page_194.jpg
fa09756b27000eb3b8a0b4a70e45bd60
5e3ddeeac5c4effc4ee21cc396e63510a2dc4d94
8399 F20110209_AAAVBN friedel_c_Page_029thm.jpg
7488f1c44df857c2fcc27e24db9739bb
f58124c65d478605ec2b62e71fa493d41deca9db
55528 F20110209_AAAUEU friedel_c_Page_195.jpg
7a7ae8d50b9ca5f2abf1a9600304564f
02cc25bd732e9f17cf5092e46014bc7759f2db59
33537 F20110209_AAASQA friedel_c_Page_125.QC.jpg
e9da6d6223e7b7b44012e368ee646649
cf220bb8fdab71423b51b59459483e5b10bad261
8210 F20110209_AAAVBO friedel_c_Page_030thm.jpg
16d5ac0a72caf4e47ae1743f3f89ff29
4a8297ac3d515f93d451b4033a888ae120fd366e
111161 F20110209_AAAUEV friedel_c_Page_197.jpg
d93608efa5c2f4d5e0ef1a3172cb77a8
717d72739bbf6b83d17ce1c735a0df8804f8b643
143387 F20110209_AAASQB friedel_c_Page_016.jp2
d3677408f454c1de08ecf30e7c9b590a
209bff0d1a98522b6d3bcb41138f9659d9680163
7846 F20110209_AAAVBP friedel_c_Page_032thm.jpg
4c3b535df3ae30add7604956c7d7f0d6
c7f335f0ea01aefac7f1ce328e07e48478893771
80390 F20110209_AAAUEW friedel_c_Page_199.jpg
18a59a728ef1cfca2a3a5fdb25832084
c50a5f38439427cea2be32bb63efd42404cb5e05
F20110209_AAASQC friedel_c_Page_237.jp2
4a9208f3d4a6a9e7e3648f6a52674b19
88188a93a4d5c4bad94051ce72354ec6fbf39197
7880 F20110209_AAAVBQ friedel_c_Page_033thm.jpg
7b780b79b954bab1ef27c2c1bfec25e7
7dc02a56decb32b697607ddece8826d5f5eae280
33942 F20110209_AAAUXA friedel_c_Page_186.QC.jpg
f76f40ef1062ee72d896d997e31a79bb
13eb17a3cd7a8959c2118ee84c1944da1d694455
56562 F20110209_AAAUEX friedel_c_Page_200.jpg
716fd70919d1e5427f2f3aa9ef94319b
ce83ef4357249e70afc56c2ad62a96adbcc6989c
F20110209_AAASQD friedel_c_Page_306.tif
bbef27550ff1eb5d815831c3685eb141
e3540e80d1121fbcea65a5433598c5ea4b866edb
9033 F20110209_AAAVBR friedel_c_Page_034thm.jpg
f2d731e08a40de7f766640559d7259e0
b2a0351ba0fa876aee1066e1a320856c951543be
33707 F20110209_AAAUXB friedel_c_Page_187.QC.jpg
50a8249ce9c93ef773730af4e12dee5a
f50a54660af8c3b8e31067e7cf05304ca0a576bd
107550 F20110209_AAAUEY friedel_c_Page_202.jpg
bcfbbffa9ce7464beb4785a4e3285cd6
3e05b87383bea9f256f4ce8d6811f7cf59ca555d
33967 F20110209_AAARTL friedel_c_Page_156.QC.jpg
c81052a3d5f12e8ba74d07fb7490869b
fa8666bd96e95cde32e335fe598f6a008ba2da49
F20110209_AAASQE friedel_c_Page_119.tif
c8fbdaec6ba14ae08f9051a62db8dd2d
097629c72ee61c916973984d0580f68f84b69aac
5607 F20110209_AAAVBS friedel_c_Page_036thm.jpg
dc2e08eaefbbb05eb9dbe91802aa7697
84adeedac1ac5231a551be0bc89c0bb2d7bde58b
31847 F20110209_AAAUXC friedel_c_Page_188.QC.jpg
780c3133f8146466ad3d1150f272f0f4
119471f15cb1e88bd6fa9232d458fba68ebc007d
98564 F20110209_AAAUEZ friedel_c_Page_203.jpg
f760740e3cbc188c6f252319b33ecc79
462acfe70e2a6f8669ce294e95543fdb65b1c182
F20110209_AAARTM friedel_c_Page_040.tif
d1a382778ae7a19e362a9e2c66981789
3a7d99e6e39e714163a5d75172bd06d3fa77df09
103996 F20110209_AAASQF friedel_c_Page_023.jpg
a72086bed6a3ceaa76182781c5fba283
82bc72d763e55268bc1269b9a46f8ab5ac28a46b
8170 F20110209_AAAVBT friedel_c_Page_039thm.jpg
20bf0e5363b0a92bc8efa5e8e42c0591
a826dbb6dc14bdf68fbb32e3c90b595551abbac7
25012 F20110209_AAAUXD friedel_c_Page_189.QC.jpg
4281f69f8d7c20740c677ba586e0d2d7
6ec070b90b45ca25c723b27916055dfb116535c6
F20110209_AAARTN friedel_c_Page_304.jp2
a1eb28cbb732c3b8e5fe33c86800040f
9dfeee3b8bdc47f29b24313e95539a8df977e85e
7176 F20110209_AAASQG friedel_c_Page_289thm.jpg
fd560a83f339cd0a43f2166b8206fe96
4a7857c93ede9d79bb08980fa39c10f35687e2ec
F20110209_AAAVBU friedel_c_Page_041thm.jpg
9d2167367f956fe99451288019ec952f
c61c4d504e3fd506a124d316d7bc106d5b4a8ffb
16558 F20110209_AAAUXE friedel_c_Page_190.QC.jpg
dece4b0653390959df623251fc9ef4c2
2fa6e6dea2cbdc01cb0470c7c8723ebd1aad2868
2389 F20110209_AAATNA friedel_c_Page_140.txt
9af48f68d299c10bc140a20d02f8e2ec
d9944deba3a28128bf57c39b672eced02b2c56c7
46340 F20110209_AAARTO friedel_c_Page_086.pro
82b08014ba697b78c4465b4641cad2fb
a24f2b73162aca7ba1cc9953fac72ed1ec6491c7
43891 F20110209_AAASQH friedel_c_Page_288.pro
effe1027e2f1bfbeff46db5b9af30441
444d1286f7aab3c57058a348e2f77c5eeb07b7d2
8383 F20110209_AAAVBV friedel_c_Page_043thm.jpg
7d0ce0f730c4293526c890775becaf62
765c271944cdbf059b338cb1f755906d0e0f0348
24763 F20110209_AAAUXF friedel_c_Page_191.QC.jpg
2afd8dbe64ab81e0196c01e091f894ee
d7188ff8ab3b7af1eb324822d76752a2f2510e1e
2223 F20110209_AAATNB friedel_c_Page_142.txt
94e08fc2c6bac9a9c8f899cac6f3df09
ba0d22224b78abd57906dec5d907850f979da3cd
8335 F20110209_AAARTP friedel_c_Page_153thm.jpg
63c3c18b8b6aaf4278c1446fcd51e101
d5097800866de79602f80f086a41aac14e96eeab
34664 F20110209_AAASQI friedel_c_Page_138.QC.jpg
350cf2f2f585de023dfa53dfd93fa9b5
9962871d93b398de4f793bef737069f79a05ed53
8453 F20110209_AAAVBW friedel_c_Page_044thm.jpg
6f0bca98eb767004f21ce15292c2e2d1
d04441fce46e65880ccfe01378fb216f48b9d1ad
29310 F20110209_AAAUXG friedel_c_Page_194.QC.jpg
7eb8b06db95f7cc3822657550bc26442
c619216a6752abe13061f99c9249336c664b6dba
F20110209_AAATNC friedel_c_Page_144.txt
c35c6c08a000b40b0d7f52b23b57e51e
c350e1220c864bb921a07b265656954c82c531b0
F20110209_AAARTQ friedel_c_Page_244thm.jpg
4cb0abc410f6ff354e23d25e44bead51
e506ad6d0ddb3b7f95294276fbc1a4f54da73fae
2209 F20110209_AAASQJ friedel_c_Page_192.txt
ae6b0b47cf612213a5ac9a0f8de162c4
cd8240faa849b349dd40818dafc9bdcb65d6dbca
6656 F20110209_AAAVBX friedel_c_Page_045thm.jpg
3aa1310e871602d4c675cfdce015c205
a31ad57948c3197d4482718a36cf8dfc5dc4e873
23490 F20110209_AAAUXH friedel_c_Page_196.QC.jpg
9b083b70d25c8f6bcf9fba19017e07be
2700cf858390e53c82e6b27b12c18d91b3d013a6
F20110209_AAATND friedel_c_Page_146.txt
e98047408cfac69d528e10e7af57bb0f
2476b440d78983c733101d557d5b6cf27ba93f1c
F20110209_AAARTR friedel_c_Page_316.tif
c1a314a6efa07cadb508f6fb24a2c2dc
c0280868ef4a40bad3e235b950204f9d7a40cf43
48931 F20110209_AAASQK friedel_c_Page_252.pro
566ea05676c3fe6b6c38ee431365f470
a4f1e3b62db53b75010295f90126c9e391750ec8
8239 F20110209_AAAVBY friedel_c_Page_046thm.jpg
02cb4ed42c298ca869dcc45abfb6b8aa
bf063a949ba9781c9eb6e1eb1d328e46de7d2f0e
35475 F20110209_AAAUXI friedel_c_Page_197.QC.jpg
1614e1f1c8b1356c287ae2463e3e1582
85f67f1c60de8183178fe0abd60434db2f013ed5
2111 F20110209_AAATNE friedel_c_Page_148.txt
6ff6d76ead9e017e42496ee79c27ee1d
c3f9623c6553e40d12287519a44ab18bd0e99c67
1017795 F20110209_AAASDA friedel_c_Page_091.jp2
01a0eefad7fb631673d07c0326fce745
fd39eee57689e08fa949efe3b2e8f484bfe97d4c
54132 F20110209_AAASQL friedel_c_Page_223.pro
47b87bf10f6fd37f2ce3fb99a0e3f630
b603da356a14f45d5fd4145a14fa99a6bd5e00c7



PAGE 1

DISSIMILAR COGNITIVE STYLES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS WITH UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT STRESS, MOTIVATION, AND ENGAGEMENT By CURTIS ROBERT FRIEDEL A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Curtis Robert Friedel

PAGE 3

This document is dedicated to my parents, Larry and Susan Friedel. Thank you for everything.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS There are many people to thank who have pushed and pulled me to the creation of this document. First, I would like to thank Dr. Rick Rudd for his advising, encouragement, and friendship, all of which ga ve reason for me to start and complete my Ph.D. My advisory committee members, Drs. Gary Fairchild, Howard Ladewig, and Ed Osborne, all contributed in th eir own way by adding their expertise. This document is a reflection of the scholarship and rigor imposed by these three gentlemen. Also, I would like to thank Dr. Michael Kirton for his wis dom and counsel regarding cognitive style. To say that my Ph.D. in ag ricultural education was earned in my three years at the University of Florida would be an exagge ration. I owe many thanks to my undergraduate advisor, Dr. Marvin Hoskey, a master teac her. Likewise, I appreciate the teachers and administrators at Laurel-Concord Public Sc hools who served as models of excellent teaching and learning early in my career. I cannot say thank you enough to my parent s for teaching me the value of hard work and never letting me forget what is im portant in life. I also must thank my wife, Beth, not only for patiently waiting for me to write this document, but for showing me her approach towards life which helps me become better each and every day. Last, but not least, a spec ial thank you goes to my fellow graduate students with whom I shared an office. The times we spent making trips for ice cream, discussing the unspeakable over lunch, spending time at the Jones’s on weekends, and building camaraderie have all helped the time fly by. I have learned from all of them.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................xi LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................xvi ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................xvi i CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUD Y AND PROBLEM STATEMENT....................1 Background of Study....................................................................................................1 Introduction to Learning Styles....................................................................................2 Introduction to Kirton’s Theo ry of Adaption-Innovation.............................................7 The Need for Student Engagement...............................................................................9 Problem Statement......................................................................................................10 Significance................................................................................................................12 Purpose of the Study...................................................................................................13 Assumptions...............................................................................................................14 Limitations..................................................................................................................14 Definitions..................................................................................................................15 Summary.....................................................................................................................18 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.....................................................................................19 Theoretical Framework...............................................................................................20 Learning and Learning Styles.....................................................................................29 Learning Style and Learning Process..................................................................33 Learning Style and Learning Level.....................................................................35 Kirton’s Cognitive Style......................................................................................36 The Scale of Adaption and Innovation................................................................37 Summary of Learning and Learning Styles.........................................................39 Learning and Stress.....................................................................................................40 Stress in the Classroom.......................................................................................41 Demographic Variables Related to Stress...........................................................43 Measurement of Stress........................................................................................44 Summary of Learning and Stress........................................................................45

PAGE 6

vi Learning and Motivation............................................................................................46 Expectancy-Value Theory...................................................................................47 The expectancy component..........................................................................48 The value component...................................................................................49 Affective motivation....................................................................................51 Demographic Variables Related to Motivation...................................................52 Measurement of Motivation................................................................................52 Summary of Learning and Motivation................................................................54 Learning and Engagement..........................................................................................55 The Influence of Faculty Members.....................................................................56 Demographic variables related to engagement....................................................58 Measurement of Engagement..............................................................................58 Summary of Learning and Engagement..............................................................61 Summary.....................................................................................................................62 3 METHODS.................................................................................................................64 Research Design.........................................................................................................65 Population...................................................................................................................67 Instrumentation...........................................................................................................69 Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory................................................................69 Student-life Stress Inventory...............................................................................70 Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire...............................................72 National Survey of Student Engagement............................................................73 Data Collection Procedures........................................................................................75 Data Analysis Procedures...........................................................................................79 Research Objective One......................................................................................79 Research Objective Two......................................................................................80 Research Objective Three....................................................................................80 Research Objective Four.....................................................................................80 Research Objective Five......................................................................................81 Summary.....................................................................................................................81 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................83 Instrument Post-hoc Reliability..................................................................................84 Objective One.............................................................................................................85 Class A.................................................................................................................87 Class B.................................................................................................................88 Class C.................................................................................................................90 Class D.................................................................................................................91 Class E.................................................................................................................93 Class F.................................................................................................................94 Class G.................................................................................................................96 Class H.................................................................................................................97 Class I..................................................................................................................99 All Students.......................................................................................................101

PAGE 7

vii Summary of Findings for Objective One..........................................................103 Objective Two..........................................................................................................105 Class A...............................................................................................................105 Class B...............................................................................................................109 Class C...............................................................................................................112 Class D...............................................................................................................116 Class E...............................................................................................................119 Class F...............................................................................................................123 Class G...............................................................................................................127 Class H...............................................................................................................130 Class I................................................................................................................134 All Students.......................................................................................................137 Comparisons Between Classes..........................................................................141 Summary of Findings for Objective Two..........................................................143 Objective Three........................................................................................................147 Class A...............................................................................................................148 Class B...............................................................................................................155 Class C...............................................................................................................161 Class D...............................................................................................................167 Class E...............................................................................................................173 Class F...............................................................................................................178 Class G...............................................................................................................184 Class H...............................................................................................................189 Class I................................................................................................................195 All Students.......................................................................................................200 Group Comparisons...........................................................................................206 Summary of Findings for Objective Three........................................................208 Objective Four..........................................................................................................214 Class A...............................................................................................................216 Class B...............................................................................................................218 Class C...............................................................................................................218 Class D...............................................................................................................220 Class E...............................................................................................................221 Class F...............................................................................................................223 Class G...............................................................................................................224 Class H...............................................................................................................224 Class I................................................................................................................225 All Students.......................................................................................................227 Summary of Findings for Objective Four.........................................................229 Objective Five...........................................................................................................231 Class A...............................................................................................................232 Class B...............................................................................................................233 Class C...............................................................................................................234 Class D...............................................................................................................235 Class E...............................................................................................................236 Class F...............................................................................................................237

PAGE 8

viii Class G...............................................................................................................237 Class H...............................................................................................................238 Class I................................................................................................................239 All Students.......................................................................................................240 Summary of Findings for Objective Five..........................................................242 Summary...................................................................................................................243 5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION...........................................................................245 Summary of Problem Statement...............................................................................245 Purpose and Objectives.............................................................................................246 Methodology.............................................................................................................247 Conclusions and Discussion.....................................................................................249 Objective One....................................................................................................250 Class A.......................................................................................................250 Class B........................................................................................................251 Class C........................................................................................................251 Class D.......................................................................................................252 Class E........................................................................................................252 Class F........................................................................................................253 Class G.......................................................................................................253 Class H.......................................................................................................254 Class I.........................................................................................................254 All Participants...........................................................................................255 Discussion for objective one......................................................................255 Objective Two...................................................................................................257 Class A.......................................................................................................257 Class B........................................................................................................258 Class C........................................................................................................258 Class D.......................................................................................................258 Class E........................................................................................................259 Class F........................................................................................................259 Class G.......................................................................................................260 Class H.......................................................................................................260 Class I.........................................................................................................261 All students.................................................................................................261 Comparison between classes......................................................................262 Discussion for objective two......................................................................263 Objective Three.................................................................................................267 Class A.......................................................................................................268 Class B........................................................................................................269 Class C........................................................................................................269 Class D.......................................................................................................270 Class E........................................................................................................271 Class F........................................................................................................271 Class G.......................................................................................................272 Class H.......................................................................................................272

PAGE 9

ix Class I.........................................................................................................273 All Students................................................................................................274 Group Comparisons....................................................................................274 Discussion for objective three....................................................................276 Objective Four...................................................................................................280 Class A.......................................................................................................280 Class B........................................................................................................281 Class C........................................................................................................281 Class D.......................................................................................................282 Class E........................................................................................................282 Class F........................................................................................................282 Class G.......................................................................................................283 Class H.......................................................................................................283 Class I.........................................................................................................284 All Students................................................................................................284 Discussion for objective four.....................................................................285 Objective Five...................................................................................................287 Class A.......................................................................................................288 Class B........................................................................................................288 Class C........................................................................................................289 Class D.......................................................................................................289 Class E........................................................................................................289 Class F........................................................................................................290 Class G.......................................................................................................290 Class H.......................................................................................................290 Class I.........................................................................................................291 All Students................................................................................................291 Discussion for objective five......................................................................291 Concluding Discussion.............................................................................................293 Recommendations.....................................................................................................298 Summary...................................................................................................................300 APPENDIX A INTERNAL REVIEW BOARD SUBMISSION FORM.........................................301 B FACULTY INFORMED CONSENT.......................................................................304 C STUDENT INFORMED CONSENT.......................................................................306 D EXAMPLE ITEMS OF KIRT ON’S ADAPTION-INNOVATION INVENTORY...........................................................................................................308 E EXAMPLE ITEMS OF STUDENT -LIFE STRESS INVENTORY........................309 F EXAMPLE ITEMS OF MOTIVATED STRATEGIES FOR LEARNING QUESTIONNAIRE..................................................................................................310

PAGE 10

x G EXAMPLE ITEMS OF NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT ......................................................................................................311 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................312 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................325

PAGE 11

xi LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Factor Traits of Adaptors and Innovators................................................................36 3-1 Construct Reliability of Ki rton Adaption-Innovation Inventory..............................70 3-2 Construct Reliability of Student-life Stress Inventory.............................................71 3-3 Construct Reliability of Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire.............73 3-4 Construct Reliability of Nationa l Survey of Student Engagement..........................75 4-1 Listing of Classes designated by Faculty Members’ Total Cognitive Style Score (N=9)........................................................................................................................86 4-2 Summary of Classes Regarding Re ported Demographic Information of Participating Faculty Members..............................................................................103 4-3 Summary of Classes Regarding Re ported Demographic Information of Participating Students.............................................................................................104 4-4 Class A Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=58)....................106 4-5 Class A Student Mean Scores of Stress Constructs...............................................107 4-6 Class A Student Mean Scor es of Motivation Constructs.......................................108 4-7 Class A Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs (n=70).........................109 4-8 Class B Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=46)....................109 4-9 Class B Student Mean Scores of Stress Constructs (n=68)....................................110 4-10 Class B Student Mean Scor es of Motivation Constructs.......................................111 4-11 Class B Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs (n=70).........................112 4-12 Class C Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=56)....................113 4-13 Class C Student Mean Scores of Stress Constructs................................................114

PAGE 12

xii 4-14 Class C Student Mean Scores of Motivation Constructs (n=71)...........................115 4-15 Class C Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs (n=71).........................115 4-16 Class D Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=73)....................116 4-17 Class D Student Mean Scores of Stress Constructs...............................................117 4-18 Class D Student Mean Scor es of Motivation Constructs.......................................118 4-19 Class D Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs (n=108).......................119 4-20 Class E Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=32)....................120 4-21 Class E Student Mean Scores of Stress Constructs................................................121 4-22 Class E Student Mean Scores of Motivation Constructs (n=48)............................122 4-23 Class E Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs (n=48).........................123 4-24 Class F Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=71).....................124 4-25 Class F Student Mean Scores of Stress Constructs (n=112)..................................125 4-26 Class F Student Mean Scores of Motivation Constructs (n=115)..........................126 4-27 Class F Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs (n=115)........................127 4-28 Class G Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=65)....................127 4-29 Class G Student Mean Scores of Stress Constructs (n=84)...................................128 4-30 Class G Student Mean Scores of Motivation Constructs (n=85)...........................129 4-31 Class G Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs (n=85).........................130 4-32 Class H Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=50)....................131 4-33 Class H Student Mean Scores of Stress Constructs (n=70)...................................132 4-34 Class H Student Mean Scores of Motivation Constructs (n=70)...........................132 4-35 Class H Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs.....................................133 4-36 Class I Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=60)......................134 4-37 Class I Student Mean Scores of Stress Constructs (n=77).....................................135 4-38 Class I Student Mean Scores of Motivation Constructs (n=77).............................136

PAGE 13

xiii 4-39 Class I Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs......................................137 4-40 All Student Mean Scores of C ognitive Style Constructs (n=511).........................138 4-41 All Student Mean Scor es of Stress Constructs.......................................................139 4-42 All Student Mean Scores of Motivation Constructs...............................................140 4-43 All Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs............................................140 4-44 Summary of Classes Regarding Studen t Cognitive Style, Stress, Motivation and Engagement Mean Scores......................................................................................147 4-45 Class A Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=58)............149 4-46 Class A Correlations, Means, and Sta ndard Deviations among Constructs of Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation and Engagement (n=56)........................153 4-47 Class B Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=46).............155 4-48 Class B Correlations, Means, and Sta ndard Deviations among Constructs of Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation and Engagement (n=44)........................160 4-49 Class C Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=56).............162 4-50 Class C Correlations, Means, and Sta ndard Deviations among Constructs of Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation and Engagement (n=56)........................166 4-51 Class D Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=73)............168 4-52 Class D Correlations, Means, and Sta ndard Deviations among Constructs of Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation and Engagement (n=67)........................172 4-53 Class E Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=32).............174 4-54 Class E Correlations, Means, and St andard Deviations among Constructs of Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation and Engagement (n=31)........................177 4-55 Class F Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=71).............179 4-56 Class F Correlations, Means, and St andard Deviations among Constructs of Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation and Engagement (n=69)........................182 4-57 Class G Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=65)............184 4-58 Class G Correlations, Means, and Sta ndard Deviations among Constructs of Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation and Engagement (n=64)........................188 4-59 Class H Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=50)............190

PAGE 14

xiv 4-60 Class H Correlations, Means, and Sta ndard Deviations among Constructs of Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation and Engagement (n=50)........................194 4-61 Class I Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=60)..............196 4-62 Class I Correlations, Means, and St andard Deviations among Constructs of Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation and Engagement (n=59)........................199 4-63 All Student Class Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=511)........201 4-64 All Student Class Correlations, Me ans, and Standard Deviations among Constructs of Cognitive Style Gap, St ress, Motivation and Engagement (n=496)...................................................................................................................205 4-65 Class A Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total Stress (n=57)..........................................................................................................216 4-66 Class A Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total Motivation (n=57)..................................................................................................217 4-67 Class B Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total Motivation (n=45)..................................................................................................218 4-68 Class C Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total Stress (n=56)..........................................................................................................219 4-69 Class C Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total Motivation (n=56)..................................................................................................220 4-70 Class D Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total Stress (n=66)..........................................................................................................221 4-71 Class E Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total Motivation (n=32)..................................................................................................222 4-72 Class F Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total Motivation (n=71)..................................................................................................223 4-73 Class H Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total Stress (n=49)..........................................................................................................225 4-74 Class I Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total Stress (n=60).....................................................................................................................226 4-75 Class I Backward Stepwise Multip le Regression Explai ning Student Total Motivation (n=60)..................................................................................................227 4-76 All Students Backward Stepwise Mul tiple Regression Expl aining Student Total Stress (n=496)........................................................................................................228

PAGE 15

xv 4-77 All Students Backward Stepwise Mul tiple Regression Expl aining Student Total Motivation (n=502)................................................................................................229 4-78 Class A Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total Engagement (n=56)................................................................................................233 4-79 Class B Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total Engagement (n=45)................................................................................................234 4-80 Class C Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total Engagement (n=56)................................................................................................235 4-81 Class D Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total Engagement (n=66)................................................................................................236 4-82 Class E Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total Engagement (n=31)................................................................................................237 4-83 Class G Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total Engagement (n=63)................................................................................................238 4-84 Class H Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total Engagement (n=49)................................................................................................239 4-85 Class I Backward Stepwise Multip le Regression Explai ning Student Total Engagement (n=59)................................................................................................240 4-86 All Student Backward Stepwise Mul tiple Regression Expl aining Student Total Engagement (n=493)..............................................................................................241

PAGE 16

xvi LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Kirton’s theoretical model of Ad aption and Innovation applied to the undergraduate classroom..........................................................................................24 2-2 Interaction of cognitive style gap, stress, motivation and engagement....................27

PAGE 17

xvii Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy DISSIMILAR COGNITVE STYLES AN D THEIR RELATIONSHIPS WITH UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT STRESS, MOTIVATION, AND ENGAGEMENT By Curtis R. Friedel December, 2006 Chair: Rick Rudd Major Department: Agricultur al Education and Communication Few studies have examined dissimilar cognitive style between faculty members and students and its relationshi ps with student stress, motivation and engagement. In the search for variables explaining student e ngagement, researchers have examined the cognitive level of instructional discourse, but few have examined the cognitive style of the instructor as it corresponds to the cogni tive style of the student. Identifying how dissimilar learning styles relate to student stress and motivation ma y have implications for increasing student engagement. Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation theory provide d the theoretical framework for this study. An ex post facto design was used to accomplish the objectives of this study. Nine undergraduate courses in the College of Agricu lture and Life Sciences at the University of Florida were administered four sta ndardized instruments: Kirton’s AdaptionInnovation Inventory, Student-life Stress Invent ory, Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire, and National Survey of Stude nt Engagement. Dissimilar cognitive style

PAGE 18

xviii was measured by subtracting the faculty members’ cognitive style score from each individual student’s cognitive style score. The difference provided a cognitive style gap which was used to determine relationshi ps among student stress, motivation and engagement in the classroom. Findings indicated that in these course s, students with more than a 20-point cognitive style gap did not have higher levels of stress than students with less than a 20point cognitive style gap. However, student s with more than a 20-point cognitive style gap did have significantly lower levels of motivation. Student motivation was further decreased when students were taught by an adaptive faculty member. Backwards stepwise multiple regression was used to e xplain student stress, student motivation and student engagement based on cognitive style gap and selected demographic variables. Results provided evidence that cognitive style gap did contribute to the explanation of student stress, motivation and engagement in some classes. However, cognitive style gap was not significant in explaining these depe ndent variables in all nine classes. Further research should employ qualitativ e methods to examine how cognitive style is exhibited in instruc tional discourse. Researchers may use these findings to further examine the relationships between learning st yle and learning proce ss in the effort of improving student engagement.

PAGE 19

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUD Y AND PROBLEM STATEMENT Background of Study This study examined relationships between dissimilar cognitive styles (Kirton, 2003), stress, motivation and cl assroom engagement at the University of Florida. Educators have long known through pragmatic a nd empirical evidence that students learn in a variety of styles. Many assessments of learning styles and personality have been developed to determine how students interact with and process the learning environment. All learning style theories share in comm on the contention that learning improves in learning environments that match a student’s learning style (Coffi eld, Moseley, Hall and Ecclestone, 2004). Nevertheless, few studies have been conducted to assess the interaction between the lear ning style of the student a nd the learning style of the instructor; nor the positive and negative effects from this interaction. Cognitive style as defined by Kirton may offer insight into how a style of learning influences other variables in the college classroom. Using the Kirton ’s Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI), the researcher determined the cognitive style of undergraduate students and university instructors in the college classroom. The interval difference be tween an individual student’s cognitive style and the instructor’s cognitive style yielded a cognitive style gap score (Kirton). Individual c ognitive style gap scores were compared to other student variables including student stress, motivati on, engagement, and selected demographics.

PAGE 20

2 Introduction to Learning Styles A current trend in undergraduate educati on is a transition from teacher-centered classrooms to student-centered classrooms (Acharya, 2002). Although teachers are still accountable for student learning, great interest has been given in support of self-regulated learning (Winne, 1995) and st udent engagement (Kuh, 2003). Boekaerts (1999) stated that student understanding of lear ning styles is critical to in creasing successful learning. But, what is a learning style? To define learning style, the researcher reviewed an array of definitions, theories measurements and beliefs which included those written by Allinson and Hayes (1996), Apter (2001), Dunn (1984), Gregorc (1979), James and Gardner (1995), Keefe (1979), Kirton (1976), Kolb (1984), Sternberg (1988) and Witkin and Goodenough (1977). Throughout the literature the terms learning style and cognitive style have been used interchangeably with few authors making distinctions between the two concepts (Sadler-Smith, 2001). Additiona lly, authors have been congruent in defining both learning style and cognitive style. For example, Claxton and Ralston (1978, p. 7) define learning style as a “consistent way of responding to and using stimuli in the context of learning.” Messick (1984, p. 143) defines cognitive style as a “consistent individual differences in ways of organizing and processing information and experience.” Both definitions were deemed appropriate for use in this study with the two terms used synonymously throughout this document. In a literature review of learning styles, Coffield, Moseley, Hall and Ecclestone (2004) reported 71 different assessments of learning style. To cat egorize the various learning style theories, a continuum of lear ning style families was developed based on the degree of the learning style being fixed and innate. Anchoring one end of the continuum were strongly fixed and innate learning st yles possibly stemming from genetics. The

PAGE 21

3 other end of the continuum is anchored by learning styles which are influenced by situational factors such as th e environment, motivation, stress and learning strategies. From one through five, this continuum of l earning style families and their respective theorists included the following: 1. Learning styles and preferences are largely constitutionally based including the four modalities: visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile. Learning style theorists in this family include Bartlett, Betts, Dunn a nd Dunn, Gordon, Gregorc, Marks, Paivio, Richardson, Sheehan and Torrance. 2. Learning styles reflect deep-seated featur es of the cognitive structure, including patterns of ability. Learning style theori sts in this family include Broverman, Cooper, Gardner et al., Guilford, Holzma n and Klein Hudson, Hunt, Kagan, Kogan, Messick, Pettigrew, Riding, and Witkin. 3. Learning styles are one component of a re latively stable person ality type. Learning style theorists in this family include Ap ter, Epstein and Meier, Harrison-Branson, Jackson, Miller, and Myers-Briggs. 4. Learning styles are stable learning preferen ces with a degree of flexibility. Learning style theorists in this family include Allinson and Hayes; Felder and Silverman; Herrmann; Hermanussen, Wierstra, de J ong, and Thijssen; Honey and Mumford; Kaufmann; Kirton; Kolb; and McCarthy. 5. Learning styles are approaches, strategies, orientations and con ceptions of learning. Learning style theorists in this family in clude Biggs; Conti and Kolody; Entwistle; Grasha-Riechmann; Hill; Marton and Slj; McKenney and Keen; Pask; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia and McCeachie; Schmeck; Sternberg; Vermunt; Weinstein, Zimmerman and Palmer; and Whetton and Cameron. (Coffield, Moseley, Hall & Ecclestone, 2004, p. 9) This simple categorization of learning styles ignores the depth of theory supporting learning, validity and reliability of the instrumentation, and classroom implications; however, the work done by Co ffield, Moseley, Hall and Ecclestone gives the best reference point for the discussion of strengths, weaknesses, and similarities of learning styles.

PAGE 22

4 Even within categories of learning styles there are disagreements. For example in category four, Kolb (1984) defines his measure of learning style as stable cognitive programs formed by past experiences of educa tion, choice of career, and the current task at hand. Kirton (2003) asserts his measure of learning style is base d on fixed and innate traits used in problem solving, but people may cope outside of their style. Kolb’s (1984) model of experiential learning re quires four learning styles to complete the experiential learning process. Kirton (2003) claims that the process of learning is independent of learning style (de Ciantis & Kirton, 1996). Additionally, Kolb (1984) claims that a preferred learning style will allow a person to be more competent in completing a particular task. Kirton (2003) argues that everyone has the capabi lity to solve all problems within their own style. That is, le arning style is distinct and independent of learning level or capacity. Leve l of learning can be defined as an individual’s ability to learn and can be expressed as intelligence (Kirton, 2003). Th e literature is unclear in distinguishing an individual’s st yle of learning and level of l earning, which is an assertion of Kirton’s theory. This assertion is supporte d by the literature as Ericsson, Krampe and Tesch-Romer (1993) found that in all do mains of knowledge, the single greatest contribution to expertise was deliberate pract ice. In addition, no evidence was found that a particular learning style or individual difference played a role in acquiring expertise within a domain of knowledge. However, it ma y be possible that experts have a preferred style when producing an expert performance. Learning styles have been included as a variable in many educational studies. Still, research conducted in the area of learni ng styles has provided conflictive findings. For example, Smith, Sekar and Townsend ( 2002) reviewed studies in which students

PAGE 23

5 were given instructional discour se that matched their indivi dual learning style. Results were mixed with only nine of eighteen studi es supporting the contention that students learn best when taught in their preferred lear ning style. In another example, Wingenbach (2000) used the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) (Witkin, Oltman, Raskin & Karp, 1971) and found undergraduates with field-indepe ndent learning styles had a moderately positive and significant relationship with student academic achievement. However, DeTure (2004) used the GEFT and found no evidence to significantly predict student academic achievement from learning style. Why do these findings conflict? If Kirton (2003) is correct, all students are capable of achieving academic succ ess within their own cognitive style. If academic achievement is dependent on the expectations of the faculty member, could dissimilar cognitive style betwee n students and the faculty member be an intervening variable? Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation (A-I) Theory ( 2003) identifies cognitive style as a preference to the amount of structure that one undertakes when solving problems. Within the continuum of learning style families (Co ffield et al., 2004), Kirton’s work resides in the fourth family noted above, “flexibly stab le learning preferences” (p.9). Some people are more adaptive when solving problems, and other people are more innovative when solving problems. Adaptiveness and innovativen ess anchor on continuums of how people approach problems, produce ideas, and adhere to structures. Thes e three constructs measure a fixed perception of an environment in which the individual interacts with and responds in the process of learning while solv ing a problem; a fit to this study’s definition of learning style (Claxton and Ralston, 1978) More detail will be given to Kirton’s cognitive style’s relationshi p to learning in chapter 2.

PAGE 24

6 Instructional material designed to in corporate learning styles may increase students’ motivation to learn, (Larkin-Hein, 2000); however, mo re research is warranted in this area. Few studies ha ve been conducted to measur e the impact of curriculum delivered in a learning style different than the student. Nor have studies been conducted to examine how instructional discourse of a di ssimilar learning style relates to a student’s stress and motivation in the classroom; an assertion of Kirton’s A-I theory. The primary focus of research and practi ce of learning style theory is aligning curriculum and instruction to meet the need s of diverse learning styles in a given classroom (Curry, 1990). However, much of th e literature fails to recognize the learning style of the instructor and how this variable plays in the context of the classroom. The effect of dissimilar learning styles of people working together to develop a new idea or product and the stress resulting from this interact ion is lacking in the literature (Smulders, 2004); yet the study of this phenomenon is th e aim of A-I theory (Kirton, 2003). Since students and teachers of differe nt learning styles commonly co me together in a classroom to generate ideas with varyi ng degrees of motivati ons, attitudes and stressors, it is clear that many research questions are still unanswered. Limitations have been placed on the a pplication of learning styles in the classroom. After an extensive review of the literature, Coffield, Moseley, Hall and Ecclestone (2004) cautioned practitioners’ appl ication of learning styles in the classroom as many types of style have little theoreti cal backing, low reliability and insufficient validity. Furthermore, few studies have found learning styles to “explain more than 16% of the variance in academic achievement” ( p. 127). Other authors have agreed that many measures of learning style are psychometrically weak and therefore offer little use to the

PAGE 25

7 practitioner (Curry, 1990; Harg reaves, 2005; Price, 2004; Smith 2002,). It is evident that future research must use psychometrically so lid measures of learning style with strong theoretical ties in order to provide recommendations to education practitioners. Introduction to Kirton’s Theory of Adaption-Innovation In Kirton’s (2003) A-I theo ry, a person’s cognitive styl e can be determined as more adaptive versus more innovative along a continuum. Cognitive style is ultimately a measure of how individuals solve problems w ith indication of preferences for learning (de Ciantis & Kirton, 1996). Ki rton (2003) describes cogni tive style in context as individuals interacting and reacting to the environment in consistent and stable approaches when solving problems, which is co nsistent with definitions of learning style and cognitive style used in this study (Claxton & Ralston, 1978; Messick, 1984). A person may find their preferred style of pr oblem solving along the adaptive-innovative continuum by completing the Kirton Ad aption-Innovation Inventory (KAI). Kirton’s (2003) measure of cognitive styl e along a continuum allows for interval scale distinction between dissi milar cognitive styles of two individuals. Additionally, dissimilarity of cognitive style can be determ ined between two innovative individuals or two adaptive individuals. The calculated diffe rence between two indi viduals’ cognitive style scores yields a cognitive style gap (Kir ton) which determines the dissimilarity of two approaches to problem solving. Cognitive style gap was calculated in this study by subtracting faculty members’ cognitive style score from each student’s cognitive style score. A cognitive style gap larger than 20 points may contribute to inefficiencies in communication (Kirton, 2003). Stress is a resu lt of cognitive gap (Kirton) which may present important implications to learning. Th e literature suggests that stress in the form

PAGE 26

8 of anxiety may affect students’ self-esteem and academic achievement (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Fortunately, individuals can be motivated to operate outside of a preferred cognitive style and bridge the c ognitive gap found with another individual (Kirton, 2003). Kirton uses the term coping be havior to describe bridging a cognitive style gap and further ela borates that motivation in itiates coping behavior. It is necessary to note that Kirton’s meas ure of cognitive style is distinct from motivation. However, authors of other learni ng style instruments integrate aspects of motivation and cognitive style into one meas ure of how individuals approach learning (Apter, 2001; Dunn, 1984; Entwistle, 1978; Herrmann, 1989; Vermunt, 1992). The note was not made to argue for or against motivatio nal factors as a determ inant of a preferred style of learning. Rather the pure and distinct measure of learning style separated from motivation allows for a more precise measure of motivation (Kirton, 2003), which in turn permits the study of motivation as it relates to dissimilar learning styl es and to learning. The literature provides evidence that stude nt motivation is necessary for learning (Schunk, 1991) and student engagement (M cKeachie, Pintrich, Lin & Smith, 1986) making Kirton’s measure of cognitive style particularly valuable. Kirton’s A-I theory provides a theore tical framework to incorporate the interaction of dissimilar learning styles in the production of new products and ideas. Adaption-Innovation theory was chosen for this study, because of its ability to separate cognitive style from cognitive level while gi ving attention to motivation, stress, and learning. Distinction between cognitive style and cognitive level ma y provide insight to the literature which asserts a confused meshing of the two in explaining student achievement. A reference point is also esta blished to examine th e relationships of

PAGE 27

9 variables found in the educational classroom such as student engagement, motivation and stress. The KAI has been determined as ps ychometrically reliabl e and valid (Kirton, 1999); as opposed to many other learning styl e assessments (Coffield et al., 2004; Curry, 1990). Given the above discussion of A-I theo ry, the researcher used Kirton (2003) to operationalize learning style. Chapter 2 furt her elaborates on Kirton’s A-I theory and measure of cognitive style. The Need for Student Engagement Involvement in Learning (Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education, 1984), a report prop osing the reform of higher education, stated a quality education wa s more dependent on student engagement and less on the reputation and resources of the academic institution. Suddenly faculty members of colleges and universities were asked to be accountable for undergraduate student achievement. To assist faculty members with their new challenge, Chickering and Gameson (1987) developed a set of e ngagement indicators known as the Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education They include: 1. Encourages contact between students and faculty, 2. Develops reciprocity and cooperation among students, 3. Encourages active learning, 4. Gives prompt feedback, 5. Emphasizes time on task, 6. Communicates high ex pectations, and 7. Respects diverse talents and ways of learning. (p. 5) The Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education are widely accepted by the American Association of Hi gher Education (AAHE) as research based process standards that can be applied a nd measured in undergraduate classrooms. In a longitudinal, multi-institutional study, Astin (1993) used 82 student outcome measures, 140 student characteristics, 190 envi ronmental characterist ics and 57 types of

PAGE 28

10 student involvement and found that academ ic involvement, faculty involvement and student peer group involvement were the larges t indicators of enha ncing student learning and personal development of undergraduate st udents. Koljatic and Kuh (2001) conducted a study to determine if cooperation among stude nts, active learning, and faculty contact with students has improved since 1983 and f ound the degree of student engagement in these three areas has not improved. Furtherm ore, 20% of freshman and seniors in colleges and universities across the nation were identified as disengaged (Kuh, 2003). Even though the literature ha s addressed the need for stude nt engagement, it seems that faculty members’ instructiona l techniques still do not enc ourage undergraduate students’ classroom engagement. In colleges of agri culture, Whittington (1998) found almost 80% of faculty members’ instructional discourse to be low at cognitiv e level. Is student engagement explained by cognitive level, cogn itive style, or both? Does cognitive style gap between faculty members and students matter? Problem Statement Trends in undergraduate education are moving from teacher-centered classrooms to student-centered classrooms for the impr ovement of student engagement (Acharya, 2002). From classroom teaching experiences, mo st faculty members concur that students learn differently. This has increa sed the application of learning styles in the classroom as faculty members struggle to develop instruct ional techniques to engage student learning. Advocating the awarene ss of differing learning styles is commendable. However, further implications for education pr actitioners are limited as studi es examining instructional discourse provided to students in similar lear ning styles have conflicting results (Smith, Sekar & Townsend, 2002). Many learning styles measures are psychometrically weak (Curry, 1990) and offer small explanation to the variance of student achievement

PAGE 29

11 (Coffield et al., 2004). Simply stated, future research must be able to accurately determine students’ learning styles and provi de theoretical and em pirical evidence that learning styles contribut e to student learning. The literature comprising the investigation of learning styles is vast with little agreement or collaboration to find agreemen t among the respective th eorists (Coffield et al.). Little attention has been given to how dissimilar learni ng styles between students and faculty members contribute to any measur e of academic success (Coffield et al.). Furthermore, the literature has been consistently unclear concerning the separation of learning style from learning capability (Kir ton, 2003). Research conducted to explain student achievement by measures of inherent learning styles without controlling for other variables, such as motivation, stress and inte lligence, tend to support beliefs of academic superiority (Hargreaves, 2005). Howe ver, if students learn best in their preferred learning style and instructional discourse is only provided in that learning style, academic superiority may be an outcome. Investigating how dissimilar learning styles contribute to academic success is necessary. Also, the separati on of learning style from learning level is warranted to allow for the distinct relationship and accurate measure of other classroom variables that facilitate studen t engagement in the classroom and promote academic achievement. That is, if dissimila r learning style is not found to be a large contributor to student engagement, perhaps learning le vel is a superseding variable. Faculties of colleges of agriculture and lif e sciences have been reliant on scholars in agricultural education to examine teachi ng and learning models that promote student engagement. Nevertheless, studies conducted in agricultural education have made few attempts to identify relationships among st udent characteristics, thinking skills and

PAGE 30

12 motivations that increase student engage ment (Rudd, Baker & Hoover, 2000). Kirton’s A-I theory provides a framework to examine how motivation may overcome the strain of students and faculty members with dissi milar cognitive styles. Adaption-Innovation theory has been applied as a model to problem solving in business management, consumer marketing and aspects of change; however, little research has been done to apply A-I theory to the contex t of undergraduate e ducation. As A-I theory is not context specific (Kirton, 1994), the theory should also apply in the underg raduate classroom. Faculty members are increasingly faced w ith more accountability for increasing student achievement. As student engagement is closely related to academic achievement (Kuh, 2001), faculty members need to utilize in structional strategies and curricula to increase student engagement to foster student learning. Research is needed to determine if cognitive style contributes to the expl anation of student engagement. Does the cognitive style gap between students’ prefer red cognitive style and faculties’ preferred cognitive style impair student engagement? Are students able to overcome cognitive style gap as the faculty member engages the learner? What are the implications of Kirton’s A-I theory as applied within the cont ext of the undergraduate classroom? Significance The goal of many university faculties is to help students learn the content of the course in order to prepare them for graduate school, professional school or a successful career. The goals of many university stude nts mirror the faculty members’ goals. Increasing student engagement in the classroom will facilitate the su ccessful achievement of these same goals. Often there are impedim ents that restrain student engagement. Dissimilar cognitive style may be one impediment.

PAGE 31

13 This study can improve undergraduate instru ction in colleges of agriculture and life sciences by providing evidence of the e ducational impact of dissimilar cognitive style. Given this finding, faculty members can better develop programs and curricula to increase student engagement by reducing cognitive gap caused by dissimilar styles. Departments of agricultural education can help faculty members in colleges of agriculture and life sciences better prepare for teachi ng students with dissimilar cognitive styles. Also, university faculty can gain valuable knowledge concerning how learning style, not learning level, dictates ho w students view problems. This study contributed to the knowledge base of learning styles by providing data concerning the relationships between dissi milar cognitive styles, student stress, motivation and engagement in the undergradu ate classroom. Furthermore, collaborative research among learning style authors may be initiated to determine if they also can contribute to improving student engagement. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to determ ine if significant relationships exist between cognitive style gap, student stress, student motivation, student engagement and selected demographic variables of undergraduate students at th e University of Florida in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences The specific objectives of this study were to: 1. Describe selected faculty and student s according to their selected demographic variables; 2. Determine the cognitive style, student stress, student motivation, and student engagement of undergraduate students; 3. Determine the cognitive style gap between faculty and students and to explore its relationship with student stress, stude nt motivation, student engagement and specific demographic variables of undergraduate students; 4. Explain undergraduate student stress and student motivation based on cognitive style gap and selected stude nt demographic variables;

PAGE 32

14 5. Explain undergraduate student engagement based on cognitive style gap, student stress, student motivation and select ed student demographic variables. Assumptions Basic assumptions of this study were as follows: Student engagement is desired by faculty members in colleges of agriculture and life sciences. Faculty members teach in thei r preferred cognitive style. Problem solving learning exists in the undergraduate classroom. Limitations Conclusions and implications derived from this study were subject to the following limitations. Undergraduate courses are self-selected groups with students having individual differences prior to data collection. It was an ticipated that group differences existed between classes with regard to mean scores and demographic variables. Therefore, data were limited to this population of f aculty members teaching undergraduate courses in the College of Agricu ltural and Life Sciences at the University of Florida. Applications of the results of this study to other college classrooms were limited to the degree of similarity they have with courses us ed in this study. The researcher worked with the conditi ons allowed by the faculty member to collect data from their course. All instrument s were administered in the same manner, but some students completed instruments in cla ss and other students completed instruments outside of class. As the faculty member ma de choices regarding students’ completion of the instrument, method of completion was confounded with the faculty member and therefore provided no way to conclude th ere was a method of completion effect on instrument scores. Even if courses were co mpared, self-selected courses have preexisting differences with no way to statistically determine causality of these differences.

PAGE 33

15 Faculty members volunteered students in th eir courses to partic ipate in this study. Although extra-credit points were often given as an incentive to increas e response rate, some students still chose not to respond. In this study, non-responding students included students who were administered instrument s and chose not to respond, and students who never attended class the day of instrument administration. This study is subject to nonresponse error as there was no da ta collected on non-responders. Instruments used in the study were self-re ported which may affect the accuracy of the data. The halo effect is a common pr oblem among student self-reports as students tend to inflate variables such as grades a nd effort. However, Pike (1999) found that the halo effect was relatively constant across different student groups and schools giving evidence that comparisons can be made wit hout disadvantaging a group. However, a halo effect on the KAI presents an unusable cognitiv e style score thus incr easing mortality rate of the instrument. Removing unusable scores fr om the data may have influenced findings in this study, especially if unusable cognitive style score is related to anxiety (Kirton, 1999). Other confounding variables that may aff ect this study include coping behavior (Kirton, 2003) of the faculty, competence of the faculty, motivation of the faculty, availability of teaching resources, cla ss sizes, and classroom environment. Definitions The following definitions are used in this study. Adaptive. A preference of cognitive style which pr oduces fewer ideas within a narrower perspective while tending to utilize given ru les. Adaptive cognitive style contrasts with an innovative cognitive style (Kirton, 2003). Behavior. An individual’s actions and reactions while operating in an environment (Bandura, 1986). Many factors co ntribute to an individual’s be havior, but one factor is preferred cognitive style blended wi th coping behavior (Kirton, 2003).

PAGE 34

16 Cognitive affect. The source of problem sel ection with a degree of priority placed on the search for a solution by means of mo tivation (Eccles, 1983; Kirton, 2003; Schunk, 2000). Cognitive climate. The mode preferred c ognitive style held by a group of individuals working together to solve problems (Kirton, 2003). Cognitive effect. A part of cognitive function incorpor ating both cognitive style, which influences behavior, and cognitive level which limits behavior by means of cognitive process (Kirton, 2003). Cognitive function. The controlling influence on beha vior through the interaction of three components: cognitive e ffect, cognitive affect and c ognitive resource (Kirton, 2003). Cognitive level. The aptitude, scope or expertise an individual has in solving a problem. It can be expressed as intelligence or leve l of creativity, but is not correlated with cognitive style (Ericsson, Krampe & Te sch-Romer, 1993; Guilford, 1975; Kirton, 2003). Cognitive process. An operation through a theoretical structure of thinking which one advances step by step through the stages a ssumed to be the operations of the brain. Cognitive process is distinguished from cogn itive level and cognitive style, but utilizes both in problem solving (Kirton, 2003; Kolb. 1984; Wallas, 1926). Cognitive resource. The storage of learned informati on (memory) manifested through constructs of knowledge, experien ces, and skills (Kirton, 2003). Cognitive style. The consistent individual differences found in ways of organizing and processing information and experience (Messi ck, 1984). This study uses cognitive style synonymously with learning style (Claxt on & Ralston, 1978). Cognitive style was operationalized by the Kirton Adaption-Innovati on (KAI) Inventory wi th constructs of sufficiency of originality, efficiency, and ru le/group conformity w ith tendencies to be more adaptive or more innovative with in these construc ts (Kirton, 2003). Cognitive style gap. A degree of separation between cogni tive styles of two individuals or between an individual solving a problem and the cognitive style required to solve a specific problem. (Kirton, 2003). Operationa lized by subtracting a faculty member’s cognitive style score from a st udent’s cognitive style score. Cognitive technique. A learned skill an individual may utilize to increase cognitive level or avert from a preferred c ognitive style (Kirton, 2003). Coping behavior. A learned skill that is initiated with motivation and used to perform in a cognitive style that is different from one’s preferre d cognitive style. Coping behavior can only last for a duration and intensity (Kir ton, 2003). Coping behavior in this study is not to be confused with coping behavior as a reaction to stress which is defined as a

PAGE 35

17 conscious effort to deal with an event to which an individual has not yet developed automatic patterns of response (Shields, 2001). Engagement. The extent that students invest th eir time and psychological energy in empirically derived good educational pr actices. (Astin, 1996, Kuh, Hayek, Carini, Ouimet, Gonyea & Kennedy, 2001). Engagement was operationalized with the use of the National Survey for Student Engagement (N SSE) (2005) with constructs of academic challenge, active learning, a nd student-faculty interaction. Environment. The social context indivi duals interact with during the problem solving process (Kirton, 2003). Within the classroom these variables incl ude: personalization, involvement, student cohesiveness, satisfact ion, competition, task orientation, and rule clarity (Fraser, 1998). Faculty Member. An individual responsible for pr esenting instructional discourse, providing problem sets for student completi on and assigning the final course grade. Innovative. A preference of cognitive style to pr oduce a larger number of ideas with a wider variety of perspectives to make a product different while tending to alter rules when solving problems. Innovative cognitive style contrasts with adaptive cognitive style. (Kirton, 2003). Learning style. A consistent way an individual re sponds to, and uses stimuli in the context of learning. (Claxton and Ralst on, 1978). This study uses cognitive style synonymously with cognitive style (Messick, 1984). Learning style was operationalized by the Kirton Adaption-Innovation (KAI) Invent ory with constructs of sufficiency of originality, efficiency, and rule /group conformity with tendenc ies to be more adaptive or more innovative within these constructs (Kirton, 2003). Motivation. A process that includes both initiati ng and maintaining a goal-directed activity (Pintrich & Schu nk, 2002). Comprises of three different components: expectancy–a student’s belief a bout their ability to perform a task, value–a student’s goal and belief concerning the importance and intere st of the task and affective–a student’s emotional reactions to the task (Pin trich & De Groot, 1990). Motivation was operationalized with use of the Motivated St rategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) with constructs of intrinsic motivation, ex trinsic motivation, task value, control of learning belief, self-efficacy fo r learning and test anxiety. Problem. A desire or felt need for a solution, but not immediately knowing the mental operations to arrive at the solution (Soden, 1994). Products and ideas. A solution to a problem fitted to the degree of structure preferred by the problem-solver. A more adaptive person will prefer more struct ure in the generation of ideas recognizing boundaries of the relevant paradigm and a more innovative person will prefer less structure in the generation of ideas disregarding the boundaries of the relevant paradigm (Kirton, 2003).

PAGE 36

18 Stress. The perception of a stimulus in the form of an event or condition and requires an individual to adjust from normal life. Stresso rs can be positive or negative depending on the individual’s reaction to the experien ce (Gadzella, 1994; Roma no, 1992). Stress was operationalized with use of the Student-life Stress Inventory (SSI) with constructs of frustrations, conflicts, pressures, changes and self-imposed stress. Summary In summary, learning styles theory has become popular as pragmatic educators can easily see its existence in the classroom However, many learning style instruments have proven to be unreliable a nd invalid. There is little empiri cal evidence that dissimilar learning styles contribute to understanding st ress, motivation, and e ngagement; these are common variables found in the undergraduate cl assroom. Kirton’s theo ry of A-I provides a framework to distinguish cognitive style from cognitive level to help understand the influences of the aforementioned variables. As faculty members become more accountable for student engagement and l ook for instructional methods to promote learning, evidence is needed to determine th e importance of learning styles in student engagement. Kirton’s definition of cognitive st yle and psychometrically sound instrument to measure cognitive style may be of particular use.

PAGE 37

19 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE The purpose of this study was to determ ine if significant relationships exist between cognitive style gap, student stress, student motivation, student engagement and selected demographic of undergraduate student s in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at the University of Florida. The specific objectives of th is study were to: 1) describe selected faculty and students accordi ng to their selected demographic variables; 2) determine the cognitive st yle, student stress, stude nt motivation, and student engagement of undergraduate students; 3) determine the cognitiv e style gap between faculty and students and to expl ore its relationship with stude nt stress, student motivation, student engagement and specific demographi c variables of undergraduate students; 4) explain undergraduate student stress and st udent motivation based on cognitive style gap and selected student demographic variable s; and 5) explain un dergraduate student engagement based on cognitive style gap, student stress, student motivation and selected student demographic variables. This chapter summarizes pertinent liter ature concerned with learning styles, stress, motivation and engagement. Special at tention will be given to Kirton’s cognitive style (Kirton, 2003) as applie d to the context of the unde rgraduate classroom, thus providing the theoretical framework for the study Also a discussion of empirical research conducted to examine learning style, stress, motivation, and engagement, is presented to determine relationships between these variables.

PAGE 38

20 Within this chapter are the following major sections: theoretical framework, learning and learning styles, l earning and stress, learning and motivation, and learning and engagement. Theoretical Framework Literature concerning learning styles incl udes a wide variety of published sources consisting of empirical research f ound in refereed j ournals, pedagogical recommendations found in teacher newsle tters, and books advocating the use of a specific learning style inve ntory (Coffield, Moseley, Ha ll & Ecclestone, 2004). Said differently, the scope of learning styles rese arch is based on instrument development, adding to theory, classroom improvement, and commercial use. Kirton’s A-I theory (1976) is a theoretical response to the literature stating that all people can be creative in problem solving in their own cognitive style, thus distinguishing be tween cognitive style and cognitive level (Kirton, 1978). Kirton’s A-I theory provide d the theoretical framework of this study. The most detailed explanation of A-I theory is given by Kirton (2003) in Adaption-Innovtion: In the c ontext of diversity and change with illustration of cognitive function, behavior and envir onment in relation to idea formation (p. 37). Within the theoretical model, cognitive style and cogniti ve level are components of cognitive effect. Cognitive effect is defined as a part of cognitive function incorporating both cognitive style and cognitive level, both of which are employed by the individual to complete the cognitive process (Kirton). The strength of A-I theory is the sepa ration and independent measure of cognitive style from cognitive level. Cognitive style is defined by Kirton (2003) as “a strategic, stable characteristic–t he preferred way in which people respond to and seek to bring about change” (p.43). Kirt on’s definition of cogni tive style regarding

PAGE 39

21 adaptiveness and innovativeness wi ll be explained further in s ubsequent sections of this chapter. Examples of cognitive level include measures of capacity or ability such as intelligence. However in problem solving, both style and level are required to complete a cognitive process. Cognitive processes can be described as the “ste ps of how I operate” and “not measured, but validat ed to provide information of where we are” (p.38) in solving a problem. Examples of cognitive process include Kolb’s cycle of Experiential Learning (de Ciantis & Kirt on, 1996; Kolb, 1984) and the stages of problem solving (Wallas, 1926). Each stage of a cognitive pr ocess can be completed at a high cognitive level or low cognitive level and through th e use of different cognitive styles. The outcome of cognitive process is knowledge (learning) stored in cognitive resource (Kirton, 2003). The cognitive process can also be accomplished with low motivation or high motivation as determined by cognitive affect (p. 89). Cognitive affect is defined as the motivation and value placed on the search for a solution to a problem (Kirton). Ultimately, cognitive affect, cognitive resource a nd cognitive effect are three distinct and uncorrelated components of cognitive function (Kirton) and employed by the individual to solve problems. This study examined cognitive style gap between the teacher and the student and its relationship with stress, motivation and engagement. Other gaps exist between the cognitive function of teacher and student incl uding: cognitive gap of level–a difference of intelligence, cognitive gap of affect–a differe nce of motivation or va lue and cognitive gap of resource–a difference of knowledge or skill (Kirton, 2003). These cognitive gaps influence the interaction between two individuals, but the separation of cognitive style

PAGE 40

22 from cognitive level, cognitive affect and c ognitive resource allows for a more precise measure of dissimilar cognitive style and its relationship with classroom engagement. In the effort of solving a problem, indivi dual differences become apparent at the realization of cognitive gaps. Nevertheless, if the motivation is great enough for teacher and student, both will be engaged in the pr ocess of learning (Kirton, 2003). Ideas and solutions may come from both student and teacher. Although students are responsible for engaging in learning activities the teacher facilitates lear ning and therefore accountable for student engagement. Student engagement includes constructs of academic challenge, active learning and student-faculty inte raction (Kuh, 2001). Teacher engagement facilitates student engagement and can be measured by the teacher ’s knowledge of the learning process, intrinsic motivation for teaching, and self-efficacy toward teaching (Knowles, 1999). Kirton (2003) defines the environment as the social context in which individuals interact during the problem solving process. An individual’s interaction with the environment manifests as people work together in the environment to solve problems and react to the feedback provided by others (Kirton). In the undergraduate classroom, students interact with fellow students a nd the faculty member through discussions, activities, assignments and projects; all of which provide student feedback either by fellow students or the faculty member. In a review of instruments measuring factors influencing the undergraduate classroom environment, Fras er (1998) categorized seven scales: personalization, involvement, student cohesiveness, satisfaction, competition, task orientation, and rule clarity. Ho wever, Fraser further discusse d that this list may not be

PAGE 41

23 conclusive as little research has been conducted regarding the environment of undergraduate classrooms. Finally, student academic achievement results from the faculty member and students engaged in the classroom environmen t for the purpose of learning. Academic achievement can be measured regarding a specific assignment or a cumulative total provided by the faculty member with values re presented as either a percentile or a letter grade. Figure 2-1 displays Ki rton’s A-I theory in the cont ext of a teacher and student engaging in idea formation. For the individual, coping behavior is used when the rewards gained from solving the problem are greater than the effort exer ted to operate outside of an individual’s preferred style (Kirton, 2003). Said differe ntly, cognitive style gap causes stress and motivation is needed to overcome this stre ss and bridge the cognitive style gap between two individuals. Researchers have investigated the relatio nship cognitive style gap has with stress. McCarthy (1988) found that women managers’ stress increased as the size of the cognitive style gap increased. Furthermore, the threshold at which stress became apparent was at a cognitive style gap of 20 points. Another study conducted by Kubes and Spillerova (1992) had concurring results with a large cognitive style gap influencing the construct aggravation within a working group. However, both of these studies were conducted in the context of busin ess. Little is known if A-I theory is appropriate for the undergraduate classroom and if these relations hips between dissimilar cognitive style and student stress also apply.

PAGE 42

24 Figure 2-1. Kirton’s theoretical model of adaption and innovation ap plied to the undergraduate classroom (Kirton, 2003)

PAGE 43

25 Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can be driving forces for increasing engagement in the problem solving proce ss (Hennessey & Amabile, 1993). In the event that a course is taught by a faculty member with a dissimila r cognitive style, a student may be motivated to cope outside of a preferred cognitive style in effort to interact more with the faculty member and improve stude nt engagement (Kuh, 2001). Motivation is not a result of cognitive gap, but is a driving fo rce for using a cognitive style that is not the individual’s preferred style. Specifically, motivation is a factor of coping behavior (Kirton, 2003); if motivation can be partiall y explained by cognitive style gap, then there is evidence that students ar e coping. Motivation is a compone nt of cognitive affect and therefore independent of cognitive styl e, a component of cognitive effect. Utilizing the framework provided by A -I theory, student engagement was determined to be an outcome of problem so lving and idea formation. Student engagement was used instead of academic achievement in this study to provide a better measurement of the interaction between f aculty member and student. Kirton (2003) asserts that adaptive and innovative indi viduals prefer different amounts of structure while completing the problem solving process. Whereas more adaptive individuals tend to solve probl ems favoring structure, more innovative individuals tend to solve problems unbound by st ructure. Adaptive individuals tend to have fewer ideas making the solution more e fficient; innovative individuals prefer to have a wide range of ideas with the know ledge that many of the ideas are improbable (Kirton, 1994). The difference between two styl es of problem solving is often evident by the differences of perception and communicati on of the solution. That is, a gap between two dissimilar cognitive styles tends to inhi bit effective communica tion. This failure of

PAGE 44

26 communication can often lead the two indi viduals to focus on the new problem of ineffective communication and not the probl em at hand which is completing course projects and assignments (Kirton). If this occurs in the undergraduate classroom, students may dwell on the inefficiencies of communica tion with the faculty member instructing the course and may not be motivated enough to engage in learning. The constructs of student engagement include level of academ ic challenge, active and collaborative learning, and student interac tion with the faculty member, (Kuh, Hayek, Carini, Ouimet, Gonyea & Kennedy, 2001), all of which requ ire communication between the faculty member and the student to be achieved (U mbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). In summary, the faculty member determines the amount of stru cture used in the course, but students may prefer different amounts of st ructure and find themselves unmotivated to effectively communicate with the faculty member, thus im pacting the level of student engagement. Kirton’s (2003) A-I theory may contri bute to the explanation of student engagement by identifying the relationships between cognitive style gap, stress and motivation. An increase in cognitive style gap between the student and the faculty member causes stress through working together in solving problems or engaging in learning. If the student is motivated, coping be havior is used to operate outside of a preferred cognitive style and employ a cogniti ve style closer to that of the faculty member (Kirton). As a result, student and faculty member are operating in the same cognitive style which may increase student engagement. However, student motivation supplied to coping behavior only last for a period of time and at a limited level (Kirton). Consequently the student reverts back to a preferred cognitive style which may be detrimental to student engagement. For the stude nt to be successfully engaged the reward

PAGE 45

27 for learning must be greater than the stre ss imposed by cognitive style gap from the faculty member (Kirton). Figure 2-2 portray s the interaction of student stress and motivation in explaining student engagement. Student Engagement Student BehaviorStudent Cognitive Style Gap Initiating Stress Teacher Behavior 10 30 50 70 90 Student Coping Behavior Initiated By Motivation Figure 2-2. Interaction of cognitive style ga p, stress, motivation and engagement (Kirton, 2003) Other variables that influence studen t engagement include faculty member behavior (Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005), cl ass size (Ehrenberg, Brewer, Gamoran & Willms, 2001), use of teaching methods (M arzano, Pickering & Po llock, 2001), gender, ethnicity, full-time student status, organiza tional involvement and discipline of study (Pike, 2004). There were other confounding variable s but were considered outside the objectives of the study. They included teach ing effectiveness, teacher engagement, classroom environment and student’s pr evious knowledge. Furthermore, it was

PAGE 46

28 impossible to determine the variables outside of the classroom that inadvertently effect student engagement. These incl uded but were not limited to sickness, family crisis and lack of time devoted to study. Kirton (1994) offers the following anecdote to teachers and students in reference to A-I theory: We all teach children to be more adaptiv e: before answering the question, please read it; be more methodical; present your wo rk more neatly; nice essay, pity it is not on the topic I set; and so on. The best teachers taught most of us a lot of technique, but changed us (our preferred c ognitive style) not at all. In the process they found some of us (adaptors) more re ceptive to working more closely within structure than others (innovators). Lesser teachers, especially when faced with the less motivated innovators, got even less far. Of course, despite the groans in the literature, not all teachers are or ever were, adaptors The highly innovative ones delighted most of us, whether we always understood them or not; some of us (the higher adaptors) were just confused. As the saying goes, “You just can’t win ‘em all’.” The best teachers win more than most. (p. xxiii). The undergraduate classroom offers a new c ontext for A-I theory as well as the introduction of new variables. Although th ese variables were not discounted by A-I theory, up to this point, they had not been fully explored. Given the previous description of A-I th eory, the researcher found two studies of interest. First consid ering the undergraduate classroom, Pu ccio, Talbot and Joniak, (1993) found that students’ stress increased with the perceived adaptive ness of the course. Specifically, the rule/group c onformity construct of the KAI was most important in determining the relationship between cognitive style and stress. It se ems logical that an innovative student would find an adaptive cour se stressful, but why would an adaptive student find an adaptive c ourse stressful? The research er found the study conducted by Puccio, Talbot and Joniak one of the few inve stigations regarding Kirton’s A-I theory applied to the undergraduate classroom.

PAGE 47

29 In the second study, Barnhart (2002) set out to determine if increased cognitive gap led to aviation flight instruction ine fficiencies. No significant differences in effectiveness were found between total cognitive style gap between students and flight instructors, however significant effects we re found by analyzing KAI construct gaps. Specifically, a significant weak negative correlation of the efficiency cognitive style gap and time spent preparing for the first solo f light (r=-.23, p<.05) and time spent preparing for certification (r=-.26, p<.05). Furthermore, there was a weak negative correlation of rule/group conformity style ga p and time spent preparing for certification (r=-.29, p<.05) (Barnhart). Although these correlations were considered low (Mill er, 1998), one would expect a positive correlation in this study. That is, cognitive style gap should increase with the amount of time spent preparing for the first solo flight and certification. Both studies previously mentioned f ound low negative correlations between cognitive style gap and measures of stress a nd effort. Although these findings contradict with the theoretical model of this study, it is important to recognize them as two of the few published studies found by the researcher that applied A-I theory to the context of the learning environment. Learning and Learning Styles To understand learning styles, it is not only necessary to define learning, but also to provide learning theory to give evidence of different learning types, processes and styles. Gagne (1965) proposed ei ght types of learning: 1) si gnal learning; 2) stimulusresponse learning; 3) chaining; 4) verbal-assoc iate learning; 5) multiple discrimination; 6) concept learning; 7) principl e learning; and 8) problem so lving (p. 33). The types of learning are hierarchical as the la tter is a prerequisite of the former for a type of learning to take place (p. 60). Additionally, learning can be any one of these eight types which

PAGE 48

30 delineates the learning process of a situation and giving reason for a learner to exhibit a preferred style and a chosen level (Gange). Research conducted in the domain of l earning styles was categorized by Curry (1987) into four dimensions which formed th e “onion” model. Personality trait types of learning styles were categori zed at the core of the onion, as they were found the most stable within a learner. The second layer of learning styles represents information processing, while the third layer includes the so cial and situational interactions of the learner. The most unstable category of l earning styles includes the preference of instructional methods, found on the outside laye r of the “onion.” Curry placed Kirton’s measure of learning style at the core of the onion. An individual’s cognitive style defined by Kirton (2003) does not change as a person ag es, and is correlated with many measures of personality (Kirton, 1999). Nor does it change as the individual solves any particular type problem. However, in problem solvi ng, an individual may cope outside of one’s cognitive style as the situation requires. Shuell (1986; as cited in Schunk, 2000) defines learning as “an enduring change in behavior, or in the capacity to behave in a given fashion, which results from practice or other forms of experience” (p. 2). It is plausi ble that each of the eight types of learning provided by Gagne (1965) is fitting with this definition. That is, each type of learning may result from an experience and produce a behavioral change. Evidence of this may be found by examining a type of learning proce ss. Using stimulus-response learning as an example, a student may be stimulated to increase focus during independent study time. The discriminating stimulus is the al lowance to use background music during independent study time. This stimulus triggers a student response to either use or not use

PAGE 49

31 background music. If the student uses background music to help focus during independent study time, another stimulus (prais e) is utilized to reinforce the behavior (Skinner, 1953). Using problem solving learning as an example, a student is stimulated by a felt need to solve a problem of comple ting all homework assignments before the end of the night. The student knows he may use independent study time, but it is hard for him to focus. He generates solutions to solve his problem of lack of focus by playing music in the background and executes a plan of acti on (Wallas, 1926). For both types of learning, the increase of these experiences (practice) results in a changed behavior (increasing focus). Given the definition of learning used in this study, it seems paradoxical that one would have a preferred learning style that is evident by a stab le and innate behavior not altered by instruction (Kirton, 2003). However, learning styles are a preferred approach to learning, or a perception of the learni ng environment to which the learner has a preference. Claxton and Ralston (1978, p. 7) define learning st yle as “a consistent way an individual responds to, and uses stimuli in the cont ext of learning,” which is similar to Messick’s (1984) definition of cognitive style. Furthermore, a person may cope outside of a preferred learning style given a different situation, adequate motivation, and learned techniques (Jones, Reichard & M okharti, 2003; Kirton, 2003; Kolb, 1984). Ford and Chen (2001) found that matchi ng a student’s learning style with a faculty member’s learning style improved stude nt learning. However, Ford and Chen also recognized that type of learni ng and other variables interact with the matching of similar learning styles. Jensen (2000) connected scient ific studies of the brain to teaching and learning and wrote, “The whole notion of lear ning styles becomes irrelevant when we

PAGE 50

32 consider how much variety th e brain thrives on” (p.138). Howe ver, Jensen further wrote that learners do have preferences of many lear ning styles and operate in those styles at different levels. It is useful to understand aspects of a preferred style in order that learning differences are realized. This belief is concurrent with the most complete and thoroug h literature review concerning learning styles to date (Coffiel d, Moseley, Hall & Ecclestone, 2004). In this literature review, 71 learning styl es were held up to criteria of psychometric properties, theoretical backing and practical usage in th e classroom. The authors agreed that even though most learning style measures fall short of these criteria, each have strengths and weaknesses. Realizing the comple x nature of the brain, it is conceivable that more than 71 different learning styles do exist and further research wi ll bring greater understanding as to how these styles associate with learni ng. It is interesting to note that of the 71 learning styles reviewed by Coffield, Mose ley, Hall and Ecclestone, only a number of authors relied on related theories and con cepts of learning and all used different terminology, yet the term learning style and cognitive style encompass all measures of preferred behaviors in learni ng. Coffield, Moseley, Hall and Ecclestone argue for more collaborative research between learning st yle authors as findings may bring greater understanding to the process of learning and student engagement. It may be possible that a sp ecific learning style is congrue nt with one of the eight types of learning noted above by Gange (1965). For example, Kolb’s (1984) measure of learning style and process is harmonious with the learning of a principle. To learn a principle a learner engages in a concrete experience, followed by self-reflection and abstract conceptualization and ending w ith experimentation of that principle.

PAGE 51

33 Furthermore, Kirton’s (1976) measure of lear ning style is harmoni ous with learning from problem solving. To learn from problem solv ing, a learner manipulates a principle and interprets the meaning from the manipulat ion. For effective learning from a problem, Pask (1976) claims the learner must use both holist and serialist cognitive styles. Although Pask and Kirton measure cognitive style differently, they are much the same when considering description and categorizat ion (Cassidy, 2004). Both of these measures of cognitive style are representati ve of problem solving style. Other types of learning defined by Gange ( 1965) may be compatible with specific learning styles. For example, the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) (Witkin, Oltman, Raskin & Karp, 1971) measures whether an individual is eith er field independent or field dependent by the individual’s ab ility to identify embedded figures within geometric shapes. The cognitive processes used to complete the GEFT gives some evidence that field independence and field dependence is a style of concept learning (Gange, 1965). Concept learning is defined as comparing and distingu ishing properties of similar items based on knowledge of those it ems (Gange). However, Witkin (1973) has found that his measure of learning style does ha ve implications for problem solving with regards to the need for structur e. Field dependent lear ners tend to prefer more structure in learning while field independent learners prefer less stru cture. This corresponds to Kirton’s (2003) adaptive indi viduals who favor structure and innovative individuals who prefer less structur e in the effort of problem solving. Learning Style and Learning Process Most psychologists concur that learni ng occurs through a process or cycle. Research of the brain has found five st ages for effective learning (Jensen, 2000), including preparation–background recall of information, acquisition–inputting

PAGE 52

34 information, elaboration–experimentation and feedback, memory formation–encoding through emotion and context, and functiona l integration–applica tion of knowledge (Jensen). It is easy to see these stages w ithin other learning processes. Kolb (1984) defines the process of learning a principle as a concrete experience with the principle to be learned, followed by self-reflection and ab stract conceptualiza tion and ending with active experimentation of that principle. Teaching and learning the problem solving process includes the stages of problem iden tification, idea generati on, idea evaluation and implementation (Swartz & Perkins, 1990). Still, the process the student uses to gather information dictates how the information is stored (Jensen, 2000; Pi aget, 1970). That is, a learner studying a principle will acquire know ledge of the principle, but not how to manipulate the principle to solve a problem ; knowledge to solve a problem must be acquired from the process of problem solving learning. Kirton (2003) argues that le arning style is independent from the learning process, a contradiction of Kolb’s experiential lear ning theory and Kolb’s measure of learning style. Kirton empirically tested (de Ci antis & Kirton, 1996) his claim by conducting a factor analysis on the Learning Style Questionnaire (Honey & Mumford, 1992), a learning style measure congruent with principle learning. The Learning Style Questionnaire was found as a more reliable ve rsion of Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory. Following factor analysis, comparisons were made with Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation Inventory to make the argument of independe nce between style and process. However, it may not be sensible to compare a learning style of principle and a learning style of problem solving as the two are of different l earning processes. That is, a learning style of problem solving may be independent of pr inciple learning, but not independent of

PAGE 53

35 problem solving learning. Furthermore, Kirton (2003) claims that ad aptive learners have preferences of inductive thinking methods lead ing to better problem representation, while innovative learners tend to us e deductive thinking methods to proliferate more ideas (p. 172). Again, both problem representation a nd idea generation are components of the problem solving process. The process of learning and learning style may not be completely independent as Kirton suggests. In addition to this, e ffective learning from problem solving requires the learner to us e cognitive techniques that correspond with adaptiveness and innovativeness (Pask, 1976) wh ile manipulating a principle to solve a problem. If coping behavior is required for an individual to be more adaptive or innovative, there is theoretical evidence that in problem solving learning stress is inevitable and motivation is needed to comp lete the problem solving learning process. Learning Style and Learning Level Kirton (1994) further separates problem solving in terms of cognitive level and cognitive style. Whereas cognitive style is fixed, innate and guides preferences of structure for solving problems, cognitive level is the capability to solve problems at a degree of complexity (Kirton). Examples of cognitive level include intelligence, creativity, academic achievement, etc. Again, the separation of cognitive style from cognitive level is the strength of A-I theor y. The distinction and accu rate measurement of cognitive style allows for the precise meas ure of other variables such as student intelligence, engagement, and motivation. According to A-I theory, all people ca n creatively solve problems and have original ideas (Goldsmith, 1994). However wh en solving problems, people who are more adaptive tend to produce a smaller number of ideas with a narrower perspective that tend to be more relevant, sound and useful while utilizing given rules. People who are more

PAGE 54

36 innovative generate a larger number of origin al ideas of which ma ny are different with widely changing perspectives and tendencies to alter rules (Kirt on, 1994). Both adaptive and innovative people can adequately solve a ny problem, just within their own style. Kirton’s Cognitive Style From the definitions of learning styl e (Claxton and Ralston, 1978) and cognitive style (Messick, 1984) used in this study, Kirton’s cognitive style was determined as a style of learning. Additionally, Kirton’s Ad aption-Innovation Inventory (KAI) simply measures style of problem solving and is not convoluted with factors of cognitive level, cognitive affect or other types of lear ning (Gange, 1965). Three factors located on a continuum of more adaptive to more innovativ e have been identified and determined as preferential behaviors of an i ndividual. Table 2-1 disp lays the factor trai ts of adaptors and innovators. Table 2-1. Factor Traits of Adaptors and Innovators Construct Adaptor Innovator Sufficiency of originality Efficiency Rules/Group conformity Tendency to produce fewer ideas aimed at being sound, useful and relevant to solving the problem. Preference for attention to detail to further develop ideas while narrowly focused on improving. Often applies group accepted rules in idea formation to solve problems. Tendency to produce more ideas that are both relevant and irrelevant to the problem with knowledge that some ideas are inappropriate. Preference for discontinuous thought to modify the problem with broad approaches to make different. Often challenges group accepted rules in idea formation to solve problems. Note. Source: Kirton, 2003, p. 58-60. The factor traits of A-I theory are “inna te, fixed and reliably measured” (Kirton, 2003, p. 76). Each of the three factor traits le nds to a perceived structure of the problem

PAGE 55

37 at hand which determines the approach needed to solve the problem The more adaptive tend to work within the frame of structure. A more adaptive cognitive style rarely challenges the boundaries of structure and so lutions to the problem are focused with detail to derive a better so lution that improves efficienc y. A more innovative cognitive style breaks boundaries as if they never ex isted and solutions generated are often unrelated in an effort to deri ve a different solution that transforms the structure itself (Kirton). The perception of the structure from the framed problem determines the response of the learner, providing for th e use of a preferred cognitive style. The Scale of Adaption and Innovation A benefit of A-I theory and the KAI is th e interval measure of difference between two cognitive styles, providing a specific de gree of separation between an individual’s cognitive style from another i ndividual’s cognitive style. This is opposed to a learning style measured nominally and determined as categorically different; a model for many learning style inventories. The KAI measures cognitive style by scoring adaptiveness and innovativeness along a continuum (Kirton, 2003 ). Anchoring the more adaptive on the left and the more innovative on the right of th e continuum, an interv al scale is created amid a theoretical range of 32 to 160 (K irton). However, the actual range is approximately 45 to 145 with a mean of 95 (Kirton). It is important to note that the terms ad aptors and innovators are used only to distinguish two differing cogniti ve styles, when in actuality, cognitive styles refer to being more adaptive or more innovative in the context of a situ ation (Kirton). For example, an individual may have a cognitive score of 125 distinguishing them as more innovative, but this individual wi ll be perceived as adaptive to an individual with a score of 140.

PAGE 56

38 Kirton (2003) suggests that a 10-poin t difference in score between two individual’s cognitive style, as measured by the KAI, develops a “noticeable difference” when working together on a problem. The difference found between the two cognitive styles is defined as cognitive style gap (Kir ton). A 20-point cognitive style gap leads to difficulties in mutual understanding and colla boration which may have a definitive effect on communication when problem solving (Kirton) For an individual with this amount of cognitive gap between one’s preferred cognitive style and the style re quired to work with a problem or another problem solver, coping be havior is needed and can exist in both intensity and duration (Kirton). Coping beha vior requires motivation (Walling, 1987) and is psychologically expensive (Kirton, 2003). When solving a problem, more adaptive individuals can use techniques such as brainstorming which can be taught, however, th ey are not preferred and less likely to use it in their natural envi ronment. Innovative individuals, li kewise can be taught to master details and operate within rules, but woul d prefer the unstructured situation. Kirton further suggests that practice of coping beha vior does not make coping easier for that person (Kirton, 2003, p. 255). This suggestion does limit the definition of learning used in this study; however the s uggestion is supported in the creativity literature. Few researchers have been able to provide hard ev idence that an individual can be taught to be more innovative or more adaptive (Nickerson, 19 99). Furthermore, there is evidence that teaching an individual to use different problem solving techniques has little long term effect (Nickerson). Cognitive style (Kirton, 2003) is fixed, innate, and determines an individual’s preference for stru cture within problem solving. There is no association with

PAGE 57

39 cognitive style and nationality or age, however females tend to be five points more adaptive then the general population mean (Kirton). Summary of Learning and Learning Styles Gange (1965) described eight different types of learning that are hierarchical in nature. Of the eight types, l earning from problem solving is th e highest form of learning with evidence of a problem solving process a nd problem solving style or cognitive style. Kirton’s measure of cognitive style is a preferred approach to solve problems and independent from cognitive level (Goldsmith, 1994). However, both cognitive style and cognitive level are utilized to complete the problem solving process. There is evidence that other measures of learni ng style are specific to other types of learning defined by Gange (1965) with evidence found in the learning process. Coffield, Mosley, Hall and Ecclestone (2004) identified 71 different types of cognitive styles with varying degrees of reliability and validity. Kirton’s measure of cognitive style was determined a reliable a nd valid measure of cognitive style (Kirton, 1999). Furthermore, the measure was found i ndependent from measures of motivation and capability (Kirton). Kirton’s cognitive style determines if a person is more adaptive or more innovative in one’s preference to solv e problems and is stable characteristics of the individual. Along a continuum of adap tion anchoring the le ft and innovation anchoring the right an individual’s cognitive styl e score is placed in a theoretical range of 32 to 160 (Kirton). Dissimilarity between th e cognitive styles of two individuals is determined by calculating the difference be tween two cognitive style scores. This cognitive style gap indicates differences betw een preferred methods of solving problems with stress as a consequence. Motivation may be utilized by the student to operate in a different cognitive style than preferred a nd bridge cognitive gap (Kirton, 2003). A

PAGE 58

40 cognitive gap larger than 20 points may i nhibit communication (K irton) between the student and faculty member and may e xplain lack of student engagement. Learning and Stress College students may be influenced by stress positively or negatively (Sandler, 2000). That is, stress as a stimulus can provoke a negative or positive reaction to the situation at hand. If a student ha s a positive reaction it is the f ear of failure that motivates this student to succeed, but a negative reacti on will likely be detrimental to classroom success. Given this variability of outcome from stress, little resear ch has been conducted with attention to stress asso ciated specifically concerni ng the undergraduate classroom. A word of caution is given regarding terminology and definition in discussing stress. Coping behavior specific to the reaction to a stressor can be defined as a conscious effort to deal with an event to which an individual has not yet developed automatic patterns of response (Shields, 2001). In this document, reaction is used instead of the word coping so that the reader does not conf use coping as a reaction to stress with coping behavior defined by Kirton (2003). A student’s reaction to the stressor may de termine if the stress is beneficial or detrimental to the academic achievement of the student. In a study conducted to examine this hypothesis, Aspinwall and Taylor (1992) surveyed 672 freshman undergraduates. Their findings provide evidence that a pos itive mood, higher optimism and an active reaction to stress orientation had positive eff ects on adjusting to new college experiences. Furthermore, the reaction to stress construc t avoidance had detrimental effects on the adjustment to new college experiences. Hock ey (1979) considered th e role of stress in aiding the selectivity of atte ntion and response in performi ng a cognitive task. Hockey

PAGE 59

41 elaborated that there may be an optimal le vel of stress for cognitive function although determining this level is dependent on the components of the task. Researchers have studied the detrimenta l effects of anxiety, a correlate of academic stress (Misra and McKean, 2000). In countless studies, test anxiety has been found to be detrimental to academic achie vement and self-esteem (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Specifically, worry is a factor of anxiet y that causes distractions resulting in time lost being able to perform at the level the student is capable of achieving. Most of the literature concerning anxiety focuses on this worry component and its influence on students’ attention and time on task in comp leting an assignment or test. Like stress, anxiety is an affec tive component of Kirton’s A-I theory. Undergraduate students face many stresscausing experiences throughout the time spent in completing a bachelor’s degree. Among these experiences are moving away from home, academics, finances and work and relationships (Pfeiffer, 2001). The experiences themselves do not cause stress but the student’s perception and reaction turns the experience into a stressor (Romano, 1992). Studies have been conducted to determine the effects of specif ic interventions of student stress, such as better time manage ment. Again, none of the studies found by the researcher dealt with techniques specifically used to improve academics or students’ relationships with faculty members. Stress in the Classroom The college environment is much differ ent than the work environment, making the study of college stress unique in the li terature. Research of undergraduate student stress has been conducted concerning the globa l stress of a college student as well as academic stress restricted to the classr oom. Academic stressors for undergraduate

PAGE 60

42 students may include homework, unclear as signments, uncomfortable classrooms and time pressure set by the faculty member (R oss, Niebling & Heckert, 1999). The most common stressors of college students may be intrapersonal, including the change in sleeping habits, change in eating habits and new respons ibilities (p.317). However, changes in the environment may also change types of stressors. That is, measuring stress at different times during the ye ar and at different times leading to the completion of a degree may find different levels of stre ssors. Shields (2001) found that stress had detrimental effects on grade point average du ring the fall semester, but not the winter semester. Shields postulates that the effects of a stressor diminishes once students begin to activate positive reactions to the stressor. Regarding academic stress, Ross, Niebling and Heckert (1999) found that increased cl ass workload and lower grades than anticipated were the two most frequent re ported stressors among undergraduate students. Pfeiffer (2001) believes that these academic stressors can cause depression and low selfconfidence (p. 13). In a study conducted to find the relationship between stressors, learning strategies and test anxiety, Gadzella, Masten, and Stacks (1998) found that frustration was negatively correlated (r=-.20, p<.05) with the learning strategy deep processing (Schmeck, Ribich, Ramanaiah, 1977). That is, students do not become as frustrated when they become more organized (G adzella, Masten & Stacks, 199 8). Surprisingly, this study found no significant correlations with fact ors of stressors and test anxiety. Using Gadzella’s Student-Life Stress I nventory (SSI), Misr a and McKean (2000) found that practices of time management lowe red college student stress levels. However, the Misra and McKean study contradicted th e previously mentioned study by Gadzella,

PAGE 61

43 Masten and Stacks (1998) and found signi ficant positive correlations (p<.05) among constructs of stress and general anxiety among the population of full-time undergraduate students. Correlations between stress and anxi ety should be positive as they both have a worry component (Misra and McKean, 2000). Felsten and Wilcox (1992) conducted a st udy to find the impact of stress on 146 college male’s academic performance. Afte r analysis they found that stress was a detrimental effect on male’s grade point average. Shields (2001) conducted a study to examine the effects of stress and reactions to stress among persisting and nonpersisting undergraduate student s. A persister is defined as a full-time student enrolled in fall and wint er semesters, while a non-persisting student is one that enrolls in the fall semester but not the subsequent wint er semester. The group of study consisted of 220 persisters a nd 110 non-persisters and findings found that persisters had significantly higher levels of stress than nonpersis tors with no gender difference. Stress was positively associated with reactive efforts to stress, and age among persistors, but not nonpersisters This gives evidence that fu ll-time status or traditional students have developed reactive efforts to stressors, but non-tradi tional students do not develop these same reactive efforts (Shields). Finally with the use of regression, stress, age and number of credit hours taken in the se mester each had significant explanation of student reaction to stress (S hields). Recognizing that stress affects students in the classroom, it is necessary to examine the demographic variables related to stress. Demographic Variables Related to Stress Gadzella and Guthrie (1993) found that women undergraduate students tend to have significantly higher leve ls in experiencing stress of both pressure and change. Considering age, self-imposed stress wa s found to be highest among younger students

PAGE 62

44 (16 to 18 years-old) and lowest in older students (31 to 57 years old) (Gadzella & Fullwood, 1992). Moreover, young women experien ced more self-imposed stress and pressure than any age and gender combination (Gadzella & Fullwood). Measurement of Stress In the task of measuring stress, two types of instruments were found in the literature. The first type lists possible stressors relevant to the situa tion of the student and provides the research with eith er a count of stressors, or an indexed stress score with certain stressors weighted more than othe rs. Although this measur e of stress objectively attributes stress to the specifi c stressor, it ignores the intera ction of the student with the environment (Cohen, Kamarck & Mermelsei n, 1983). That is, students may attribute stress to a stressor without considering av ailable resources to react to the stress. Furthermore, for this type of stress instrument to be accurate a list of all possible stressors must be presented to the student. The second type of stress instruments meas ure perceived stress with regards to the stressor, situation and ability to react to the stressor. This type of measure broadly accounts for all stressors and provides a behavi oral construct. Howe ver, perceived stress instruments are limited as they may inadverten tly measure chronic stre ss, or other sources of stress (Cohen et al.). Research concerni ng perception of stress ha s found evidence that “students often misattribute stress to the appropriate stressor” (p. 387). Given this limitation, the measure of perceived stress is co ngruent with the definition of stress used in this study. Again, stress is not a corollary of a particular stressor, but a result of the student’s perception and reaction to an experience (Romano, 1992). To meet the objectives of this study, st ress was measured specific only to the classroom environment to which the instrume nt was administered. Again, the classroom

PAGE 63

45 environment for problem solving is described as the social context to which individuals interact with during the probl em solving process (Kirton, 2003 ). This gave reason to use an instrument that measured stress as perc eived by the student and experienced in the environment. The researcher found that Gadzella’s Stude nt Life Stress Inventory (SSI) a valid and reliable measure (Gadzella & Balogl u, 2001) of an undergraduate’s perceived classroom stress that could be adopted for use in this study. The theoretical framework for the SSI comes from Morris (1990) and treat s stress as a student experience, not just stressor variables affecting students (Gadze lla & Masten, 2005). Five stressors were identified as experiential to undergraduate students and used in the SSI including: 1) frustration–delays and failures in reaching academic goals, social acceptance and disappointing grades, 2) c onflict–one’s choices among desirable and undesirable outcomes in goal setting, 3) pressure–assessing class competition, deadlines, and overload of assignments, 4) changes–unpleas ant experiences and disruptive schedule changes and 5) self-imposed–desire to compet e, be loved by all, procrastinate finishing assignments and anxiety during tests (p. 4). Each stressor forms a construct with items using a five point Like rt scale with one signifying never and five signifying most of the time. Each stressor construct can be used i ndividually or cumulatively for determining total stress of the student. Chapter 3 further discusses how the SSI was modified to meet the needs of the objectives for this study. Summary of Learning and Stress Stress is defined as an individual’s per ception and reaction to an experience that requires an adjustment from normal life (R omano, 1992). Undergraduate students have many unique stressors including moving away fr om home, academics, finances, work and

PAGE 64

46 new relationships (Pfeiffer, 2001). Comm on academic stressors include increased workload in a course and lower than expected grades received in a course (Ross, Niebling and Heckert, 1999). Although stress in the form of anxiety was found to be detrimental to academic achievement, an optimistic attitude may allow students to positively react to stress (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992). Ev idence was also found that young women undergraduate students tend to experience mo re stress than other undergraduate students (Gadzella & Fullwood, 1992). The measurement of stress can be categorized by instruments measuring a count of stressors or a perceived experience whic h accounts for the reaction to a situation. Both types of measurement have strengths and lim itations (Cohen et al.). This study utilized the SSI (Gadzella & Baloglu, 2001), a perceive d measure of stress which is limited in ability to determine source of stress but provides a measured level of stress in the form of a behavioral construct (Gadzella & Baloglu). The measurement of stress as an experience rather than a specific stressor was found to be more compatible with Kirton’s A-I theory. Learning and Motivation Concerning Kirton’s (2003) theoretical framework applied to the undergraduate classroom, motivation is identified as part of cognitive affect. Motivation and its influence on learning is a well-researched phenomena with many more questions still unanswered. Research has found that l earning is dependent on motivation, but interestingly the achievement of learning goals increases motivation to learn more (Schunk, 1991). Pace (1980) found that knowledg e gained from a course was positively correlated with the amount of effort st udents provided for learning. Theories of motivation in education that are considered pr ominent at the time of this writing can be grouped by expectancy-value theo ries, attribution theories, so cial cognitive theories, goal

PAGE 65

47 theories, and intrinsic-extrinsic theori es, (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Although, these theories each have their strengths, this st udy used an expectancy-value theory for the motivation theoretical framework (Eccles, 1983). Expectancy-value theory was found to be compatible with Kirton’s (2003) definition of the environment. For example, a student may perceive himself as capable (expectancy) of solving a problem and receive some kind of reward (value) from execution of the solution. However, the faculty member also provides feedback on the student’s effort and solution to which the student will react. If the student’s perceived ability and reward are great enough, the student will be able to solve a problem despite cognitive style gap (Kirton, 2003). Furthermore, there is evidence that expectancy beliefs are related to student engagement and value beliefs are related to opportunities of future stude nt engagement (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). The following is a short description of the expectan cy-value theory with empirical studies to support its importance to learning. Expectancy-Value Theory Current expectancy-value models have been adapted from Atkinson’s (1957) expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation and now provide the clearest explanation to students’ motivation in the classroom (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). However, much is still to be learned about motivation as no motivation theory has been universally accepted by educational psychologi sts. The premise of expectancy-value theory is that the learner is motivated by tw o components: 1) their perceived ability and effort expected to be needed in accomplis hing a goal (expectancy) and 2) the amount of value or reward the learner places on a ttaining the same goal (value). These two components will be further broken down and discussed theoretica lly and empirically.

PAGE 66

48 The expectancy component In this study the expectancy component c onsists of control of learning beliefs and self-efficacy. The belief is that a positive in crease of an expectancy component will promote learning. A student’s beli ef of their control in learni ng, or locus of control, is a main component of many expectancy-value th eories. Students who believe they are in control (internal) of the l earning succeed over students w ho explain away their control (external) of learning to other factors (Eccles & Wigf ield, 2002). Research has found some evidence that control of learning beliefs change from externally to internally while attending college, with the gr eatest change found in student s involved in honors programs (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991) Research conducted to unders tand control of learning beliefs was prominent between the 1960’s and 1970’s. After this pe riod of time authors moved on to answer other questions concer ning motivation. Still, control of learning belief is an important part of many expectan cy-value theories and the measurement of motivation. Self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) is accepting one has the capability to complete a task or goal. Bandura (1994) states the four sources of self-efficacy include mastery of challenging experiences, vicarious observati on of a peer, verbal praise and reducing stress. As it relates to so cial-cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), self-efficacy affects behavior and environment, but is also an effect of behavior and environment. Furthermore, there is evidence that self-e fficacy may influence the student’s choice of which problem to solve (Schunk, 2000). Referring to expectancy-value motivation in the context of student engagement, student self -efficacy may affect a student’s choice to solve a problem while expectations of the st udent and the teacher raise the value placed on the solution.

PAGE 67

49 Research has shown that higher levels of self-efficacy have a significant effect on students’ persistence in comp leting a challenging task, acad emic performance and selfregulated learning (Zimmerman, 2000). Li nnenbrink and Pintrich (2003) reviewed several studies regarding self-efficacy and cl aim a student with high self-efficacy will be more cognitively engaged through the use of higher order th inking skills and metacognitive strategies. In other research, Abouserie’s (1994) findings supported the negative relationship between self-esteem and the variables of stress and anxiety. He elaborated that the major cause of test anxiety is the possibility of being found incompetent; a bash to a learner’s self-efficacy. The literature indicates there is a domain specific nature to students’ self-efficacy. For example, academic self-efficacy was found to account for 21% of the variance in predicting students’ course grades (Choi, 2005); however global self-efficacy was not found to be a significant predictor of academic achievement (p. 202). Many authors have examined self-efficacy, self-esteem, and locus of control and implications these traits have on learni ng. Though each of these expectancy components have their own attributes (Ajzen, 2002) they have many of the same core constructs and may be more alike than different (Judge, Erez, Bono & Thoresen, 2002). The value component The value components of expectancy-val ue theory consists of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and task value constructs, al l of which assign reward on attainment of a goal. The belief regard ing the relationship between these value components and learning is simply that an in crease of value in completing a learning goal leads to an increase in learning.

PAGE 68

50 Intrinsic motivation is defined as accomp lishing a task for no reward except for internal feelings that result from completi ng a task (Deci, 1975). Extrinsic motivation is accomplishing a task for the benefit gained from a separate outcome (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Although intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is separate and distinct there is some evidence that the two operate on a co ntinuum. For example, a young boy may be extrinsically motivated to learn how to play the violin as his music teacher rewards successful learning with grades, extra-credit points or time off from their regularly scheduled practice. As time moves on, the boy starts to find enjoyment in playing the violin and will play more just for the sake of playing. The boy moved from being extrinsically motivated to intrinsically motiv ated. This was empirically tested by Ryan and Connell (1989) and concluded that th is continuum does exist by examining relationships among different types of extrinsic motivati on and change in specific attitudes. Generally in the literature extrinsic motiv ation has been considered detrimental to learning and the level to which students solve problems. However, extrinsic motivation can be beneficial to learning if used in the correct manner. For example in problem solving, if a student is told how a solution will be eval uated and rewarded, extrinsic motivation positively influences engagement in the problem solving process (Collins & Amabile, 1999). Furthermore, an extrinsic rewa rd offered to a student before beginning the problem solving process may increase le vel of problem solving if there is no contingency contract (Collins & Amabile). In another study, Hennessey and Zbikowski (1993) attempted to educate students about th e negative effects of extrinsic motivation. The results found that after these students were extrinsically rewarded to solve a problem,

PAGE 69

51 there was no negative influence from the extrinsic reward. More research is needed to understand the positive influences of extrinsic motivation, especially if students are often motivated extrinsically and gradually become more intrinsically motivated over time. A review of the literature finds disagreement in the definition of task value motivation and how it is utili zed in different expectancy-v alue motivation models. Task value motivation sometimes incorporates intrinsic and extrinsic interests and is sometimes referred to as incentive mo tivation (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Other researchers refer to task value as a level of importance placed on a task (Battle, 1965) which is how task value is defined in this study. Considering the importance of task value to learning, Feather (1988) found task value to be specific to a college student’s academic major. For example, a student with a high task value in math had higher perceptions of their ability in math, as well as an increase of personal values concerning achievement in math. Affective motivation Affective motivation is not a component of expectancy value theory, but is becoming more common in recent models of mo tivation as researchers explore the role of emotion in motivating students. It is incl uded here because the measure of motivation chosen by the researcher included an affec tive component identified as test anxiety. Throughout the literature, there is evidence that test anxiety is detrimental to academic achievement and learning (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia & McKeachie, 1991). The two main components of test anxiety are worry and em otion. Some evidence suggests that emotions cause worry making test anxiety a behavior al construct (Hembree, 1988). Treatment of students’ test anxiety is best provided by reducing worry and the emotionality associated with the test. This has shown to in crease academic performance (Hembree).

PAGE 70

52 Demographic Variables Related to Motivation Motivation is an unstable consequence of the situation perceived by the individual and therefore considered cont extual or situati onal (Paris & Turner, 1994). Motivation continues to change as a learner assesses and reassesses their abil ity to accomplish the task and the value of the reward upon acco mplishing the task. Demographic variables such as age, gender, ethnicity, etc. are alwa ys factored in the individual’s assessment of the situation and their capability of succe ss in the situation. The environment of the classroom does allow for all learners to be in the same situ ation, but the learner continually constructs motivation (Paris & Turner) making motivation highly individualized and difficult to gene ralize to specific demographics. Measurement of Motivation The wide variety of motivational theori es has led to the development of many instruments to measure motivation. To meet the objectives of this study and to remain consistent with expectancy-value theor y, the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich, Smith, Ga rcia & McKeachie, 1991) was used to determine motivation of each student specific to the class to which the instrument was administered. The MSLQ was designed specificall y to measure undergraduate student motivation for self-regulated learning. The th ree components of the instrument include an expectancy component with items related to student beliefs of ability in performing a task, a value component with items concerni ng goals and reasons for completing a task, and an affective component which includes ite ms regarding emotional reactions to the task (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990).

PAGE 71

53 The three components of the MSLQ can be further broken down into six scales of motivation that can be used independently or cumulatively (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, McKeachie, 1991). The value component co mprises three scales: intrinsic goal orientation–participating in a task for reasons of challenge, curiosit y or mastery, extrinsic motivation–participating in a task for good grades, rewards or competition and task value–an evaluation of the importance of the task (Pintrich et al.). The expectancy component of the MSLQ has two scales which include control of learning beliefs–a belief that results hinge on self and effort will provide positive results, and self-efficacy for learning and performance–an appraisal and judgment of ability to complete a task (Pintrich et al.). The affective component has one scale identified as test anxiety which includes student performance and the resulting emotion (Pintrich et al.). It is important to note that the MSLQ includes an affective co mponent in measuring student motivation, but there is no affective component in expect ancy-value theory. A ffective motivation, the motivation scales that identify emotions, has increasingly been recognized in the literature during the last 20 years and found to be incorporated into more cognitive motivation models. More research is needed to understand how emotions play a part in student motivation to learn. In a study conducted to determine how th e components of the MSLQ relate to cognitive engagement of students, Pintrich and De Groot (1990) found that self-efficacy and intrinsic orientation were both positively correlated with cognitive engagement and academic performance. Test anxiety was not found to be correlated with cognitive engagement, but did have a significant ne gative correlation with self-efficacy. The affective scale of test anxiety was found to be either detrimental or show no relationship

PAGE 72

54 with effort given to the task at hand (Pintr ich & De Groot). Given that test anxiety is composed of worry and resulting emotion, one can easily see the similarities between stress and test anxiety. Furthermore, positive re actions to test anxiety may have the same effect that they have on student stressors. Chapter 3 gives more detail as to how the MSLQ was used to meet the objectives of this study. Summary of Learning and Motivation Expectancy value theories of motiva tion provide insight to how students are motivated to achieve academic success (P intrich & Schunk, 2002). This theory of motivation was established as compatible w ith Kirton’s (2003) c ognitive affect as it relates to the environment in which indivi duals interact and react during the problem solving process. The expectancy component of the motivation theory refers to a perceived ability in accomplis hing a learning goal while the value component refers to the reward placed on accomplishing the same goal (Eccles, 1983). As a student consistently assesses and reassesses the ab ility to accomplish this goal and the value placed on achieving success, motivation becomes situational and indivi dualized (Paris & Turner, 1994). Evidence supports the assertion that mo tivation is necessary for learning and motivation increases after a learning goa l is achieved (Schunk, 1991). Research has indicated that student engage ment was positively correlate d with measures of selfefficacy and intrinsic motivation (Pintr ich & De Groot, 1990). Although extrinsic motivation was considered in the literature as detrimental to learning and student engagement, extrinsic motivation was found to positively influence engagement in the problem solving process when used without a contingency contract (Collins & Amabile,

PAGE 73

55 1999). More research is warranted to dis tinguish between the harmful and useful practices of providing extrinsic motivati on to facilitate st udent engagement. This study measured student motivation wi th the MSLQ (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia & McKeachie, 1991) which included the following motivation scales: control of learning, self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, task value and test anxiety. Although test anxiety was not part of expectan cy-value theory, it was a scale found in the MSLQ and was included in the study given that affective motivational theories have been increasingly found in the literature. Learning and Engagement Astin (1984) developed a theory of stude nt involvement to help guide future research in the area of student developmen t and learning in completing an undergraduate degree. In his writing, Astin explained th e tie between student engagement and motivation as “sharing a common psychologi cal construct” (p. 522). Realizing the importance of motivation, he also discussed st udents’ time as a resource. Astin’s theory states that student effort and time are two resources required for student engagement in learning. That is, an increase in effort and time by the student to accomplish a learning goal will increase student learning. Astin conc ludes that “students’ time and effort are limited and exhausted” (p. 523) on activities re lated to college and also life. Astin’s theory also identifies contributors to stude nt engagement, which guided the development of the National Survey for Student enga gement (NSSE), the measure of student engagement in this study. The roles that faculty members play as advisors and teachers have incredible influence on undergraduate students. Even in informal situations, faculty members can become positive role models for students, in fluencing attitudes and values (Pascarella,

PAGE 74

56 1980). The importance of the faculty member ca nnot be denied in contributing to student engagement in the classroom and therefore facilitating academic success. The study of student engagement involves identifying the practices used by faculty members to increase learning and personal development a nd then surveying students to determine if those practices are being used. The following is a review of the lite rature regarding how the faculty member can influence learning. The Influence of Faculty Members Umbach and Wawrzynski (2005) conclude th at “the single most important” factor in student development and classroom engagement is the faculty member. Whittington (1998) however, has found that faculty members in colleges of agriculture typically teach with methods that only require lower le vel thinking skills of the students and is detrimental to student classroom engagement However, many colleges and universities now provide resources to help faculty members improve their instructional discourse. A replication of Whittington’s study is needed to determine if faculty me mbers still teach at lower cognitive levels. In a study conducted to examine the re lationship between student-faculty interaction and students’ critic al thinking skills, Smith’s (1977) findings provide evidence that there is a positive relati onship. Specifically, increases in critical thinking ability were positively correlated among variables of class pa rticipation with the faculty member as well as participation with other st udents in the class (Smith). Increasing student engagement is more than just keeping students busy in the learning process. Schlechty (2002) claims that the amount of tim e a faculty member dedicates to improving the quality of assi gnments is directly related to student engagement. Many studies have been conduc ted examining different instructional

PAGE 75

57 techniques, distance education methods of instructional delivery, and uses of technology and their impact on student academic achievement and engagement while controlling for learning style. Most of these studies conclude that student s have different styles of learning and that teachers should use a variet y of teaching approaches to meet learning style needs of all students. As most good teach ers incorporate a variety of instructional techniques already, the signifi cance of learning style theo ry has found little practical application in the classroom (Coffiel d, Moseley, Hall & Ecclestone, 2004). The literature revealed similar conclu sions comparing the problem solving teaching approach to the content based appr oach. Dyer and Osborne (1996) examined the use of the two teaching approaches in a quasi-experimental design studying secondary students enrolled in agriculture. Using th e Group Embedded Figures Test (Witkin, Oltman, Raskin & Karp, 1971) to measure lear ning style, they found that controlling for teaching approach, neither field independent or field dependent students had significantly higher achievement scores. However, they also found that field independent learners had higher problem solving scores on non-agric ulturally based problems. Though their findings were limited, they also concluded that different instructional strategies should be used to facilitate the learning of all students (Witkin et al.). Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) summari ze teacher/teaching attributes that are effective for student learning. They include: command of subject matter, enthusiasm of subject, clear explanation of concepts, effici ent structure of class time, use of examples and analogies in presenting new concepts avoiding vagueness, and having good rapport with students (Pascarella and Terenzini).

PAGE 76

58 Realizing the tie between motivation and student engagement, Paris and Turner (1994) identified four teaching techniques to increase student motivation to learn, which include: allowing students to choose a course of action, pr oviding academic challenge, giving students control of achieving the le arning objective, and allowing students to collaborate in the problem solving process. Demographic variables related to engagement Pascarella and Terenzin i (1978) conducted a study to examine the academic performance and social development of stude nt-faculty informal interaction (N=528). Concerning the relationship betw een gender, academic major, ethnicity and parents’ level of education, no significant correlati ons were found among measures of academic performance, personal development and in tellectual development. The study was replicated in 1980 and conclusions were c onsistent (Terenzini and Pascarella, 1980). However, there is evidence that student engagement may be related to student demographics. For example, a female stude nt may be more influenced by a woman faculty member than by a male faculty memb er (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Pike (2004) measured engagement with the NSSE and found that females exhibit a higher level of academic challenge and students of diffe rent disciplines have different levels of engagement. Pike did not find students’ age a correlate of student engagement when examining students over that age of 24. Howeve r, as students progres s in attaining their degree, student engagement increases (Kuh, 2001). That is, as students’ classification moves from freshman to senior, student s tend to be more engaged in learning. Measurement of Engagement The operational framework of this study places student engagement as a product or end result of the intera ction between student and f aculty member behavior. Many

PAGE 77

59 studies of learning styles use final grade or academic achievement as the dependent variable in order to demonstrate the practic al contribution that a specific learning style has in the classroom. However, as underg raduate classrooms become more student centered (Acharya, 2002; Lunde, Baker, Buelow & Hayes, 1995; Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education, 1984), there is greater need to identify variables related to student engageme nt. Student engagement is often determined with constructs of academic challenge, collaborative learning and student-faculty interaction (Kuh, 2001). Each construct is de pendent on the teaching practices of the faculty member and requires communication between the faculty member and student (Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). If a dissim ilar learning style between the faculty member and the student inhibits communica tion during the process of learning, evidence should be found in the variance of student enga gement scores. That is, a large cognitive style gap may explain why students do not show evidence of engagement in the classroom. Also, if a faculty member uses subjective evaluations (rubrics) of student projects and assignments–which are commonly used to evaluate the solution to a problem–the final course grade is also s ubjective and biased. That is, a faculty member may prefer solutions to assigned problems that are congrue nt with their learning style. The researcher found no evidence in the literat ure concerning instructors’ evaluation biases based on learning style, but that does not suggest that this may exist. Finally, the use of academic achievement as a dependant variable, whether in the form of a percentile or le tter grade assigned by the faculty member, may subject the study to measurement error. There is evidence that faculty members inflate students grades for

PAGE 78

60 the purpose of receiving tenure and prom otion (Germain & Scandura, 2005). Furthermore, student engagement is highly co rrelated with grade point average and other measures of academic achievement (Kuh, 2001). Given the previous discussion, the researcher found student engagement a more objective and accurate measure of learning and interaction between the student and faculty member. A remarkable increase in the study of st udent engagement in the undergraduate classroom came after the release of Involvement in Learning (Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Highe r Education, 1984), which called for the use of teaching strategies that increase student learning in higher e ducation. Since then, researchers have sought to id entify empirically based practi ces that impact learning and develop effective measures to determine st udents’ level of engagement. The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) was designed to assess student engagement among colleges across the nation. Scales of the NSSE form “benchmarks” in order that colleges can compare the teaching practices of their faculty members to the teaching practices of other faculty members acro ss the nation (Kuh, Hayek, Carini, Ouimet, Gonyea & Kennedy, 2001). The instrument was f ound to be stable and psychometrically solid with evidence of validity and reliabi lity (Kuh, 2001). Additionally, the NSSE has been positively correlated with undergraduate student grade point average, critical thinking, quality of learning and GRE scores (Kuh). The NSSE was developed through an exte nsive literature re view of classroom activities and teaching practices that lead to valuable student outcomes (Kuh, Hayek, Carini, Ouimet, Gonyea & Kennedy, 2001). Three of the five benchmarks measured by the NSSE were specific to learning and engagement in a classroom. They include

PAGE 79

61 academic challenge, active learning and student-faculty interaction. Two other benchmarks measured engagement releva nt to the college, including enriching educational experiences and supportive cam pus environment. As the latter two benchmarks were relevant to the college and not the classroom, they were not utilized in this study. Said differently, they were not measuring engagement practices directly attributed to the studen t and the faculty member. The NSSE benchmarks of interest are described as follows: level of academic challenge–time spent preparing for class, amount of reading and writing, and use of higher order thinking skills; active lear ning–participating in class and working collaboratively with other students inside and outside the classr oom and student-faculty interaction–talking with the faculty member, discussing ideas outside of class with the faculty member, getting feedback from the faculty member, and conducting research with the faculty member (Kuh, Hayek, Carini, Ouimet, Gonyea & Kennedy, 2001, p. 5). More detail of the NSSE is provided in Chapter 3. Summary of Learning and Engagement Student’s have a limited amount of time and effort to apply in accomplishing a learning goal (Astin, 1984). However, facu lty members may be the “single most important” factor in engaging the student to learn. Although the student is responsible for engaging in learning, the faculty member is accountable for facilitating student engagement. The study of student engagement primarily entails identifying teaching practices that increase student engagement and surveying students to determine if teaching practices are being used. Many researchers have examined the relationship learning styles have with academic achievement. However, an emphasi s on increasing student engagement (Lunde,

PAGE 80

62 Baker, Buelow & Hayes, 1995) gave reason to examine if dissimilar learning styles between faculty member and student can contri bute to the literatu re regarding student engagement. Furthermore, student engagement as measured by the NSSE may serve as a more objective dependent variable than acad emic achievement. Student engagement is closely tied to learning and academic achievement (Kuh, 2001). Summary Chapter 2 explains Kirton’s Adaption -Innovation theory as applied to the undergraduate classroom providing a theore tical framework for this study. The framework was derived from Kirton’s Adap tion-Innovation theory which may provide insight to how dissimilar c ognitive styles explain stude nt engagement. Other major sections of this chapter included: Learni ng and Learning Styles, Learning and Stress, Learning and Motivation, and Learning and Engagement. This review of the literature found tie s between problem solving learning and Kirton’s measure of cognitive style. Although Kirton’s cognitive style has been applied in many contexts including business and manage ment of change, little research has been conducted to examine if it is appropriate in explaining student engagement in the undergraduate classroom. There is a need for more research consid ering the variable stress as it relates to learning and student engagement in the underg raduate classroom. Specifically, why do more adaptive courses have higher levels of stress and how does this contribute to student engagement? However, research has consis tently found motivation to significantly contribute to learning, yet fe w studies have examined both stress and motivation while controlling for an instructor with a dissim ilar learning style from that of students.

PAGE 81

63 Student engagement in a course is larg ely dependent on teachi ng practices of the faculty member. The amount of structur e preferred by faculty members can be determined by identifying their cognitive style. However, students may have different cognitive styles than the faculty member a nd prefer either more or less structure in learning from problem solving. As student e ngagement is closely tied to students’ academic success, it is critical to consider if dissimilar cogni tive styles between students and the faculty member can explai n variance in student engagement.

PAGE 82

64 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Chapter 1 introduced the theory of learni ng styles, the appropriateness of Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation (A-I) theory for the classr oom, and the need for increasing student engagement in undergraduate classrooms. A point was also made that the literature contains many types of learning styles with varying degrees of re liability and validity. However, Kirton’s (2003) measure of learning st yle is valid and reliab le and distinct from cognitive level. Finally, definitions of key terms, purpose of the study, and objectives of the study were presented. Chapter 2 presented the theoretical and conceptual frameworks of the study. Included were the following topics with atten tion given to theory a nd empirical evidence: a) learning and learning styles b) learning and stress, c) learning and motivation, and d) learning and student engagement Theoretical evidence was pr ovided that Kirton’s (2003) measure of learning style is compatible w ith problem solving learning (Gange, 1965) and may provide insight to why some students lack classroom engagement. This chapter provides information concer ning the methodology of the study. More specifically, details were gi ven concerning the research design, target population, instrumentation, data collection procedur es, and data analysis procedures. The purpose of this study was to dete rmine if relationships exist between cognitive style gap, student stress, student motivation, student engagement and selected demographic variables of undergraduate student s at the University of Florida in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. The objectives of the study were to: 1)

PAGE 83

65 Describe selected faculty and students accordi ng to their selected demographic variables; 2) Determine the cognitive style, studen t stress, student motivation, and student engagement of undergraduate students; 3) Determine the cognitive style gap between faculty and students and to expl ore its relationship with stude nt stress, student motivation, student engagement and specific demographi c variables of undergraduate students; 4) Explain undergraduate student stress and st udent motivation based on cognitive style gap and selected student demographic variable s and 5) Explain undergraduate student engagement based on cognitive style gap, student stress, student motivation and selected student demographic variables. Research Design The researcher used an ex post facto design one (Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh, 2002) to accomplish the objectives of the study. This design allows for the control and measure of the independent variable(s) to test hypot heses concerning varia tion in the dependent variable(s). Cognitive style is inherent, stable, and measurable as an interval score along a continuum allowing for the precise measure of dissimilarity between two individual’s cognitive styles. The literature gave little gu idance concerning A-I th eory’s application to the context of the undergraduate classroom concerning relationships with dependent variables. Thus, this empirical desi gn was deemed most appropriate. For objective one, student demographic variab les were measured with items in the National Survey of Student Engagement 2005 (NSSE) (Kuh, Hayek, Carini, Ouimet, Gonyea & Kennedy, 2001) and included: age, gender, major, college classification, fulltime status, and number of classes taken with si milar content as the class. Lastly, students were asked to give the number of problem sets that had taken more than an hour to complete during a typical week. This question wa s not used in data analysis, but was used

PAGE 84

66 to validate that problem solving does exist in the classes used in this study. Faculty members were asked questions regarding age, gender, years of teaching experience, and academic department. Faculty members also pr ovided the researcher with syllabi and additional information to descri be the course. Finally, partic ipating faculty members were administered Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation I nventory (KAI) (Kirton, 1999) to determine their cognitive style. Descrip tive statistics were used to report determined values. For objective two, four instruments were administered to nine undergraduate student classes to determine each student’ s cognitive style, stress, motivation and engagement in their respective course. The KAI provided a measure of each student’s cognitive style. Level of student stress e xperienced in the classroom was determined using the Student-life Stress Inventory (SS I) (Gadzella & Baloglu, 2001). The Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSL Q) (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia & McKeachie, 1991) was administered to m easure student motivation in the classroom. The NSSE was used to determine student engagement. De scriptive statistics were used to report determined values. For objective three, cognitive style gap was calculated by subtracting faculty members’ cognitive style scores from each student’s cognitive style scores as measured by the KAI. The same procedure was used to determine gaps within the constructs of cognitive style. These calculated values were used to find correlations with constructs of stress, motivation, engagement and selected student demographic variables. Objective three was accomplished us ing bivariate correlation. For objective four, depende nt variables including student stress, student motivation, and student engagement were each separately explained by the independent

PAGE 85

67 variables including cognitive st yle construct gaps and stude nt demographic variables. Objective four was accomplished using backward stepwise multiple linear regression For objective five, independent variables including cognitive style construct gaps, student motivation, student stress and selected student demographic variables were used to explain the dependent variable student engagement. Objective five was accomplished using backward stepwise multiple linear regression. Population This study utilized nine purposefully chosen class groups in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at the University of Florida. Since direction and degree of cognitive style gap was dependent on the cogni tive style of the faculty member, courses were selected based on a faculty member’s cognitive style: a) three faculty members with similar adaptive cognit ive style scores, b) three faculty members with similar cognitive style score approximating 95, and c) three faculty memb ers with similar innovative cognitive style scores. Researchers have found little evidence th at class size influences undergraduate student achievement (Williams, Cook, Qui nn & Jensen, 1985). However, Cuseo (2004) found the optimum class size for student enga gement at approximately 15 students with no evidence provided in the literature to s upport a linear or asympt otic relationship. The literature supports small class sizes for the retention of knowledge, student participation, and critical thinking (McKeachie, Chism, Menges, Svinicke & Weinstein, 1994), but there is no agreement on what number of student s constitutes a small class. Most studies consider 50 or more students as a large class (Cuseo, 2004). A sample size of 46 is needed to attain a power of .70 ( =.05, R2=.20) with the use of four independent variables (Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh, 2002) The researcher found from previous

PAGE 86

68 experience of administering the KAI to stude nts at the University of Florida that mortality rate approximates 40%, which is lower than Kirton’s (1999) estimated 20% mortality rate for this type of population. The researcher determined a cognitive style score as unusable using guidelines provided by Kirton (1999). Given the high mortality rate of the KAI, the researcher sought out classes with nearly 65 students. However the researcher found that many courses in the Colleg e of Agriculture and Life Sciences at the University of Florida were either belo w 50 students or approximated 100 students. Therefore the researcher c hose classes that approximat ed 100 students realizing the limitations of large class sizes having less student engagement (McKeachie et al., 1994). Finally, instructional techniques employe d by the faculty members often promote student centered classr ooms providing for student engage ment (McKeachie et al.). For this reason, a review of pros pective course syllabi and as signments was conducted by the researcher to purposefully select courses c onducive for student engagement. Specifically, the researcher examined these documents fo r evidence that courses required students to attend class in order to be successful in the course. The researcher was not concerned with a percentage of the final grade requiri ng attendance, but examined if assignments and projects provided reason for students to attend class. Fu rthermore, since the KAI is a measure of problem solving style, courses selected for this study required the use of problem solving assignments. A problem was defi ned in this study as a desire or felt need for a solution, but not immediately knowing the mental operations to arrive at the solution (Soden, 1994).

PAGE 87

69 Instrumentation Four instruments were utilized to collect the data and complete the objectives of the study. The following is a description of the instrument and its constructs, as well as assessments of validity, and reliability. Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory The Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventor y (KAI) was developed by Kirton (1976) as a measure of cognitive style unrelated to cognitive ability and cognitive affect. Appendix D provides example items concerni ng the KAI and contact information to acquire permission to use the instrument. The KAI is a self-r eported instrument consisting of 33 items, with one item not rele vant in determining cognitive style. In distinguishing more adaptive individuals from more innovative individuals, items delineate a theoretical total range of 32 (highly adaptive) to 160 (highly innovative) (Kirton, 1999). However, the actu al total range is approximate ly 45 to 145 with a general population mean of 95 (Kirton). For possible ranges of cogn itive style construct scores, Kirton reported the following: sufficiency of originality (17 to 63), efficiency (7 to 33) and rule/group conformity (14 to 56). Individuals taking the KAI were asked “How easy or difficult do you find it to present yourself, consistently, over a long period as:” followed by a list of personal characteristics. Individuals then mark an “X” on a continuum of “Very Hard” and “Very Easy”. Construct scores were calculated by summing respective items and total scores were calculated by summing construct scores. The KAI measured the cognitive style of the students and faculty members through the constructs of suffic iency of originality, efficien cy, and rule/group conformity. Cognitive style gap was then calculated using the difference of total and construct

PAGE 88

70 cognitive style scores of the faculty member from the student. Reliability of the KAI was determined with Cronbach’s alpha coeffici ent (Kirton, 1999). Validity of the KAI was established through correlations with personali ty assessments (criteri on validity), lack of correlations with assessments of cognitive leve l (criterion validity), and factor analysis (construct validity) (Kirton). Th e researcher is a certified practitioner of the KAI. See Table 3-1 for construct and reliabi lity information concerning the KAI. Table 3-1. Construct Reliability of Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory Construct No. of items Mean SD Sufficience of originality Efficiency Rule/Group conformity Total KAI 13 7 12 32 41 19 35 95 9 6 9 18 .83 .76 .83 .88 Note. Source: (Kirton, 1999). Student-life Stress Inventory The second instrument administered to students was the Student-life Stress Inventory (SSI) developed by Gadzella (1994). Appendix E provides example items concerning the SSI and contact information to acquire permission to use the instrument. The SSI is a self-reported inst rument designed for college st udents and comprised of two parts: perceived stress (5 scal es, 23 items) and reactions to stress (4 scales, 28 items). Items were in the form of statements of whic h participants responded to five-point Likert scales with numbers signifying responses of “never”, “seldom”, “occasionally”, “often”, and “most of the time”. Construct scores of stressors were calculated by summing the items per each scale and include frustrations conflicts, pressures, changes, and selfimposed. The total stress scor e had a possible range from 23 to 115 and possible ranges of constructs were frustration (7 to 35), conf licts (3 to 15), pressure s (4 to 20), changes (3

PAGE 89

71 to 15) and self-imposed (6 to 30). Total stress scores were ca lculated by summing constructs scores. The researcher determined constructs related to reactions to stress including physiological, emotional, behavioral, and cogni tive appraisal, unimpor tant for this study as they measured physical and psychological responses to stress and not level of stress. Therefore, these were removed from the instru ment prior to data collection. Furthermore, item number six was removed from the frustra tion construct as it was not related to stress between the faculty member and the student. St ems of the items were altered to include the words “in this course” to facilitate the m easurement of stress specific to the course of which the instrument was administered. The SSI was used with permission. The SSI was assessed for reliability with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and validity through confirmatory factor analysis (construct validity) (Gadzella & Balogl u, 2001). See Table 3-2 for descriptive information regarding constructs and reliability of the SSI. Table 3-2. Construct Reliability of Student-life Stress Inventory Construct No. of items Mean SD †Total Stressors †Frustrations †Conflicts †Pressures †Changes †Self-imposed Total Reactions to Stressors Physiological Emotional Behavioral Cognitive appraisal Total SSI 23 7 3 4 3 6 28 14 4 8 2 51 70.09 17.65 8.43 14.08 8.03 21.82 67.19 31.07 12.17 11.47 6.01 137.28 11.53 3.87 1.91 2.83 2.39 3.78 13.32 8.32 3.51 4.32 1.98 20.98 .92 .70 .68 .80 .86 .63 .75 .86 .82 .71 .82 .92 Note Source: (Gadzella & Baloglu, 2001). † Signifies construct wa s used for this study.

PAGE 90

72 Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire The third instrument administered to st udents was the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) developed by Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, and McKeachie (1991). Appendix F provides example ite ms concerning the MSLQ and contact information to acquire permission to use th e instrument. The MSLQ is a self-reported instrument consisting of two components: mo tivation orientation (6 scales, 31 items) and use of learning strategies (9 scales, 50 items). Students taki ng the questionnaire are asked to rate themselves on seven point Likert scal e items anchored by “not at all true of me” and “very true of me”. Constr ucts of the MSLQ motivation or ientation included scales of value components, expectancy components, a nd affective components. The total possible range of the MSLQ motivationa l orientation was 6 to 42 with all construct scores ranging from 1 to 7. Scores were calculated by summing items related to the construct and dividing by the number of items. Learning strategy scales of the MSLQ include cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies, and resource management strate gies. The researcher determined that the learning strategy scales were unnecessary fo r this study and were removed from the instrument prior to data collection. The le arning strategy scales were a measure of cognitive engagement (Pintrich et al.) which is highly correlated with student engagement. Furthermore, the researcher found the items biased towards being more adaptive in respect to A-I theory. The MSLQ was specifically designed to be administered to college students enrolled in a college course and to be flexible to the needs of the researcher. The 15 scales of the MSLQ can be used either cu mulatively or individua lly. It was developed over nine years with the devel opers assessing validity through factor analysis (construct

PAGE 91

73 validity) and correlations with ot her instruments and final grad e scores (criterion validity) (Pintrich et al., 1991). Internal reliabili ty was assessed by th e developers with Chronbach’s alpha coefficients (Pintrich et al.). The MSLQ was used with permission. See Table 3-3 for information describing the constructs and reliability of the MSLQ. Table 3-3. Construct Reliability of Motivat ed Strategies for Learning Questionnaire Construct No. of items Mean SD †Total Motivation Scale Value †Intrinsic goal motivation †Extrinsic goal motivation †Task value Expectancy †Control of learning beliefs †Self-efficacy for learning Affective †Test anxiety Total Learning Strategies Scale Cognitive and meta-cognitive strat. Rehearsal Elaboration Organization Critical thinking Meta-cognitive self regulation Resource management strategies Time and study environment Effort regulation Peer learning Help seeking Total MSLQ 31 4 4 6 4 8 5 50 4 6 4 5 12 8 4 3 4 81 30.46 5.05 5.03 5.54 5.74 5.47 3.63 39.13 4.53 4.91 4.14 4.16 4.54 4.87 5.25 2.89 3.84 69.59 1.41 1.23 1.25 0.98 1.14 1.45 1.35 1.08 1.33 1.28 0.90 1.05 1.10 1.53 1.23 * .74 .62 .90 .68 .93 .80 .69 .76 .64 .80 .79 .76 .69 .76 .52 Note. Source: (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia & McKeachie, 1991). † Signifies scale was used for this study. Signifies value was not reported. National Survey of Student Engagement The fourth instrument administered to the students was the National Survey of Student Engagement 2005 (NSSE) develope d by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCH EMS) (Kuh, 2001). Appendix G provides example items concerning the NSSE and contact information to acquire permission to use

PAGE 92

74 the instrument. The NSSE is a self-reported instrument consisting of 85 items measuring the constructs of college activ ities, educational and persona l growth, opinions about your school, educational program char acteristics and other measures of academic performance. An additional 15 items were designated to determine student demographic information. However, only 42 of the 85 construct items fo rm “benchmarks of effective educational practice” (Kuh, Hayek, Carini, Ouimet, G onyea & Kennedy, 2001) from which academic institutions calculate year ly progress towards increasing student engagement. Benchmarks of the NSSE include academic ch allenge, active and coll aborative learning, student faculty inter action, enriching edu cational experiences, and supportive campus environment. Only three benchmarks were used as a measure of student engagement in this study, including academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, and student faculty interaction. The benchm arks of enriching educati onal experiences and supportive campus environment were not applicable to this study as many items were relevant to the campus and not the classroom. Stems of items we re altered to include the words “in this course” in order that students answer items specific only to the class the instrument was administered. All items were f our-point scale items except fo r one specific to the number of hours spent on homework; it was a seven-poin t scale and changed to a four-point scale to better determine the number of hours spen t preparing specifically for the course used in this study. Anchors of the scale typi cally resembled “very often”, “often”, “sometimes”, and “never”, while other items were anchored with numbers representing frequencies of comple ting a specific task.

PAGE 93

75 Possible benchmark ranges included academic challenge (11 to 44), active and collaborative learning (7 to 28) and student faculty interaction (6 to 24). Benchmark scores were calculated by summing items rela ted to each construct. In this study these three benchmark scales were added to form a total possible engagement range of 24 to 96. However, since two NSSE benchmark scales were removed in th is study, this total score range does not correspond with th e total range reported by the NSSE. Validity of the NSSE was assessed by the NSSE design team through welldefined items (face validity), research of the literature (content valid ity), factor analysis (construct validity), and review of the collected data (c oncurrent validity) (Kuh, 2001). Reliability was assessed utilizing Spearman’s rho correlations between yearly tests (Kuh, Hayek, Carini, Ouimet, Gonyea & Kennedy, 2001). The NSSE was used with permission. See Table 3-4 for a description of cons tructs and reliability of the NSSE. Table 3-4. Construct Reliability of National Survey of Student Engagement Construct No. of items Mean SD Spearman’s rho †Academic challenge †Active and collaborative learning †Student-faculty interaction Enriching educational experiences Supportive campus environment Total NSSE 11 7 6 12 6 42 33.18 17.92 12.64 15.57 23.06 102.37 * * * .77 .76 .83 .89 .85 .83 Note. Source: (Kuh, Hayek, Carini, Ouimet, G onyea & Kennedy, 2001). Values reported regarding the senior populat ion of college students. † Signifies scale was used for this study. Signifies value was not reported. Data Collection Procedures The Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Florida conducted a formal review of the research proposal fo r ethical soundness. The research proposal was approved and assigned the I RB protocol number 2006-U-0078.

PAGE 94

76 Before the administration of instruments to collect data, all participants received a letter of informed consent which was also re ad by the researcher. Th e letter of informed consent described the study, identified the res earcher, addressed potential risks associated in the participation of the study and approxima te amount of time expected to complete the instruments. Participants were informed of the voluntary nature of the study with the opportunity to quit the study at any time with no consequences. Individuals who volunteered to participat e in the study signed the letter of informed consent as acceptance of the terms and returned the letter of info rmed consent with the completed instruments utilized in the study. Instruments were pack aged together with corresponding codes to administer all instruments at the same time and ensure each instrument corresponded with the same student. Additionally, directions we re given orally and in written form to students to complete the SSI, MSLQ and NSSE in regards to the specific class the students received the instrument and not to ot her classes enrolled in that semester. The students were also informed that these direct ions did not apply to the KAI as it measures their style of solving problems regardless of class. Sixty-four faculty members in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at the University of Florida were contacted duri ng February 2006 to participate in this study. Faculty members were identified by contac ting individuals serving as undergraduate coordinator of each department in the colle ge. Undergraduate coordinators provided the researcher with contact information of f aculty members teaching courses that used problem solving assignments and had enough stude nts enrolled in the course to meet the requirements of this study. Although many time s the identifie d faculty members believed their course did not match the requirements of the study, they often provided contact

PAGE 95

77 information of another faculty member within the same department whose course better matched the requirements of this study. In th e end, 21 faculty members were willing to participate in the study, but only 15 faculty me mbers were administered the KAI as their courses were deemed suitable by the research er. From this group, nine faculty members were chosen based on their cognitive style score. The selection of faculty members provided a range along the adap tive-innovative continuum as three faculty members had similar adaptive cognit ive style scores, thr ee faculty members had similar innovative cognitive style scores and three faculty me mbers had similar cognitive style scores located in the middle of the adaptive-innovative continuum. Kirton (2003) states that total cognitive style scores less than 10 points are considered the same, between 10 and 19 points are considered similar a nd scores of 20 points or more are considered different. Each of the nine faculty members’ course s was coded with a letter to maintain confidentiality in data pres entation. In order of adaptiven ess to innovativeness faculty members were coded beginning with the letter “A” and ending with the letter “I”. The grouping of classes by faculty member cognitiv e style resulted in an adaptive teacher group (Classes A, B and C), a middle score teacher group (Classes D, E and F) and an innovative teacher group (Classes G, H and I). Student data were collected from each faculty members’ class after midterm examinations during the spring 2006 semester specifically March 27 to April 12, 2006. This time of administration was selected to ensure students had opportunity to interact with faculty members in the classroom as th e interaction of dissimilar cognitive styles causes stress (Kirton, 2003). Students were admi nistered the instruments during regularly scheduled class times, however, it was the f aculty member’s choice if the instruments

PAGE 96

78 were to be completed during class time. If not completed during class time, students completed the instruments outside of cla ss and brought them back during the next scheduled class time. Specifically, students en rolled in Classes C, D, G and H were allowed to complete the instruments during re gularly scheduled class time while students enrolled in Classes A, B, E, F and I took the questionnaires out of the classroom and brought them back completed the next re gularly scheduled class meeting time. Faculty members were given the choice to allow students to complete instruments during class time or outside of class time out of respect for the faculty members’ instructional time with students. The estimated time for students to complete all four instruments was 40 minutes. Some faculty memb ers were reluctant to give up this amount of time and would not have pa rticipated if instruments were required to be completed during class time. Authors of the instruments used in this study ga ve no indication that students must complete the instruments in the classroom. Also, it was the faculty member’s choice to offer an incentive of extra-credit to encourage student participation. This was done primarily to encourage students to come to class on the day instruments were administer ed and to prompt return of the instruments if students completed instruments outside of class. Only studen ts enrolled in Class E were not given extra-credit for partic ipating in this study, which may have influenced response rate. A limitation of this study was the lack of control for met hod of administering instruments. Method of instrument administ ration is confounded with the faculty member giving no way to defend if either completion of instruments or use of extra-credit affected students’ scores concerning cognitive styl e, stress, motivation or engagement.

PAGE 97

79 Furthermore, differences of scores between classes were expected and supported by authors of the instruments. For example, Kirton (2003, p. 75) provides evidence that selfselected courses may be more adaptive or innovative depending on the nature of the course. If students in each course were di sproportional regarding the number of young women, there may be higher levels of stress (Gadzella and Guthrie, 1993). Authors of the MSLQ (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, McKeachie, 1991) claim that “responses to the questions might vary as a function of different courses” (p. 5). Finally, student engagement is an outcome of teaching practices and may va ry with individual differences found among faculty members (Kuh, Hayek, Carini, Ou imet, Gonyea & Kennedy, 2001). Given the above reasons, the data were not analyzed to examine the effect of different types of instrument administration. Data Analysis Procedures Data were analyzed according to th e following objectives and presented in chapter 4 with respect to study objectives and classes. Research Objective One Research objective one was to describe selected faculty and students according to their selected demographic variables. Stude nt participants were asked demographic questions found on the NSSE including age, gender, college classification, full-time status, number of similar courses taken and ma jor. Student participants were also asked how many problem sets were assigned during a typical week that took more than an hour to complete. Faculty participants were as ked to respond to demographic items including age, gender, and years of teaching experience. To achieve objective one, data were entered into SPSS statistical software for Windows and an alyzed using descriptive statistics (frequencies and m easures of central tendency).

PAGE 98

80 Research Objective Two Research objective two was to determine student cognitive style, student stress, student motivation, and student engagement. Student participan ts were asked to respond to the four self-reported in struments: the KAI, the SSI, the MSLQ and the NSSE. All instruments were hand-scored by the resear cher. To meet objec tive two, data were entered into SPSS statistical software for Windows. The researcher used descriptive statistics (frequencies and meas ures of central tendency) to analyze the data. For further analysis, tests of significance were used to compare groups. Research Objective Three Research objective three was to determine the cognitive style gap between faculty and students and explore rela tionships with undergraduate student stress, motivation, engagement and selected student demographi c variables. Cognitive style gap was found by subtracting each faculty member’s total cognitive style score from each of their student’s total cognitive style score. Specifi c constructs of cognitive style gap scores were calculated in the same manner. Therefore, cognitive style gap described students in terms of being more adaptive or more innova tive in relation to their faculty member. Utilizing SPSS statistical software, the research er used Pearson’s correlation coefficient to determine the strength and direction of the relationship between cognitive style gap with student stress, student motivation, st udent engagement and student demographic variables identified in objective one. Research Objective Four Research objective four was to expl ain both undergraduate student stress and student motivation based on cognitive styl e gap and student demographic variables identified in objective one. Using SPSS statis tical software, backward stepwise multiple

PAGE 99

81 linear regression was used twice for each cl ass to achieve objec tive four. Data were analyzed first to determine relationships between constructs of cognitive style gap (independent variable), student demographics (independent variable ) and student stress (dependent variable); and second, to determ ine relationships of the same independent variables with student motivation (dependent variable). For further analysis, tests of significance were used to compare groups. Research Objective Five Research objective five was to explai n undergraduate student engagement based on cognitive style gap, student stress, st udent motivation and selected student demographic variables identified in objectiv e one. Employing SPSS statistical software, backward stepwise multiple linear regression wa s used to explain the dependent variable student engagement based on i ndependent variables including cognitive style gap, student stress, student motivation and student demogr aphic variables identified in objective one. For further analysis, tests of signifi cance were used to compare groups. Summary This chapter provided details of the me thodology of this study with regards to research design, population, instrumentation, da ta collection, and data analysis. The study utilized an ex post facto Design 1 methodology to study th e relationships of Kirton’s cognitive gap with stress, mo tivation, engagement and se lected student demographic variables. The population consis ted of undergraduate students enrolled in the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences at the University of Flor ida. To ensure variance of students’ cognitive style gap, both in size and direction, faculty members were selected based on their adaptiveness and innovativeness of cognitive style. From this group of

PAGE 100

82 faculty members, nine courses were purposefu lly selected to meet the objectives of this study. Four instruments were utilized to collect data from the participants. They were the following: Kirton Adaption-I nnovation Inventory (KAI) (Kir ton, 1976), National Survey of Student Engagement 2005 (NSSE) w ith demographic questions (Kuh, 2001), Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionn aire (MSLQ) (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, and McKeachie, 1991), and Student-life Stress Inventory (SSI) (Gadzella, 1994). All instruments were assessed for validity and reliability prior to conducting the study. Posthoc reliabilities for this study were presented in chapter 4. In chapter 4, data were analyzed per cl ass and organized by objectives. This study primarily used descriptive statistics, corre lation statistics, and backward stepwise multiple linear regression.

PAGE 101

83 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Chapter 1 provided the introduction of Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation (A-I) theory as it applies to learning styles of undergraduate students in the classroom. Attention was also given to Kirton’s separation of cognitive level from cognitive style. The chapter also presented a need for facilitating student e ngagement in the unde rgraduate classroom. A dissimilar learning style (cognitive gap) betw een the university faculty member and the student may give insight to why students ar e not engaged. The purpose of this study was to determine if significant rela tionships exist between cognitive style gap, student stress, student motivation, student engagement and se lected student demographic variables of undergraduate students at the University of Fl orida in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. The specific objectives of this study were to: 1) describe selected faculty and students according to their sele cted demographic variables; 2) determine the cognitive style, student stress, student motivation, and student engagement of undergraduate students; 3) determine the cogni tive style gap between facult y and students and to explore its relationship with student stress, student motivation, student engagement and specific demographic variables of undergraduate student s; 4) explain undergraduate student stress and student motivation based on cognitive style gap and selected demographic variables; and 5) explain undergraduate student engage ment based on cognitive style gap, student stress, student motivation and selected dem ographic variables. Furthermore, chapter 1 listed definitions, basic assumptions, and cited limitations of the study.

PAGE 102

84 Chapter 2 discussed the theoretical and c onceptual framework of the study as well as reviewing the literature concerning cogniti ve style, stress, motiv ation, and engagement as they relate to learning. Special attenti on was given to Kirton’s cognitive style as a measure of problem solving learning. Furt hermore, dissimilar cognitive style, as measured by cognitive style gap, may cause faculty members and students to have difficulties communicating and working together in the classroom environment. The reliable and valid measure of cognitive styl e gap may explain why some students are not engaged in the course. Chapter 3 provided the research methodology of this study with attention given to research design, population and instrumenta tion. Procedures were outlined for data collection and data analysis to comple te the five objectives of this study. This chapter presents the results of this study which are organized by the objectives listed previously. Instrument Post-hoc Reliability Cronbach’s alpha was used to determine post-hoc reliability of the four instruments administered to participating stude nts. Considering all students in this study, the total cognitive style score measured with Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI) had an alpha coefficient of .85, which comprised of the constructs: sufficiency of originality ( =.80), efficiency ( =.66) and rules/group conformity ( =.76). Regarding the measurement of student stress, the Studentlife Stress Inventory (SSI) had a total score alpha coefficient of .88 which included five constructs: frustrations ( =.80), conflicts ( =.84), pressures ( =.73), changes ( =.89) and self-imposed ( =.69). Motivation in this study was measured with the Motivated Stra tegies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) which had a post-hoc total score alpha coeffi cient of .86 which included the constructs:

PAGE 103

85 intrinsic ( =.70), extrinsic ( =.62), task value ( =.91), control of learning belief ( =.70), self-efficacy for learning ( =.91) and test anxiety ( =.83). The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) was used to meas ure student engagement in the classroom and the total score alpha coefficient for this measure was .79. Three scales were used to determine student engagement: academic challenge ( =.70), active and collaborative learning ( =.62) and student-faculty interaction ( =.62). Reliability coefficients are considered acceptable at a level above .70 (Schmitt, 1996). Although some construct scales pr esented previously had post-hoc alpha coefficients below .70, it should be noted that only total scores for stress, motivation and engagement were used in data analysis to meet the objectives of this study. However, the cognitive style construct effi ciency was used despite its low post-hoc reliability. The efficiency construct is a m easure of preferred method to solve problems (Kirton, 2003) and was expected to have relationships with stress and motivation (Barnhart, 2002). Furthermore, Kirton (1999) provided abundant evidence that all three constructs of cognitive style are reliably measured by the KAI. Objective One Describe selected faculty and students accord ing to their selected demographic variables. This study comprised nine faculty members each of whom taught a course of approximately 100 undergraduate students. Faculty members were asked questions regarding age, gender, years of teaching e xperience, and academic department. Faculty members also provided the researcher with sy llabi and additional information to describe the course. Undergraduate students were asked demographic questions relevant to student engagement found on the National Survey fo r Student Engagement (NSSE) (Kuh, 2001)

PAGE 104

86 which included: age, gender, major, college classification, full-time status, and number of classes taken similar to the subject area of th e course. Lastly, student s were asked to give the number of problem sets that had taken more than an hour to complete during a typical week. The last question was not us ed in data analysis, but serv ed to provide evidence that problem solving assignments did exist in the courses examined in th is study and will be considered in the concluding discussion in chapter 5. The data are presented with each faculty member’s class separated as an intact group from the total group of respondents. E ach class was coded by letter according to the faculty member’s cognitive style score along the continuum of adaptiveness to innovativeness. Therefore, the most adaptive faculty member was assigned the letter “A” and the letter “I” was assigned to the most innovative faculty member. See Table 4-1 for a description of faculty members’ cognitive style scores determined by Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI). Table 4-1. Listing of Classes designated by Faculty Members’ Total Cognitive Style Score (N=9) Total Cognitive Style Sufficiency of Originality Efficiency Rule/Group Conformity Class A Class B Class C Class D Class E Class F Class G Class H Class I All Faculty 64 68 83 94 95 103 116 132 134 98.78 29 25 40 48 41 51 49 53 60 44 10 19 12 15 18 9 21 29 20 17 25 24 31 31 36 43 46 50 54 37.78 Kirton (2003) states that total cognitive style scor es less than 10 points are considered the same. Cognitive style scores between 10 and 19 points are considered

PAGE 105

87 similar and scores that are more than 20 poi nts apart are considered different. Therefore from this group of faculty members an adap tive teacher group was formed from Classes A, B and C, a middle score teacher group was formed from Classes D, E and F and an innovative teacher group was formed out of Cl asses G, H and I. This allowed for further analysis of student variables based on similar cognitive styles of faculty members. Class A This three hour course concentrated on improving writing skills for academic settings and business applicati ons. The course was practical in nature requiring students to prepare a resume and application packet, bo th of which were utilized in a mock jobinterview. A research report was also de veloped as the faculty member led students through the process of conducti ng research. The course is not required for undergraduate students, but is suggested as a general writi ng course in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. The instructor of Class A was a 25 year-old female graduate assistant. She had three years of teaching experience at the college level, but no prior teaching experience in any other setting. The instructor chose to have instruments administered in class, completed outside of class, and then returned at the next normally scheduled class meeting. The instructor gave extra-credit points to students who returned instruments. There were 100 students enrolled in Class A, of which 70 responded. All participating students were considered full-ti me (taking more than 12 credit hours). Of the respondents, 44.3% (n=31) were male a nd 55.7% (n=39) were female. For academic majors, 28 different majors represented the cl ass. No specific major held a majority, but the three most predominant majors were family youth and consumer science (14.3%, n=10), nutritional science (11.4%, n=8), a nd food science and human nutrition (10%, n=7).

PAGE 106

88 For Class A, the student mode age wa s 20 years old (32.9%, n=23). There were 20 students (28.6%) who reported their age as 21years of age and 10 students (14.3%) who were 19 years of age. Almost half of Class A were juniors (48.6%, n=34), while 30% (n=21) were seniors and 18.6% (n=13) were sophom ores. There were only two (2.9%) freshman enrolled in the class that participated in this study. Students were asked how many courses they had taken in the s ubject area similar to Class A. Respondents repor ted that 17.4% (n=12) had taken no courses, 68.1% (n=47) had taken one to two courses, 13.0% (n=9) had taken three to four courses and 1.4% (n=1) had taken more than four courses in the subject area. There was one student that did not answer this specific question. Regarding the number of problem sets taking more than an hour to complete in a typical week 52.9% (n=37) stude nt participants in Class A claimed that none of the assigned problem sets had taken more than an hour. However, 38.6% (n=27) claimed one or two problem sets and 8.6% (n=6) of the resp ondents claimed three to four problem sets assigned in class had taken more than an hour to complete. Class B Class B was a three hour course focused on the principles of quantitative genetics as applied to domesticated animals. Partic ular attention was given to farm animal industries including beef, da iry, equine and poultry. Although the final grade was calculated from exams and quizzes, mathematical problem sets were used throughout this course in the form of homewo rk assignments. The course wa s required for students in the animal science department. The faculty memb er providing instruction for Class B was a male at 54 years of age. He had taught at the University of Florida for 29 years and had no other teaching experiences. Instruments were administered in class, but completed

PAGE 107

89 outside of class and then re turned at the next normally scheduled class meeting. The instructor gave extra-credit points to students who returned instruments. There were 100 students enrolled in Cl ass B, of which 72 responded. Of the respondents, 95.7% (n=66) were full-time students while 4.3% (n=3) were part-time students. Three respondents did not complete the demographic questions. The majority of the respondents in Class B were female (81.2%, n=56). Male st udents comprised 18.8% of the respondents (n=13). Class B students we re members of five different majors, of which 97.1% (n=67) were within the animal science department. In Class B, the mode age was 21 years old (37.7%, n=26). There were 14 (20.3%) students that were 22 years of age and 9 ( 13.0%) students that were 20 years of age. There were only 3 (4.3%) stud ents who were 19 years old. The class was only composed of juniors (50.7%, n=35) and seniors (49.3% n=34). Again, three respondents did not answer the demographic questions. Students were asked how many courses were taken in the subject area similar to Class B. Respondents reported 23.2% (n=16) had taken no courses, 37.7% (n=26) had taken one to two courses, 13.0% (n=9) had ta ken three to four courses and 26.1% (n=18) had taken more than four courses in the subj ect area. There were three students that did not answer this specific question. For problem sets assigned in class that ha d taken students longer than an hour to complete in a typical week, 51.4% (n=36) claimed none, 44.3% (n=31) said one to two, 1.4% (n=1) said three to four and 2.9% (n=2) declared more than five problem sets. Two students did not answer the question describing number of problem sets taking longer than an hour.

PAGE 108

90 Class C This course consisted of three cr edit hours focusing on the study of food marketing. Four case studies were used to teach concepts of marketing, product development, distribution and pricing. Students were asked to identify issues, make decisions, and give recommendations based upo n the information presented in the case study. The course was required for students majoring in food and resource economics. The faculty member instructing Class C was a 36 year-old female. She had taught 12 years at the college level, but had no pr ior teaching experience. Instruments were administered and completed during class time. The faculty member provided extra-credit points for students that participated. There were two sections of Class C, each taught by the faculty member with the same syllabus. Each section included 45 st udents. In the first section, 33 students participated, while 38 students participated in the second section. The two groups were combined to form Class C. Of the respondent s, 98.6% (n=70) were full-time students. One student (1.4%) reported being a part-time student. The majority of the students in Class C were male (71.8%, n=51) with fema les making up 28.2% (n=20) of the group. Respondents in Class C were working toward s five different majors of which 93% (n=66) were food and resource economics, a major within the department. The remainder of the responding students majored in agri culture (2.8%, n=2), business administration (1.4%, n=1) and community recreation (1.4%, n=1). The mode age of Class C was 22 year s old (35.2%, n=25). There were 13 respondents (18.3%) reporting an age of 21 years and anot her 13 respondents (18.3%) reporting an age of 23 years. Class C comprise d mostly of seniors (91.5%, n=65) with the remainder of the class be ing juniors (8.5%, n=6).

PAGE 109

91 Students were asked how many courses were taken in the subject area similar to Class C. Of the respondents, 2.8% (n=2) ha d taken no courses, 23.9% (n=17) had taken one to two courses, 26.8% (n=19) had taken th ree to four courses and 46.5% (n=33) had taken more than four courses in the subject area. Participating students also answered one item asking how many problem sets assigned in a typical week ha d taken more than an hour to complete. Of the student respondents in Class C, 19.7% (n=14) repor ted none, 63.4% (n=45) stated one to two problem sets, 14.1% (n=10) asse rted three to four problem sets, and 2.8% (n=2) declared five or more problem sets assigned in a t ypical week had taken longer than an hour to complete. Class D Three credit hours were assigned to Class D, in which students learned about embryonic, prenatal and postnatal growth a nd development of domesticated animals. Even though the content learned was primar ily lecture based, students were asked to analyze, synthesize and apply f our journal articles of the student’s choice. The purpose of the assignments were to give students the experience of finding speci fic journal articles and be able to apply the information to topi cs discussed in class and to their life. The course was required for students in the animal science department. The faculty member for Class D was a 62 y ear-old male with 38 years of teaching experience at the college level. He had no prior teaching experience before becoming a university faculty member. Instruments were administered and completed during class time. The faculty member provided extra-cr edit points for students that participated. Class D enrolled 116 students of which 108 participated in this study. In this course, 97.2% (n=103) were considered fulltime students and 2.8% (n=3) were part-time

PAGE 110

92 students. Two students did not answer th e question regarding full-time status. The majority (81.3%, n=87) were female while males consisted of 18.7% (n=20). One student did not complete the ques tion specifying gender. Students in Class D made up five diffe rent academic majors of which three majors offered within the department cons tituted 97.2% (n=104) of the group. The most predominant major in the course was animal science (67.3%, n=72). The academic major animal biology had the second highest number of students at 23.4% (n=25). The remaining academic majors were pre-vete rinarian, wildlife conservation and biology which together accounted for 9% (n= 10) of students in the class. The mode age of Class D was 21 years old (36.4%, n=39). Students who were 20 years old numbered 28 (26.2%) with students reporting 19 years of age constituting 10.3% (n=11) of the class. On e student reported being 17 ye ars of age. One student did not answer the question specifying age. The co llege classification of students in Class D comprised 60.4% (n=64) juniors, 32.1% (n=34) seniors, 6.6% (n=7) sophomores, and one freshman. Two students did not answer the question regarding college classification. Students were asked how many courses were taken in the subject area similar to Class D. Of the respondents, 5.7% (n=6) ha d taken no courses, 32.1% (n=34) had taken one to two courses, 28.3% (n=30) had taken th ree to four courses and 34.0% (n=36) had taken more than four courses in the subject area. There were two students that did not answer this specific question. Concerning the number of problem sets that require more than hour to complete during a typical week, 83.3% (n =90) of student respondents asserted none, 15.7% (n=17) stated one to two problem sets and 0.9% (n=1) claimed three to four problem sets.

PAGE 111

93 Class E Class E was a two-hour, stand-alone laboratory class in which students participated in laboratory exercises. Content of the course entailed st ructure, nutrition and growth of microorganisms. The students were also required to write reports discussing the findings of laboratory exerci ses. The course was mandatory for all students wishing to take advanced courses in the Depart ment of Microbiology and Cell Science. The faculty member of Class E was a 54 year-old female. She had 23 years of teaching experience at the college level; howev er she had no prior teaching experience at any other level. The faculty member insisted that instruments were to be administered during class, but completed outside of class time. Students were aske d to bring completed instruments to the next normally scheduled class meeting time. The faculty member did not provide extra-credit for stude nts participating in the study. There were three sections of Class E, each taught by the faculty member with one syllabus. Each section consisted of 35 stude nts of which 16 responded in each section. The three sections were combined to form Cl ass E with a total of 48 student respondents. Among respondents, 97.9% (n=47) were full-time students with one student reporting as part-time. Female students held the major ity (77.1%, n=37) with males making up 22.9% (n=11) of the class. There were 18 academic majors reported in Class E, of which only four constituted more than 10% of the group. Thos e academic majors were nutritional science (18.8%, n=9), microbiology (14.6%, n=7), an imal biology (12.5%, n=6) and biology (12.5%, n=6). Student age in Class E was bimodal with 14 students (29.2%) being 21 years of age and 22 years of age. Three students (6.3%) were 19 years old and two students

PAGE 112

94 (4.2%) were over 30 years old. Class E was made up of mostly seniors (64.6%, n=31) and juniors (33.3%, n=16). There was one sophomore enrolled in Class E. Students were asked how many courses were taken in the subject area similar to Class E. Of the respondents, 8.3% (n=4) ha d taken no courses, 54.2% (n=26) had taken one to two courses, 14.6% (n=7) had taken th ree to four courses and 22.9% (n=11) had taken more than four cour ses in the subject area. In this class, students were asked how many problem sets assigned during a typical week that require more than an hour to complete. In Class E, 91.7% (n=44) stated no problem sets were completed that met this criteria while 6.3% (n=3) declared one or two problem sets and 2.1% (n=1) claimed three to four problem sets assigned had taken longer than an hour to complete. Class F Two credit hours were assigned to Class F in the subject area of human nutrition. Concepts learned included nutritional requirements during different stages of the human life cycle as well as socio economic, cultural and psychological aspects of behaviors toward food. Critical thinking teaching met hods were utilized throughout assignments, exams, and class discussions. Assignments resembled real-life situations in which students were asked to solve problems. Furthe rmore, students enrolle d in the class were made aware of the research process to be tter understand the lite rature pertaining to nutrition. The course was required for nutriti onal science academic majors and dietetics majors. The faculty member who taught Class F wa s a 46 year-old female who had taught 11 years at the University of Florida. Previous to that, she had worked as a dietician for 7 years in which she occasionally educated pa tients in group settings. The faculty member

PAGE 113

95 allowed administration of instruments during class time, but students were not allowed class time to complete the instruments and were asked to return the completed instruments at the next normally scheduled class meeting time. Students were given extra-credit for their participation. There were 150 students enrolled in Cl ass F of which 115 participated. All respondents of this course were full-time stude nts. The majority of the course was female (69.6%, n=80) with 30.4% of the class being male (n=35). Class F was composed of 12 academic majors of which 81.8% were held by two majors, nutritional science (55.7%, n=64) a nd food science and hu man nutrition (26.1%, n=30). Eight students (7%) were worki ng towards majors in dietetics. Class F students had a mode age of 21 years (43.5%, n=50). There were 30.4% (n=35) students reporting as 20 years old a nd 8.7% (n=10) students reporting as 22 years old. Of the respondents, juniors made up th e majority (58.3%, n=67) of Class F with seniors constituting 33.0% (n=38). Also enrolle d in Class F were six (5.2%) sophomores and four (3.5%) freshmen. Students were asked how many courses were taken in the subject area similar to Class F. Of the respondents, 1.7% (n=2) ha d taken no courses, 29.6% (n=34) had taken one to two courses, 44.3% (n=51) had taken th ree to four courses and 24.3% (n=28) had taken more than four courses in the subject area. Student participants were asked how many problem sets had taken more than an hour to complete during a typical week. In Class F, 81.7% (n=94) asserted no problem sets, 16.5% (n=19) claimed one to two problem sets and 1.7% (n=2) claimed three to four problem sets given during a t ypical week had taken longer than an hour to complete.

PAGE 114

96 Class G A three credit hour course, Class G cont ent revolved around principles of youth development. Priority was given to physical, cognitive, social and emotional changes between childhood and adulthood. Students were required to work in teams for the purpose of participating in a service learning project. This project allowed students to pick a childhood or teen group, identify curriculum needs and teach the curriculum to the group. The course was required for majors and minors in family youth and community science. The faculty member who taught Class G wa s a 35 year-old female. She had taught five years in her current position at the Univer sity of Florida. This faculty member also reported tutoring student athletes for eight ye ars and two years of educational experience as a cooperative extens ion agent. Instruments were administered and completed by students during class time. Stude nts were given extra-credit fo r participating in this study. Class G enrollment consisted of 110 student s of which 85 agreed to participate. Respondents in this course were 98.8% (n= 84) full-time students. One (1.2%) student was identified as being part-time. Howeve r, 11 respondents did not answer the question specific to full-time status. Most of the respondents were female (81.2%, n=69) with males making up 18.8% (n=16) of the class. Still, 11 respondents did not answer the question regarding gender. There were 13 reported academic majors in Class G. Of these majors, 75.3% (n=64) were family youth and consumer science and 10.6% (n=9) were psychology. None of the other academic majors totaled more than 3% (n=2) respondents. Again, 11 students did not answer the quest ion regarding academic major.

PAGE 115

97 Class G students reported a mode ag e of 21 years (34.1%, n=29) with 31.8% (n=27) reporting as 20 years old. Also, 11.8% (n=10) of respondents were 22 years of age. Class G respondents were 57.6% (n=49) juniors, 30.6% (n=26) seniors and 11.8% (n=10) sophomores. Still, 11 participating st udents did not answer the question regarding college classification. Students were asked how many courses were taken in the subject area similar to Class G. Respondents declared that 2.4% (n=2 ) had taken no courses, 23.8% (n=20) had taken one to two courses, 41.7% (n=35) ha d taken three to four courses and 32.1% (n=27) had taken more than four courses in the subject area. There were 12 students that did not answer this specific question. For the number of problem sets assigned during a typical week that had taken longer than an hour to complete, 50.0% (n= 42) claimed none, 45.2% (n=38) said one to two problem sets and 4.8% (n=4) said thr ee to four problem sets. There were 12 participating students who did not respond to the questions distinguishing number of problem sets completed during a typical week. Class H As a three credit hour course, the instructor of Class H taught topics relevant to agricultural and food ma rketing systems. Specifically, th e topics included identification of food marketing participan ts, functions, interdependenc ies and trends, as well as evaluating components of the system. Student final grades were based on four exams and two projects. Furthermore, effort was made by the faculty member to apply learned content to actual settings requiring a solution to a problem. Written a nd oral presentations were used to showcase student learning and gi ve opportunity to apply concepts to real-

PAGE 116

98 life situation. The course was required for students majoring in food and resource economics. The faculty member who taught Class H was a 42 year-old male. He had five years of collegiate teaching experience at the Un iversity of Florida. This faculty member also reported teaching experiences during his two years of serving in the Peace Corps and two years at an agricultura l technical college. Instrume nts were administered and completed by students during class time. Students were given extra-credit for participating in this study. Class H consisted of 122 students of which 70 responded. Of the participating students 98.5% (n=67) were enrolled as full-time students. One (1.5%) student was determined as a part-time student while two (2.9%) students did not answer the question specifying enrollment status. Males held a slim majority of th e respondents at 55.1% (n=38) with female respondents of Class H accounting for 44.9% (n=31). One student did not respond to the question regarding gender. Nine academic majors were reported in Cl ass H. The majority of the respondents (81.2%, n=56) majored in food and resource eco nomics. Four (5.8%) students declared a major in animal science. The academic majors of agricultural communication and mechanical engineering each had two responde nts (2.9%). The remaining five academic majors consisted of only one student each. Th ere was one student who did not answer the question on the subject of academic major. For ages of respondents in Class H the mode age was 21 years old (31.9%, n=22). There was an equal number of participants reporting 20 and 22 years of age (18.8%, n=13). Ten students (14.5%) reported the age of 23 years. One student did not answer the

PAGE 117

99 question specifying age. Class H respondents were primarily juniors (53.6%, n=37) and seniors (36.2%, n=25). Sophomores made up 7.2% (n=5) of the class and freshman accounted for 2.9% (n=2). One student did no t respond to the questi on identifying college classification. Students were asked how many courses were taken in the subject area similar to Class H. Respondents claimed that 15.9% (n= 11) had taken no courses, 34.8% (n=24) had taken one to two courses, 27.5% (n=19) had taken three to four courses, and 21.7% (n=15) had taken more than four courses in the subject area. There was one student that did not answer this specific question. Student participants were asked how ma ny problem sets were completed during a typical week that had taken more than an hour to complete. In Class H, 55.7% (n=39) claimed none, 40% (n=28) declared one to tw o problem sets, 2.9% (n=2) stated three to four problem sets, and 1.4% (n=1 ), asserted more than five problem sets had taken more than an hour to complete during a typical week. Class I This course was identical to Class A in content, assignments and exams. However, the syllabus, content and classroom policies were determined by the instructor. There was no team teaching between Class A and Class I; rather these were two completely separate sections of the same course with standardized assignments and exams. Class I was a three credit hour cour se focused on developing students’ writing skills. Students were led th rough the process of applyi ng for a job which included creating a resume, completing j ob applications and mock in terviews. Students were led through the process of conducting research and worked with th e instructor to complete a

PAGE 118

100 research report. The course was not re quired for undergraduate students, but was suggested to undergraduate students in the Co llege of Agriculture and Life Sciences. The instructor who taught Class I was 26 y ear-old female and a graduate assistant with one year of collegiate teaching experi ence. She also had less than 6 months of leading non-formal educational programs at a community level. The instructor permitted administration of instruments in class, but students completed instruments outside of class time. Students were given extra-credit from the faculty member for returning completed instruments. There were 100 students enroll ed in Class I with 77 part icipating in this study. All students who responded (n=76) claimed to be full-time, however, one student did not answer the question concerning full-time status. Females constituted 62.3% (n=48) of the student respondents with ma les comprising 37.7% (n=29). Thirty different academic majors were represented among the respondents. The most predominate academic majors were nut ritional science (14.3%, n=11) and food and resource economics (14.3%, n=11). The academ ic major of family youth and consumer sciences constituted 11.7% (n=9) of the re sponding students. None of the other 27 academic majors accounted for more than 10% of the respondents. Concerning the ages of Class I, resp ondents were bimodal with 34.2% (n=26) each at 20 and 21 years of age. Eleven (14.5 %) students reported 22 years of age. One student did not report age. Cl ass I respondents determined th eir college classification as 48.1% (n=37) juniors, 26.0% (n=20) senior s, 20.8% (n=16) sophomores and 5.2% (n=4) freshman.

PAGE 119

101 Students were asked how many courses were taken in the subject area similar to Class I. In response, it was found that 34.2% (n=26) had taken no courses, 46.1% (n=35) had taken one to two courses, 13.2% (n=10) had taken three to four courses and 6.6% (n=5) had taken more than four courses in the subject area. Student participants were asked how ma ny problem sets were assigned during a typical week that had taken more than an hour to complete. In Class I, 47.4% (n=36) stated none, 43.4% (n=33) claimed one to two problem sets, 6.6% (n=5) declared three to four problem sets and 2.6% (n=2) stated mo re than five problem sets were completed during a typical week which re quired more than one hour. All Students The nine classes examined in this stu dy were combined to present demographic information of all students participating in this study. There were 993 undergraduate students enrolled in the nine courses ex amined in this study, of which 716 (72.1%) participated. Of the respondents, 98.6% (n=698) were classified as full-time students. Ten students (1.4%) considered themselves as pa rt-time students. Ther e were eight students who did not respond to the item regarding full -time status. Of the student respondents, 65.7% (n=467) were female while 34.3% (n=2 44) were male. Five students did not answer the question regarding gender. A total of 63 different academic ma jors were identified among the student participants. The five academic majors with the largest number of pa rticipating students were: food and resource economics (19.1%, n=136), animal science (17.5%, n=125), nutritional science (13.0%, n= 93), family youth and consumer sciences (11.6%, n=83) and animal biology (8.8%, n=63). Together, these five academic majors comprised 70.1%

PAGE 120

102 of the student respondents in this study. There were three students who did not answer the question specifying the student’s academic major. The mode age of student participants was 21 years (33.6%, n=239). There were 173 respondents (24.3%) with a reported age of 20 year s and 115 respondents (16.2%) reporting an age of 22 years. There were f our students who did not answer the item regarding student age. The majority of th e students were juniors (48.6%, n=345) and seniors (41.4%, n=294). Howeve r sophomores accounted for 8.2% (n=58) of the class and freshman accounted for 1.8% (n=13). Ther e were six students who did not report their college classification. Considering the number of courses student s had taken in the same subject area to the course of which instruments were admi nistered, 11.5% (n=81) had taken no courses, 37.2% (n=263) had taken one to two courses, 26.7% (n=189) had ta ken three to four classes and 24.6% (n=174) had taken more than four courses. There were nine students who did not answer the item regardi ng number of similar courses taken. The number of problem sets assigned duri ng a typical week for the entire group of student respondents that had ta ken more than one hour to co mplete was a question asked to help validate that prob lem solving based assignments were being used in the classroom. It was found that 60.7% (n=432) of students had no assignments as such, but 33.8% (n=241) stated one to two problem sets during a typical week had taken more than an hour to complete. There were 4.5% (n= 32) claiming three to four problem sets assigned during a typical week had taken more than an hour to complete and 1.0% (n=7) stated more than five such assignments ex isted. There were four students who did not answer the question regarding number of probl em sets completed dur ing a typical week.

PAGE 121

103 Summary of Findings for Objective One Faculty members were coded by their c ognitive style score with the letter “A” designating the most adaptive faculty member and the letter “I” designating the most innovative faculty member. This group of faculty members ranged from a graduate student employed as a lecturer to tenured faculty members with ages ranging from 25 to 62. Six of the nine faculty members were female. The group’s range of teaching experience was 1 to 38 years with few facu lty members having teaching experience outside of the classroom. Faculty members re presented six academic departments in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at the University of Florida. Faculty demographic information was not used in any further data analysis, but presented here simply to describe the faculty member group. See Table 4-2 for a summary of demographic information regarding participating faculty members. Table 4-2. Summary of Classes Regarding Reported Demographic Information of Participating Faculty Members Course Instructor Age Gender Experience Teaching (years) Academic Department Faculty member A Faculty member B Faculty member C Faculty member D Faculty member E Faculty member F Faculty member G Faculty member H Faculty member I 25 54 36 62 54 46 35 42 26 Female Male Female Male Female Female Female Male Female 3 29 12 38 23 11 7 7 1 Agricultural Education & Communication Animal Science Food & Resource Economics Animal Science Microbiology & Cell Science Food Science & Human Nutrition Family Youth & Consumer Science Food & Resource Economics Agricultural Education & Communication

PAGE 122

104 Students were asked demographic found on the NSSE (Kuh, 2001) which included: age, gender, major, college classifi cation, full-time status and number of classes taken similar to the subject area of the course. Students were also asked how many problems sets that had taken more than an hour to complete during a typical week. This question provided some evidence that problem based assignments were used in the class, albeit less than anticipated by the researcher. This will be further discussed in chapter 5. As most student participants were full-tim e students (taking more than 12 credithours) and were between the ages of 20 and 23, there is evidence that these students were mostly traditional undergraduate students. Seven of the nine classes were predominately female. The data suggests that the majority of students in the classes of study were either juniors or seniors in college classification indicati ng that courses were of higher level. Regarding the number of courses the student ha d taken with similar content varied across classes, however from partic ipants’ responses, 50.7% (n=363) of the students had taken at least three classes that were similar to th e course used in the study. See Table 4-3 for a summary of student demographic information. Table 4-3. Summary of Classes Regarding Reported Demographic Information of Participating Students Gender (No. of students) College Classification (No. of students) No. Similar Courses (No. of students) Course Mode Age (years) F M Fr. So. Jr. Sr. 0 1-2 3-4 4+ Class A Class B Class C Class D Class E Class F Class G Class H Class I All students 20 21 22 21 22 21 21 21 21 21 39 56 20 87 37 80 69 31 48 467 31 13 51 20 11 35 16 38 29 244 2 0 0 1 0 4 0 2 4 13 13 0 0 7 1 6 10 5 16 58 34 35 6 64 16 67 49 37 37 345 21 34 65 34 31 38 26 25 20 294 12 16 2 6 4 2 2 11 26 81 47 26 17 34 26 34 20 24 35 263 9 9 19 30 7 51 35 19 10 189 1 18 33 36 11 28 27 15 5 174

PAGE 123

105 Objective Two Determine the cognitive style, student stres s, student motivation and student engagement of undergraduate students. Student participants in e ach class were asked to res pond to four questionnaires. They included the following: Kirton Adap tion-Innovation Inventory (KAI) to measure cognitive style with constructs of sufficiency of originality, effici ency, and rule/group conformity; the Student-life St ress Inventory (SSI) to measur e classroom specific stress characterized by frustrations, conflicts, pressures, changes and self-imposed stress; the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnai re (MSLQ) to measure classroom specific motivation with components of intrinsic mo tivation, extrinsic motivation, task value, control of learning beliefs, se lf-efficacy for learning and te st anxiety; and the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) to measure classroom specific engagement with scales of academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, and student faculty interaction. Chapter 3 discusse d how these instruments were modified to meet the needs of this study. The data are pr esented here with re sults of all four questionnaires grouped by the classes described above. Also, cognitive style, stress, motivation and engagement were determined through examining all participating students as a group. Class A There were 58 usable responses in Cl ass A (N=100, n=70) pertaining to the KAI. Cognitive style was coded with lower numbers signifying more adaptive and higher numbers signifying more innovative. The KAI has a range of 32 to 160 with a mean of 95. The total cognitive style mean for Class A student respondents was slightly more adaptive (M=90.60, SD=18.01, n=58) than the normali zed mean reported by Kirton

PAGE 124

106 (1999). Constructs of cognitive style were likewise slightly more adaptive than the general population (Kir ton): sufficiency of originality was 1.38 points more adaptive, efficiency was 2.10 points more adaptive and rule/group conformity was 0.91 points more adaptive. However, constructs scores we re consistent with the total mean of 90.60 (Kirton). The most adaptive student in Class A scored a 51 on the KAI and the most innovative student scored a 125. See Table 4-4 for findings specific to student cognitive style. Table 4-4. Class A Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=58) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total cognitive style Sufficiency of originality Efficiency Rule/Group conformity 90.60 39.62 16.90 34.09 18.01 8.40 4.72 8.45 51 22 8 17 125 58 28 51 Note. Cognitive style measured by the KAI with 32 items. Theoretical range: Total (32160), Sufficiency of Originality (13-65), Effi ciency (7-35) and Rule/Group Conformity (12-60). Coded: lower score equals more ad aptive, higher score equals more innovative. There were 68 usable scores for dete rmining Class A respondents’ perceived classroom total stress. The SSI measured pe rceived stress with 22 items which were coded one for low level of perceived stress and five indicating a high perceived stress level. The total stress mean of student respondents for Class A was approximately 18 points lower (M=52.44, SD=10.57, n=68) than the norm provided by Gadzella and Baloglu (2001), indicating a lower level of st ress. The student with the lowest level of stress scored 29 on the SSI and the highest le vel of perceived stress was 76. The construct mean for student frustrations stress wa s 5.62 points lower than the norm provided by Gadzella and Baloglu, however the researcher notes that one item was removed from this construct prior to data colle ction. The remaining stress cons tructs also indicated lower student stress levels than the instrument nor m: conflicts was 2.46 poi nts lower, pressures

PAGE 125

107 was 2.50 points lower, changes was 3.16 points lower, and self-imposed was 3.65 points lower in measuring student perceived level of stress in Class A. See Table 4-5 for findings regarding classr oom specific stress. Table 4-5. Class A Student Mean Scores of Stress Constructs Construct N Mean SD Min Max Total stress Frustrations Conflicts Pressures Changes Self-imposed 68 70 69 69 70 70 52.44 12.03 5.97 11.58 4.87 18.17 10.57 3.73 2.54 3.42 2.04 3.86 29 6 3 5 3 9 76 21 12 19 10 25 Note. Perceived stress was measured with th e SSI using 22 summated items. Possible range: Total (22 to 110), Frustr ations (6-30), Conf licts (3-15), Pressu res (4-20), Changes (3-15), Self-imposed (6-30). C oded: higher score equals higher level of perceived stress. For total motivation of Class A there were 69 usable scores. The MSLQ was utilized to measure motivation and comp rised 31 items. Construct scores were standardized and ranged from 1 to 7 providi ng for a total score ra nge of 6 to 42. Items were coded with low scores signifying lo w motivation and high sc ores signifying high motivation. The least motivated student of Class A scored 21.03 for total motivation while the most motivated student scored 36.73. Class A respondents’ total motivation (M=29.31, SD=3.59, n=69) was 1.15 points lower than the norm reported by Pintrich, Smith, Garcia and McKeachie (1991). Three mo tivation constructs between Class A and the instrument norm (Pintrich, et al.) indicated lower levels of motivation: intrinsic motivation was 1.02 points lower, task va lue was 1.01 points lower and control for learning was 0.05 points lower. However three motivation constructs indicated Class A had higher levels of motivation than the in strument norm (Pintrich, et al.): extrinsic motivation was 0.28 points higher, self-efficacy was 0.56 points higher and test anxiety was 0.05 points higher. All scale means of motiv ation were within one standard deviation

PAGE 126

108 identified by Pintrich et al. See Table 4-6 for findings regarding classroom specific motivation for Class A. Table 4-6. Class A Student Mean Sc ores of Motivation Constructs Construct N Mean SD Min Max Total motivation Intrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation Task value Control of learning Self-efficacy Test anxiety 69 70 69 70 70 69 69 29.31 4.03 5.31 4.53 5.79 6.03 3.68 3.59 1.07 1.06 1.14 0.92 0.86 1.30 21.03 1.75 3.00 1.50 3.25 3.75 1.00 36.73 6.50 7.00 6.83 7.00 7.00 6.60 Note. Motivation was measured with the MS LQ using 31 items with standardized constructs. Possible range: Total motivation (6 -48), all constructs (1-7). Coded: higher score equals higher level of motivation. The NSSE was used to determine student engagement utilizing three constructs: academic challenge, active and collaborative learning and student-fa culty interaction. The sum of these three constructs provided 24 items with a range of 24 to 96. A higher engagement scores signifies a more engage d student. Regarding student engagement related to Class A, the summed mean of the three construct scores was 48.43 (SD=7.70, n=70), 15.31 points lower than the reported national mean for college seniors (Kuh, Hayek, Carini, Ouimet, Gonyea & Kennedy, 2001). Construct scores of student engagement in Class A were also lower th an the national mean for college seniors: academic challenge was 8.39 points lower, active learning was 6.02 points lower and student-faculty inter action was 0.90 points lower. Exam ining the differences between mean scores in Class H and the average college senior mean scores (Kuh et al.) with respect to the standard deviati on, there is evidence that thes e students had lower levels of academic challenge and active learning, but comparatively had an average level of student-faculty interaction. See Table 4-7 for findings regarding Class A student engagement.

PAGE 127

109 Table 4-7. Class A Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs (n=70) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total student engagement Academic challenge Active learning Student-faculty interaction 48.43 24.79 11.90 11.74 7.70 3.76 3.09 2.82 32 14 7 6 69 33 20 21 Note. Engagement was measured by the NSSE with 24 summated items. Possible range: Total Engagement (24-96), Academic Cha llenge (11-44), Active Learning (7-28), Student-Faculty Interaction (6-24). Coded: higher score equals higher level of engagement. Class B From Class B (N=100, n=72), there were 46 KAI responses considered usable by the researcher. The KAI determines cognitive style with lower scores signifying more adaptive and higher scores signifying more innovative. The KAI has 32 items with a range of 32 to 160 and a reported mean of 95 (Kirton, 1999). Cla ss B students’ total cognitive style mean score (M=92.43, SD =15.05, n=46) was 2.57 points more adaptive than the general population norm (Kirton). Constr uct scores of cognitive style were less than one point more adaptive than cons truct norms reported by Kirton, except the construct efficiency which was 1.59 points more adaptive than the general population norm. However, all construct mean scores in Class B were consistent with a total cognitive score of 92.43 (Kirton). In Class B, the most adaptive student had a total cognitive style score of 46, while the most innovative student in Cl ass B scored 116. See Table 4-8 for results concerning stud ent cognitive style for Class B. Table 4-8. Class B Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=46) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total cognitive style Sufficiency of originality Efficiency Rule/Group conformity 92.43 40.39 17.41 34.63 15.05 8.45 4.65 6.68 46 22 7 17 116 59 28 47 Note. Cognitive style measured by the KAI with 32 items. Theoretical range: Total (32160), Sufficiency of Originality (13-65), Effi ciency (7-35) and Rule/Group Conformity (12-60). Coded: lower score equals more ad aptive, higher score equals more innovative.

PAGE 128

110 For classroom stress, 68 responses were d eemed usable from Class B participants. The SSI was used to determine students total stress level with 22 Like rt scale items. The range for the SSI was 22 to 110 with higher scor es signifying more stress. The total stress mean of Class B (M=55.85, SD=12.95) was appr oximately 14 points lower than the total mean reported by Gadzella and Baloglu ( 2001). Also, Class B construct mean stress scores were lower than the norm (Gadzella & Baloglu): frustrations was 3.96 points lower, conflicts was 2.40 points lower, pr essures was 3.14 points lower, changes was 2.72 points lower and self-imposed was 1.94 points lower. Note that one item was removed from the frustrations construct prio r to data collection which would provide a slightly lower mean score. The student with th e lowest level of per ceived stress scored 31 for total stress and the student with the highe st amount of perceived stress had a total score of 87. See table 4-9 for result s regarding Class B student stress. Table 4-9. Class B Student Mean Scor es of Stress Constructs (n=68) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total stress Frustrations Conflicts Pressures Changes Self-imposed 55.85 13.69 6.03 10.94 5.31 19.88 12.95 4.98 2.84 3.79 2.60 4.23 31 6 3 4 3 8 87 27 12 20 11 29 Note. Perceived stress was measured with th e SSI using 22 summated items. Possible range: Total (22 to 110), Frustr ations (6-30), Conf licts (3-15), Pressu res (4-20), Changes (3-15), Self-imposed (6-30). C oded: higher score equals higher level of perceived stress. There were 69 usable scores for calculat ing student motivation in Class B. The MSLQ was used to measure student motiv ation and consisted of 31 items. Students responded to items using a 7-poi nt Likert scale with one co ded to signify low motivation and seven coded to signify high motivati on. Construct scores were standardized providing for a total ra nge of 6 to 48 points. Of total student motivation, Class B was 0.19

PAGE 129

111 points higher (M=30.65, SD=12.95, n=68) than the reported sample reported by Pintrich et al. (1991). Construct mean scores were lik ewise similar with less than one point above or below the sample norm (Pintrich et al.) : Specifically, intrinsic motivation was 0.45 points lower, extrinsic motivation was 0.44 points higher, task value was 0.49 points lower, control of learning was 0.01 points higher, self-efficacy wa s 0.08 points lower and test anxiety was 0.78 points highe r. The least motivated student of Class B scored 17.43 for total motivation and the most motivate d student scored 38.58. See Table 4-10 for findings regarding classroom speci fic motivation of Class B. Table 4-10. Class B Student Mean Sc ores of Motivation Constructs Construct N Mean SD Min Max Total motivation Intrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation Task value Control of learning Self-efficacy Test anxiety 69 70 70 69 70 69 70 30.65 4.60 5.47 5.05 5.75 5.39 4.41 4.37 1.19 1.09 1.27 1.17 1.27 1.68 17.43 1.50 2.25 1.00 2.50 2.25 1.00 38.58 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Note. Motivation was measured with the MS LQ using 31 items with standardized constructs. Possible range: Total motivation (6 -48), all constructs (1-7). Coded: higher score equals higher level of motivation. Class B had 70 usable scores for student engagement. The total student engagement score was calculated by adding th e constructs of academic challenge, active learning and student-faculty in teraction. Twenty four items each with a 4-point scale were coded one for low engagement and four for high engagement. The range of the three summed constructs was 24 to 96 with a mean of 63.74 for college seniors. Class B total student engagement mean (M=46.01, SD= 7.47, n=70) was 17.73 points lower than the national mean of college seniors considering the three constructs of study (Kuh et al., 2001). Construct mean scores were also lower than the reported national mean of college seniors (Kuh, et al.): active learning was 6.11 points lower an d student-faculty interaction

PAGE 130

112 was 0.68 points lower. Of particular note, the construct academic challenge was 10.94 points lower, indicating lower levels of student prepara tion and use of higher order thinking skills in Class B. The student with the lowest level of engagement in Class B had a total engagement score of 33 points wh ile the most engaged student in the class scored 63 for total engagement. See Table 411 for findings specific to Class B student engagement. Table 4-11. Class B Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs (n=70) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total student engagement Academic challenge Active learning Student-faculty interaction 46.01 22.24 11.81 11.96 7.47 3.63 2.73 3.21 33 16 7 7 63 31 19 20 Note. Engagement was measured by the NSSE with 24 summated items. Possible range: Total Engagement (24-96), Academic Cha llenge (11-44), Active Learning (7-28), Student-Faculty Interaction (6-24). Coded: higher score equals higher level of engagement. Class C For Class C (N=90, n=71), there were 56 usable KAI responses considered acceptable by the researcher to determine cogn itive style. Lower scores signify a more adaptive cognitive style and higher scores si gnify a more innovative cognitive style with a range of 32 to 160 and mean of 95. The total cognitive style mean for Class C was 5.86 points higher (M=100.86, SD=14.34) than th e general population mean determined by Kirton (1999) which indicated a slightly innovative group. Cognitive style construct mean scores were likewise higher: suffici ency of originality was 3.59 points higher, efficiency was 0.61 points higher and rule /group conformity was 1.66 points higher indicating slightly more innovative students. However, all cognitive style construct mean scores in Class C was consistent with the to tal mean score (Kirton). The most adaptive

PAGE 131

113 student in Class C scored 65 on the KAI, wh ile the most innovative student scored 142. See Table 4-12 for findings concerning student cognitive style of Class C. Table 4-12. Class C Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=56) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total cognitive style Sufficiency of originality Efficiency Rule/Group conformity 100.86 44.59 19.61 36.66 14.34 6.59 4.28 7.50 65 32 9 22 142 62 29 58 Note. Cognitive style measured by the KAI with 32 items. Theoretical range: Total (32160), Sufficiency of Originality (13-65), Effi ciency (7-35) and Rule/Group Conformity (12-60). Coded: lower score equals more ad aptive, higher score equals more innovative. There were 70 usable responses to calcul ate total perceived st ress in Class C. The SSI was utilized to measure stress with 22 items providing a range of 22 to 110. Low perceived stress scores signify low stress and high perceived stress scores signify high levels of perceived stress. The total stress mean for Cla ss C participants was 15.18 points lower (M=54.91, SD=12.59, n=70) than reported means by Gadzella and Baloglu (2001). Construct mean scores for student stress also indicated lower levels of stress with respect to the norm (Gadzella and Baloglu): frustrations wa s 4.81 points lower, conflicts was 2.36 points lower, pressures was 3.63 points lower, changes was 3.40 points lower and self-imposed was 0.92 points lower. Note that one item was removed from the frustrations construct prior to data collection. Also note that total stress and constructs of stress were approximately one standard de viation lower than the sample reported by Gadzella and Baloglu, but self-imposed stress of Class C was less than one point from the sample norm. The student with the lowest le vel of total stress scored 29 on the SSI and the student with the highest level of total stress scored 83. See Table 4-13 for findings regarding classroom stress of Class C.

PAGE 132

114 Table 4-13. Class C Student Mean Scores of Stress Constructs Construct N Mean SD Min Max Total stress Frustrations Conflicts Pressures Changes Self-imposed 70 70 71 71 71 71 54.91 12.84 6.07 10.45 4.63 20.90 12.59 4.68 2.53 3.34 2.42 4.78 29 6 3 4 3 9 83 29 12 20 12 30 Note. Perceived stress was measured with th e SSI using 22 summated items. Possible range: Total (22 to 110), Frustr ations (6-30), Conf licts (3-15), Pressu res (4-20), Changes (3-15), Self-imposed (6-30). C oded: higher score equals higher level of perceived stress. There were 71 usable responses to determine student motivation of Class C. To measure total motivation, 31 items were us ed from the MSLQ. Respondents answered items on a 7-point Likert scale with one si gnifying low motivation and seven signifying high motivation. Construct scores were standard ized and added to form a total motivation range of 6 to 48. Total motivation in Cl ass C was 0.40 points higher (M=30.86, SD=3.80) than that reported by Pintrich et al. (1 991), indicating higher levels of motivation. However, construct mean scores of motiva tion in Class C were both higher and lower than the test sample norm (Pin trich et al.). Intrinsic motiv ation was 0.26 points lower than the reported norm (Pintrich et al.) and the motivation construct task value was 0.45 points lower. However, extrinsic motivation was 0.37 points higher, control of learning was 0.01 points higher, self-efficacy was 0.45 points higher, and test anxiety was 0.27 points higher than the reported norm (Pintrich et al .), indicating higher levels of student motivation in Class C. The least motivated student of Class C respondents had a total score of 18.73 and the most motivated studen t scored 39.59. See Table 4-14 for findings regarding motivation in Class C. Total student engagement of Class C was determined with the NSSE which in this study comprised three constructs The possible range for total engagement was 24 to 96.

PAGE 133

115 Table 4-14. Class C Student Mean Scores of Motivation Constructs (n=71) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total motivation Intrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation Task value Control of learning Self-efficacy Test anxiety 30.86 4.79 5.40 5.09 5.75 5.92 3.90 3.80 0.91 1.15 1.35 0.90 0.70 1.52 18.73 2.75 1.50 1.00 2.75 3.75 1.00 39.59 6.50 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Note. Motivation was measured with the MS LQ using 31 items with standardized constructs. Possible range: Total motivation (6 -48), all constructs (1-7). Coded: higher score equals higher level of motivation. The 4-point scale items were coded as one signifying low engagement and four signifying high engagement. The total stude nt engagement mean score for Class C (M=54.73, SD=9.15, n=71) was 9.01 points lower than the national mean for college seniors (Kuh et al., 2001). Construct mean scor es for student engagement in Class C were also lower than the national mean for colleg e seniors (Kuh, et al.): academic challenge was 5.19 points lower and active learning was 3.93 points lower. The exception to this was the construct student-faculty interaction which was 0.12 poi nts higher than the norm (Kuh, et al.). This indicated that students in Class C had an average level of studentfaculty interaction despite low levels of acad emic challenge and active learning. In Class C, the least engaged student had a total en gagement score of 37 and the most engaged student scored 80. See Table 4-15 for findings specific to Class C student engagement. Table 4-15. Class C Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs (n=71) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total student engagement Academic challenge Active learning Student-faculty interaction 54.73 27.99 13.99 12.76 9.15 4.46 3.53 3.54 37 16 8 7 80 37 23 21 Note. Engagement was measured by the NSSE with 24 summated items. Possible range: Total Engagement (24-96), Academic Cha llenge (11-44), Active Learning (7-28), Student-Faculty Interaction (6-24). Coded: higher score equals higher level of engagement.

PAGE 134

116 Class D For Class D (N=116, n=108), there were 73 usable KAI scores accepted by the researcher. The KAI uses 32 items to determ ine cognitive style and has a theoretical range of 32 to 160 and a mean of 95. Lower cognitive style scores signify adaptiveness while higher cognitive style scores signify innovativeness. The tota l cognitive style mean for Class D student respondents was 93.63 (SD=17.40). This was 1.37 points more adaptive than the standard mean of typi cal populations defined by Kirton (1999). The efficiency construct mean scores of cognitive style was also slightly more adaptive (1.93 points lower) than the genera l population mean (Kirton) in Class D. However, cognitive style constructs of sufficiency of original ity and rule/group conformity were 0.49 points higher and 0.07 points higher respectively. Rega rdless, all construct mean scores were consistent with a cognitive style total m ean score of 93.63 (Kirton). The most adaptive student in Class D had a tota l cognitive style score of 55 and the most innovative student had a cognitive style score of 135. See Table 416 for results regarding student cognitive style in Class D. Table 4-16. Class D Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=73) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total cognitive style Sufficiency of originality Efficiency Rule/Group conformity 93.63 41.49 17.07 35.07 17.40 8.37 5.37 7.98 55 23 7 20 135 55 32 55 Note. Cognitive style measured by the KAI with 32 items. Theoretical range: Total (32160), Sufficiency of Originality (13-65), Effi ciency (7-35) and Rule/Group Conformity (12-60). Coded: lower score equals more ad aptive, higher score equals more innovative. For total perceived stress in Class D ther e were 101 usable scores recorded by the researcher. The SSI was used to measure to tal perceived stress which included 22 items

PAGE 135

117 and a range of 24 to 96. Using a 5-point Li kert scale students re sponded by marking one to signify low perceived stress and five to signify high perceived stress. In Class D, the total stress mean of the class (M=52.80, SD=13.71, n=101) was 17.29 points lower than that reported by Gadzella and Baloglu (2001), indicating lower levels of perceived stress. Constructs mean scores of student stress in Class D were also lowe r than that reported by Gadzella and Baloglu: frustrations was 5.87 poi nts lower, conflicts was 3.13 points lower, pressures was 3.32 points lower, changes wa s 3.40 points lower and self-imposed was 1.40 points lower. Note that one item was rem oved from the frustra tions construct prior to data collection as it was not applicable to the study. See chapter 3 for an explanation for removing this item. Interestingly, all s cales of stress were one standard deviation lower than the normalized means (Gadzella a nd Baloglu) except for self-imposed stress. This provided evidence that students in Cla ss D had higher levels of self-imposed stress compared to the other stress constructs. The st udent in Class D with the lowest level of total perceived stress scored 26 points on the SSI while the student with the highest level of perceived stress scored 94 points. See Table 4-17 for fi ndings specific to stress of Class D. Table 4-17. Class D Student Mean Scores of Stress Constructs Construct N Mean SD Min Max Total stress Frustrations Conflicts Pressures Changes Self-imposed 101 103 102 103 102 103 52.80 11.78 5.30 10.76 4.63 20.42 13.71 4.25 2.48 3.71 2.46 4.34 26 6 3 4 3 9 94 26 12 20 13 30 Note. Perceived stress was measured with th e SSI using 22 summated items. Possible range: Total (22 to 110), Frustr ations (6-30), Conf licts (3-15), Pressu res (4-20), Changes (3-15), Self-imposed (6-30). C oded: higher score equals higher level of perceived stress.

PAGE 136

118 For total student motivation in Class D, there were 102 usable responses. The MSLQ determines level of motivation with si x standardized construc t scores providing a total motivation range of 6 to 48. Students respond to 7-point Likert scale items with one signifying low motivation and seven signify ing high motivation. In Class D, total motivation (M=32.42, SD=3.77, n=102) for the cl ass was 1.96 points higher than the reported total motivation mean from the in strument’s authors (Pintrich et al. 1991), indicating a higher level of mo tivation in this group. Motivat ion construct mean scores were also higher than the normalized construc t mean scores (Pintrich et al.): extrinsic motivation was 0.68 points higher, task value was 0.27 points higher, control of learning was 0.30 points higher, self-efficacy was 0.38 points higher and test anxiety was 0.49 points higher. The exception to this was intrinsic motivation, which was 0.16 points lower than the norm reported by Pintrich et al. However, all constructs mean scores were within one standard deviation as presented in the study conducted by Pintich et al. The student with the lowest level of motivation in Class D scored 21.26 and the student with the highest level of motivation scored 38.85. See Table 4-18 for reported motivation scales of Class D. Table 4-18. Class D Student Mean Sc ores of Motivation Constructs Construct N Mean SD Min Max Total motivation Intrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation Task value Control of learning Self-efficacy Test anxiety 102 103 103 102 103 103 103 32.42 4.89 5.71 5.81 6.04 5.85 4.12 3.77 1.00 1.07 1.05 0.83 1.08 1.43 21.26 1.75 2.00 2.00 3.50 2.75 1.00 38.85 6.75 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Note. Motivation was measured with the MS LQ using 31 items with standardized constructs. Possible range: Total motivation (6 -48), all constructs (1-7). Coded: higher score equals higher level of motivation.

PAGE 137

119 Concerning student engagement of Cla ss D, 108 participants provided usable responses for this study. In this study, three constructs with 24 items were used from the NSSE to provide a total student engagement score. Items used 4-point scales with one coded as low engagement and four coded as high engagement. The engagement score range was 24 to 96. In Class D, the total calculated student engagement mean was 48.33 (SD=7.89) which was 15.41 points lower than the national reported mean for college seniors (Kuh et al., 2001). Like wise, construct mean scores of student engagement in Class D were also lower than the norm (Kuh et al., 2001): academic challenge was 8.63 points lower, active learning was 6.25 points lo wer, and student faculty interaction was 0.53 points lower. Examining the standard devi ation of student engagement constructs, there was evidence that students in Class D had an average level of student-faculty interaction, but had low leve ls of academic challenge a nd active learning. The least engaged student had a total score of 32 a nd the most engaged student scored 69. See Table 4-19 for student engagement construct scores for Class D. Table 4-19. Class D Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs (n=108) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total student engagement Academic challenge Active learning Student-faculty interaction 48.33 24.55 11.67 12.11 7.89 4.22 3.30 3.03 32 16 7 6 69 33 24 22 Note. Engagement was measured by the NSSE with 24 summated items. Possible range: Total Engagement (24-96), Academic Cha llenge (11-44), Active Learning (7-28), Student-Faculty Interaction (6-24). Coded: higher score equals higher level of engagement. Class E There were only 32 usable KAI responses from Class E (N=105, n=48). The high number of non-responders may be attributed to the faculty member not allocating extracredit to encourage student participation. The KAI uses 32 items to determine a total

PAGE 138

120 cognitive style score with a range of 32 to 160 and mean of 95. Lowe r scores indicated a more adaptive cognitive style and higher sc ores indicated a more innovative cognitive style. The most adaptive student in Class E had a total cognitive st yle score of 66 while the most innovative student scored 116. In Cl ass E, the total cognitive style score mean was more adaptive (M=89.41, SD=14.95) than th e general population mean reported by Kirton (1999). Likewise, construc t mean scores indicated sli ght adaptiveness with respect to the general population mean (Kirton): sufficiency of orig inality was 2.00 points lower, efficiency was 1.94 points lower and rule/g roup conformity was 1.66 points lower. All construct scores of cognitive style were cons idered consistent with the total cognitive style score (Kirton). See Tabl e 4-20 for findings concerning student cognitive style in Class E. Table 4-20. Class E Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=32) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total cognitive style Sufficiency of originality Efficiency Rule/Group conformity 89.41 39.00 17.06 33.34 14.95 7.87 3.65 7.30 66 25 10 20 116 56 26 46 Note. Cognitive style measured by the KAI with 32 items. Theoretical range: Total (32160), Sufficiency of Originality (13-65), Effi ciency (7-35) and Rule/Group Conformity (12-60). Coded: lower score equals more ad aptive, high score equals more innovative. There were 47 usable responses in dete rmining total perceived stress for students of Class E. Level of stress was determined with the SSI using 22 items and a total range of 22 to 110. Students responded to a 5-point Li kert scale with one indicating a low level of perceived stress and five indicating a high level of percei ved stress. The student with the lowest level of perceived stress in Class E scored a 27 for total stress while the student with the highest level of stress scored a 66. In Class E, the total stress score mean was more than two standard deviations lower (M=42.89, SD=11.28, n=47) than the test

PAGE 139

121 sample used by Gadzella and Baloglu (2001). C onstructs of student stress were also had lower mean scores than the test sample c onstructs (Gadzella a nd Baloglu) indicating lower levels of stress in Cl ass E: frustrations was 8.21 poi nts lower, conflicts was 3.75 points lower, pressures was 5.43 points lowe r, changes was 3.58 points lower and selfimposed was 5.19 points lower. It is important to remember that one item was removed from the frustrations construct prior to data collection; however it was still two standard deviations below the test sample (Gadzella and Baloglu). The other four construct mean scores of stress were more than one standa rd deviation less than the mean reported by Gadzella and Baloglu. See Table 4-21 for findings specific to st ress scores of Class E. Table 4-21. Class E Student Mean Scores of Stress Constructs Construct N Mean SD Min Max Total stress Frustrations Conflicts Pressures Changes Self-imposed 47 48 47 48 48 48 42.89 9.44 4.68 8.65 3.58 16.63 11.28 3.73 2.15 3.25 1.23 4.70 27 6 3 4 3 7 66 21 11 17 7 29 Note. Perceived stress was measured with th e SSI using 22 summated items. Possible range: Total (22 to 110), Frustr ations (6-30), Conf licts (3-15), Pressu res (4-20), Changes (3-15), Self-imposed (6-30). C oded: higher score equals higher level of perceived stress. Class E had 48 usable MSLQ responses for determining student motivation. The MSLQ included six standardized constructs to provide a tota l motivation score range of 6 to 48 using 31 items. Students responded to 7-po int Likert scale items with a value of one indicating low motivation and a va lue of seven indicating high motivation. In Class E, the student with the lowest level of motivation scored 19.90 while the student with the highest level of motivation scored 37.57. Th e Class E total motivation score (M=31.20, SD=3.79) was 0.74 points higher than the total mean score reported by Pintrich et al. (1991). Four motivation scale mean scores meas ured by the MSLQ were also higher than

PAGE 140

122 the test sample (Pintrich et al.) included extrinsic motivation (0.19 points higher), task value (0.04 points higher), control of lear ning (0.28 points higher) and self-efficacy (0.77 points higher). Motivation scales means in Cla ss E that were lower than the test sample included intrinsic motivation (0.47 points lowe r) and test anxiety (0.06 points lower). All motivation scale mean scores measured in Cla ss E were within one st andard deviation of the test sample (Pintrich et al.). See Tabl e 4-22 for reported motivation mean scores of Class E. Table 4-22. Class E Student Mean Scores of Motivation Constructs (n=48) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total motivation Intrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation Task value Control of learning Self-efficacy Test anxiety 31.20 4.58 5.22 5.58 6.02 6.24 3.57 3.79 1.15 1.05 1.19 0.93 0.77 1.30 19.90 2.00 2.75 2.00 2.50 3.50 1.00 37.57 6.50 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.60 Note. Motivation was measured with the MS LQ using 31 items with standardized constructs. Possible range: Total motivation (6 -48), all constructs (1-7). Coded: higher score equals higher level of motivation. There were 48 usable NSSE responses in Class E to determine level of student engagement. In this study, constructs of academic challenge, active and collaborative learning and student-faculty interaction formed a total student engagement score with a range of 24 to 96 using 24 items. Items were c oded in order that lower scores signify less student engagement while higher scores si gnify more student engagement. The least engaged student in Class E had a total enga gement score of 32 and the most engaged student scored 59 for total engagement. The Cl ass E total student engagement mean score was 47.88 (SD=5.50), which was 15.86 points lowe r than the national reported college senior total engagement mean (Kuh et al ., 2001) indicating a lowe r level of student engagement in Class E. Constructs of stude nt engagement as meas ured with the NSSE

PAGE 141

123 were also lower than national average for seniors (Kuh, et al.): academic challenge was 9.14 points lower, active learning was 5.32 point s lower and student-faculty interaction was 1.41 points lower. Examining the standa rd deviation of the construct scores measured in Class E, there was evidence that students in Class E were less academically challenged. See Table 4-23 for findings dete rmining Class E student engagement. Table 4-23. Class E Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs (n=48) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total student engagement Academic challenge Active learning Student-faculty interaction 47.88 24.04 12.60 11.23 5.50 3.60 2.16 2.34 32 15 8 6 59 32 17 17 Note. Engagement was measured by the NSSE with 24 summated items. Possible range: Total Engagement (24-96), Academic Cha llenge (11-44), Active Learning (7-28), Student-Faculty Interaction (6-24). Coded: higher score equals higher level of engagement. Class F For Class F (N=150, n=115), there were 71 KAI responses that were usable for this study. The KAI determined students’ c ognitive style level with 32 items. The theoretical range of the KAI was 32 to 160 with a mean of 95 (Kirton, 1999). Items were coded in order that lower scores indicated a more adaptive cognitive style and higher scores indicated a more innovative cognitive st yle. For Class F, the total cognitive style mean (M=90.17, SD=16.28) was approximately 4.83 points lower than the general population reported by Kirton ( 1999). That is, responding students of Class F were slightly more adaptive. Cognitive style construct mean scores also indicated students were slightly more adaptive as those mean scores were lower than Kirton specifies. In Class F these constructs include: sufficiency of originality which was 1.80 points lower, efficiency which was 0.85 points lower and rule/group conformity which was 2.18 points lower than the general population (Kirton). All constructs of cognitive style were

PAGE 142

124 consistent with a total cognitive style scor e of 90.17 (Kirton). The most adaptive student in Course F had a total cognitive style scor e of 55 while the most innovative student scored 132 on the KAI. See Table 4-24 for fi ndings specific to Class F student respondent cognitive style. Table 4-24. Class F Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=71) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total cognitive style Sufficiency of originality Efficiency Rule/Group conformity 90.17 39.20 18.15 32.82 16.28 8.89 4.01 6.81 55 21 10 17 132 60 26 51 Note. Cognitive style measured by the KAI with 32 items. Theoretical range: Total (32160), Sufficiency of Originality (13-65), Effi ciency (7-35) and Rule/Group Conformity (12-60). Coded: lower score equals more ad aptive, higher score equals more innovative. Class F had 112 usable responses for de termining classroom stress. Level of perceived stress was determined with the SSI The SSI used 22 items incorporated into five constructs. Students completing the SSI responded to 5-point Likert scale items providing a range of 22 to 110 for a total perc eived stress score. The Class F total mean stress score was 49.29 (SD=13.20) which was 20.80 points lower than results provided by Gadzella and Baloglu (2001). All construc ts of perceived stress likewise indicated lower levels of student stress in Class F. Compared to the te st sample mean (Gadzella and Baloglu), Class F mean scores of stress c onstructs frustrations was 6.63 points lower, conflicts was 3.26 points lower, pressures wa s 4.43 points lower, changes was 3.48 points lower and self-imposed was 2.92 points lower. No te that the stress construct frustrations had one item removed by the re searcher prior to data collection. All the aforementioned stress constructs in Class F were more than one standard deviation lower than the test sample except the construct self-imposed stre ss. The student with the lowest level of

PAGE 143

125 perceived stress had a total SSI score of 25 wh ile the student with the highest level of perceived stress scored 89. See Table 4-25 for specific findings regarding Class F stress. Table 4-25. Class F Student Mean Scor es of Stress Constructs (n=112) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total stress Frustrations Conflicts Pressures Changes Self-imposed 49.29 11.02 5.17 9.65 4.55 18.90 13.20 4.02 2.64 3.69 2.53 4.60 25 6 3 4 3 8 89 27 12 20 13 28 Note. Perceived stress was measured with th e SSI using 22 summated items. Possible range: Total (22 to 110), Frustr ations (6-30), Conf licts (3-15), Pressu res (4-20), Changes (3-15), Self-imposed (6-30). C oded: higher score equals higher level of perceived stress. Class F had 115 usable responses in de termining student motivation. Motivation was determined with the MSLQ which consis ted of 31 items forming six standardized motivation construct scores. Thus, the total motivation score range was 6 to 48 with higher scores signifying more mo tivation. The student in Class F with the lowest level of motivation had a total score of 20.40 points on the MSLQ, while th e student with the highest level of motivation sc ored a total 37.35 points. In Cl ass F, the total motivation mean (31.25, SD=3.71) was 0.79 points higher to that reported by Pintri ch et al. (1991). Four of the motivation construc ts had higher mean scores than reported by Pintrich et al. including extrinsic motivation (0.48 points higher), task value (0.26 points higher), control of learning (0.08 points higher) and self-efficacy (0.47 points higher). The other two constructs had lower mean scores than reported by Pintrech et al.: intrinsic motivation was 0.37 points lower and test a nxiety was 0.14 points lower. All motivation construct means for Class F were within one standard deviation of the instrument norm (Pintrich et al.). See Table 4-26 for re sults of Class F student motivation.

PAGE 144

126 Table 4-26. Class F Student Mean Scores of Motivation Constructs (n=115) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total motivation Intrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation Task value Control of learning Self-efficacy Test anxiety 31.25 4.68 5.51 5.80 5.82 5.94 3.49 3.71 1.10 0.96 1.13 0.88 0.80 1.39 20.40 1.25 2.25 1.33 3.75 3.75 1.00 37.35 6.75 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Note. Motivation was measured with the MS LQ using 31 items with standardized constructs. Possible range: Total motivation (6 -48), all constructs (1-7). Coded: higher score equals higher level of motivation. Class F had 115 usable responses to th e NSSE for the purpose of determining level of student engagement. The NSSE co mprised of 24, 4-point scale items providing for a possible total engagement score range of 24 to 96. Items were coded so as higher scores indicated higher levels of student engagement. The stud ent with the lowest level of engagement had a total engagement score of 33 while the most engaged student had a score of 74. In Class F, respondents’ total student engagement mean was 47.87 (SD=7.81), a total score that was 15.87 points lower than the national mean for college seniors (Kuh et al., 2001). Construct mean scor es of student engagement in Class F were also lower than the average college senior (Kuh et al.): academic challenge was 7.32 points lower, active learning was 6.69 points lo wer and student-facu lty interaction was 1.87 points lower. This provides evidence that students in Class F had lower levels of total student engagement with emphasis placed on the construct of academic challenge. See Table 4-27 for reported means of student engagement in Class F.

PAGE 145

127 Table 4-27. Class F Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs (n=115) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total student engagement Academic challenge Active learning Student-faculty interaction 47.87 25.86 11.23 10.77 7.81 4.28 2.98 3.09 33 14 7 6 74 38 22 20 Note. Engagement was measured by the NSSE with 24 summated items. Possible range: Total Engagement (24-96), Academic Cha llenge (11-44), Active Learning (7-28), Student-Faculty Interaction (6-24). Coded: higher score equals higher level of engagement. Class G In Class G (N=110, n=85), the researcher found 65 of the KAI scores acceptable for the purpose of determining students cogniti ve style. The KAI consists of 32 items and three constructs. It has a theoretical range of 32 to 160 and a mean of 95. Lower scores indicated that an individual was more adap tive while higher scores indicated that an individual was more innovative. The most ad aptive student in Class G had a total KAI score of 52, while the most innovative stude nt scored 125. Class G had a total cognitive style mean score of 93.42 (SD=15.04) which was 1.58 points lower than the general population according to Kirton (1999). All construct mean scores of student cognitive style in Class G were less than one poin t lower than the gene ral population construct means (Kirton). See Table 4-28 for findings of student cognitive style in Class G. Table 4-28. Class G Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=65) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total cognitive style Sufficiency of originality Efficiency Rule/Group conformity 93.42 40.18 18.31 34.92 15.04 7.67 4.76 7.85 52 21 9 16 125 56 29 54 Note. Cognitive style measured by the KAI with 32 items. Theoretical range: Total (32160), Sufficiency of Originality (13-65), Effi ciency (7-35) and Rule/Group Conformity (12-60). Coded: lower score equals more ad aptive, higher score equals more innovative. Considering student stress for Class G, there were 84 usable responses. Total perceived level of stress was determined with the SSI which used 22 items to form a total

PAGE 146

128 level of perceived stress range of 22 to 110 points. Students completed the SSI by responding to 5-point Likert scale items with one signifying low stress and five signifying high stress. The student with the lo west level of percei ved stress in Class G had a total stress score of 27 points while the student with the highest level of perceived stress scored a total of 92 points on the SSI. The Class G total mean stress score was 18.55 points lower (M=51.54, SD=13.72) than th e results published by Gadzella and Baloglu (2001). Construct mean scores of st udent stress also indicated lower student stress levels as mean scores were lower than that reported by Ga dzella and Baloglu: frustrations was 6.14 points lower, conflicts was 2.51 points lower, pressures was 3.31 points lower, changes was 2.86 points lower and self-imposed was 3.65 points lower. Note that one item was removed from the frus trations stress cons truct prior to data collection. See Table 4-29 for reported mean scores of student stress of Class G. Table 4-29. Class G Student Mean Scor es of Stress Constructs (n=84) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total stress Frustrations Conflicts Pressures Changes Self-imposed 51.54 11.51 5.92 10.77 5.17 18.17 13.72 3.93 2.61 3.95 2.94 4.70 27 6 3 4 3 6 92 23 13 20 15 30 Note. Perceived stress was measured with th e SSI using 22 summated items. Possible range: Total (22 to 110), Frustr ations (6-30), Conf licts (3-15), Pressu res (4-20), Changes (3-15), Self-imposed (6-30). C oded: higher score equals higher level of perceived stress. Considering student motivation in Class G, 85 student responses were considered usable. The MSLQ was used to determine le vel of students’ motivation and totaled 31 Likert scale items with a valu e range of 1 to 7. Constructs were standardized providing a total MSLQ range of 6 to 48. A response of one indicated low motiv ation and a response of seven indicated high motivation. The stude nt in Class G with the least amount of

PAGE 147

129 motivation had a total score of 12.60 while the student with the most amount of motivation scored 39.15 for total motivation. For Class G, the total motivation score mean was 30.01 (SD 4.27), which was 0.45 points lower than the tota l motivation norm provided by Pintrich et al. (1991) In this class, three constr uct mean scores were lower than the norm construct mean scores (Pintr ich et al.): intrinsic motivation was 0.45 points lower, task value was 0.43 points lower a nd control for learning was 0.28 points lower. The remaining three constructs were highe r than the norm construct mean scores (Pintrich et al.) indicating s lightly higher levels of motivation: extrinsic motivation was 0.07 points higher, self-efficacy was 0.51 point s higher and test anxiety was 0.13 points higher. All motivation construct score means we re within one standard deviation from the normalized values. See Table 4-30 for scale mean scores of Class G participants. Table 4-30. Class G Student Mean Scores of Motivation Constructs (n=85) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total motivation Intrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation Task value Control of learning Self-efficacy Test anxiety 30.01 4.60 5.10 5.11 5.46 5.98 3.76 4.27 1.15 1.24 1.28 1.14 0.92 1.39 12.60 1.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.25 1.00 39.15 6.75 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.80 Note. Motivation was measured with the MS LQ using 31 items with standardized constructs. Possible range: Total motivation (6 -48), all constructs (1-7). Coded: higher score equals higher level of motivation. There were 24 items used from the NSSE to determine level of student engagement in Class G. St udents responded to items using a 4-point scale with one signifying low engagement a nd four signifying high engagement. The range for total student engagement was 24 to 96. The least e ngaged student in Class G had a total score of 34 points while the student with the highest level of engagement scored 79 on the NSSE. For Class G, there were 85 usable re sponse providing a to tal engagement mean

PAGE 148

130 score of 50.05 (SD=7.80) which was 13.69 points lower than the national average for college seniors (Kuh et al., 2001). Note that the total scores for student engagement consisted of the three constructs measured in this study. Construct m ean scores of student engagement were also lower than the nationa l college senior average (Kuh et al.) as academic challenge was 8.66 points lower, active learning was 3.64 points lower and student-faculty inte raction was 1.39 points lower. This pr ovides evidence that students in Class G had low levels of academic challeng e. See Table 4-31 for findings specific to Class G student engagement. Table 4-31. Class G Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs (n=85) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total student engagement Academic challenge Active learning Student-faculty interaction 50.05 24.52 14.28 11.25 7.80 4.22 2.99 2.87 34 16 9 6 79 37 25 18 Note. Engagement was measured by the NSSE with 24 summated items. Possible range: Total Engagement (24-96), Academic Cha llenge (11-44), Active Learning (7-28), Student-Faculty Interaction (6-24). Coded: higher score equals higher level of engagement. Class H For Class H (N=122, n=70), 50 KAI scores were found acceptable to determine students’ cognitive style. The KAI has 32 item s with a theoretical range of 32 to 160 and mean of 95. A lower score signifies a more adaptive cognitive st yle and a higher score signifies a more innovative cogni tive style. The most adapti ve student in Class H had a total cognitive style score of 67, while the most innovative st udent had a total cognitive style score of 135. The total cognitive style mean of Class H was 95.30 (SD=15.01) which was 0.30 points higher than the genera l population mean determined by Kirton (1999). Cognitive style construct score means were not more than one point lower or

PAGE 149

131 higher than norms reported by Kirton. See Ta ble 4-32 for results specific to student cognitive style in Class H. Table 4-32. Class H Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=50) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total cognitive style Sufficiency of originality Efficiency Rule/Group conformity 95.30 41.24 18.64 35.42 15.01 8.65 3.75 7.04 67 22 10 19 135 60 27 51 Note. Cognitive style measured by the KAI with 32 items. Theoretical range: Total (32160), Sufficiency of Originality (13-65), Effi ciency (7-35) and Rule/Group Conformity (12-60). Coded: lower score equals more ad aptive, higher score equals more innovative. There were 70 students providi ng usable scores to determine stress in Class H. Level of perceived stress was determined us ing the SSI, an instrument consisting of 22 items. Students responded to items with a 5point Likert scale w ith one signifying low stress and five signifying high stress. In Cla ss H, the student with the lowest level of perceived stress had a total score of 30 while the student with the highest level of perceived stress scored 78. Class H had a to tal student perceived stress mean of M=50.73 (SD=11.54) which was 19.36 points lower than the total stress mean reported by Gadzella and Baloglu (2001). Likewise, c onstructs of student stress ha d mean scores lower than normalized values (Gadzella and Baloglu): fr ustrations was 5.85 poi nts lower, conflicts was 2.99 points lower, pressures was 4.29 poi nts lower, changes was 3.61 points lower and self-imposed was 2.55 points lower. Note th at the frustrations stress construct had one item removed prior to data collection wh ich lowers the measured construct in the study in comparison to the work conducted by Gadzella and Baloglu. Interestingly in Class H, all stress construct mean scores we re more than one standard deviation lower than test norms (Gadzella and Baloglu) excep t for the construct self-imposed stress. See Table 4-33 for Class H responses concerning student stress.

PAGE 150

132 Table 4-33. Class H Student Mean Scor es of Stress Constructs (n=70) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total stress Frustrations Conflicts Pressures Changes Self-imposed 50.73 11.80 5.44 9.79 4.42 19.27 11.54 3.33 2.53 3.08 2.24 5.10 30 6 3 4 3 8 78 22 15 17 12 30 Note. Perceived stress was measured with th e SSI using 22 summated items. Possible range: Total (22 to 110), Frustr ations (6-30), Conf licts (3-15), Pressu res (4-20), Changes (3-15), Self-imposed (6-30). C oded: higher score equals higher level of perceived stress. Considering student motivation in Class H, 70 responders returned usable MSLQ instruments. The MSLQ consists of 31 items which form six standardized constructs. Constructs were then summed to provide a total motivation score. Students respond to 7point Likert scale items with one signifyi ng low motivation and seven signifying high motivation. The least motivated student in Class H had a total motivation score of 17.25 while the most motivated student scored 39.80 for total motivation. In Class H, the total motivation mean was 31.05 (SD=4.60), wh ich was 0.59 points higher than the normalized mean reported by Pintrich et al. (1991). None of the motivation construct mean scores were more than 0.50 points higher or lower than the normalized mean scores (Pintrich et al.). See Table 4-34 for reported mean scores of motivation of Class H. Table 4-34. Class H Student Mean Scores of Motivation Constructs (n=70) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total motivation Intrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation Task value Control of learning Self-efficacy Test anxiety 31.05 4.85 5.50 5.56 5.69 5.48 3.96 4.60 1.16 1.10 1.18 1.02 1.08 1.49 17.25 2.00 2.50 1.50 1.75 2.25 1.00 39.80 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.60 Note. Motivation was measured with the MS LQ using 31 items with standardized constructs. Possible range: Total motivation (6 -48), all constructs (1-7). Coded: higher score equals higher level of motivation.

PAGE 151

133 There were between 69 and 70 usable N SSE responses for determining student engagement in Class H. Twenty-four items were used from the NSSE to form three constructs and a total student engagement sc ore. Items were coded with one indicating low engagement and four indicating high enga gement using a 4-point scale. The total possible range for student engagement was 24 to 96. The student least engaged in Class H had a total engagement score of 34 while the st udent most engaged in the class scored 72 for total student engagement. For Class H, the total student enga gement mean (M=52.28, SD=8.59, n=69) was 11.46 points lower than th e national reported mean for college seniors (Kuh et al., 2001). Considering the cons tructs of student engagement measured in this study mean scores were also lower than the national mean for college seniors (Kuh et al.): academic challenge was 6.29 points lower, active learning was 4.38 points lower and student faculty inter action was 0.70 points lower. Examin ing the standard deviation of student engagement constructs measured in Class H, there is evidence that in Class H there was higher levels of student-faculty interaction and lower levels of academic challenge and academic learning. See Table 435 for reported student engagement mean scores of Class H. Table 4-35. Class H Student Mean Sc ores of Engagement Constructs Construct N Mean SD Min Max Total student engagement Academic challenge Active learning Student-faculty interaction 69 70 70 69 52.28 26.89 13.54 11.94 8.59 3.61 3.28 3.60 34 18 9 6 72 34 23 21 Note. Engagement was measured by the NSSE with 24 summated items. Possible range: Total Engagement (24-96), Academic Cha llenge (11-44), Active Learning (7-28), Student-Faculty Interaction (6-24). Coded: higher score equals higher level of engagement.

PAGE 152

134 Class I For Class I (N=100, n=77), there were 60 usable KAI responses to determine students’ cognitive style. The KAI has 32 items providing for a theoretical range of 32 to 160 and a mean of 95. Lower scores indicate d that a person was more adaptive while higher scores indicated that a person was more innovative. Th e most adaptive student in Class I had a total cognitive st yle score of 50 while the mo st innovative student had a total score of 124 on the KAI. For Class I, the total cognitive style mean was 92.90 (SD=14.25), which was 2.10 points lower than th e general population reported by Kirton (1999). Comparing Class I c ognitive style construct mean scores to the general population construct mean scores found suffici ency of originality 0.13 points higher, efficiency 1.37 points lower and rule/group conformity 0.87 points lower. However all cognitive style construct scores were consis tent with a total scor e of 92.90 (Kirton). See Table 4-36 for reported cognitive style scale means determined for Class I. Table 4-36. Class I Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=60) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total cognitive style Sufficiency of originality Efficiency Rule/Group conformity 92.90 41.13 17.63 34.13 14.25 7.61 4.77 7.42 50 25 7 18 124 58 29 53 Note. Cognitive style measured by the KAI with 32 items. Theoretical range: Total (32160), Sufficiency of Originality (13-65), Effi ciency (7-35) and Rule/Group Conformity (12-60). Coded: lower score equals more ad aptive, higher score equals more innovative. Class I had 77 acceptable responses to the SSI in determining student perceived stress. The SSI used 22, 5-point Likert scal e items to which stude nts responded with a one to signify low stress and five to signi fy high stress. The possible range for total student stress was 22 to 110. In Class I, the student with the least amount of perceived stress had a score of 29 while the student with the highest level of perceived stress had a

PAGE 153

135 total score of 80. For Class I, the total mean stress score was 49.82 (SD=11.96) which was 20.27 points lower than the sample fi ndings of Gadzella and Baloglu (2001). Construct scores of student stress were also lower than the test sample (Gadzella and Baloglu): frustrations was 6.77 points lower, conflicts was 2.49 point s lower, pressures was 4.26 points lower, changes was 3.39 point s lower and self-imposed was 3.27 points lower. The frustrations construct was more than one standard devi ation lower than the norm, however one item was removed from this summative scale prio r to data collection. The student stress constructs conflicts, pr essures and changes were also one standard deviation lower than the norm, however sel f-imposed stress was within the instrument reported standard deviation. See Table 4-37 fo r findings specific to Class I respondents’ stress. Table 4-37. Class I Student Mean Scor es of Stress Constructs (n=77) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total stress Frustrations Conflicts Pressures Changes Self-imposed 49.82 10.88 5.94 9.82 4.64 18.55 11.96 4.15 2.58 2.87 2.35 4.87 29 6 3 4 3 7 80 22 14 16 14 27 Note. Perceived stress was measured with th e SSI using 22 summated items. Possible range: Total (22 to 110), Frustr ations (6-30), Conf licts (3-15), Pressu res (4-20), Changes (3-15), Self-imposed (6-30). C oded: higher score equals higher level of perceived stress. For motivation, 77 responses were considered usable. The MSLQ was used to determine motivation and consisted of six sta ndardized constructs and totaled 31 items. The possible range for total motivation was 6 to 48. The least motivated student of Class I had a total score of 19.76 while the most mo tivated student scored 37.75 points for total motivation. In Class I, the total motiva tion mean was 29.86 (SD=3.74) which was 0.60 points lower than the total motivation mean re ported by Pintrich et al. (1991). Construct

PAGE 154

136 scores of student motivation in Class I vari ed positively and negatively but differed less than one point from the norm (Pintrich et al.). Specifically compared to the norm, intrinsic motivation was 0.74 points lower, extrinsic motivation was 0.35 points higher, task value was 0.69 points lower, control of learning was 0.21 points lower, self-efficacy was 0.66 points higher and test anxiety was 0.03 points hi gher. See Table 4-38 for reported findings of motivation in Class I. Table 4-38. Class I Student Mean Scores of Motivation Constructs (n=77) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total motivation Intrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation Task value Control of learning Self-efficacy Test anxiety 29.86 4.31 5.38 4.85 5.53 6.13 3.66 3.74 1.00 1.15 1.22 0.99 0.87 1.66 19.76 1.50 2.50 1.00 2.50 3.75 1.00 37.75 6.25 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Note. Motivation was measured with the MS LQ using 31 items with standardized constructs. Possible range: Total motivation (6 -48), all constructs (1-7). Coded: higher score equals higher level of motivation. Student engagement was determined using 24 items from the NSSE which formed three constructs. The possible range for tota l engagement was 24 to 96. Items were coded with one signifying low engagement and f our signifying high engagement. The least engaged student of Class I had a total enga gement score of 36 points while the most engaged student of the class scored 71 points for total engagement. Class I had 76 responses in determining student total e ngagement. The total engagement mean was 51.58 (SD=7.72) which was 12.16 points lower than the national mean for college seniors (Kuh et al, 2001). Construct scores of stude nt engagement were also lower than the national average for college seniors (Kuh et al.): academic challenge was 7.69 points lower, active learning was 4.06 points lower and student-faculty interaction was 0.43 points lower. This provides evidence that Cl ass I students had lower levels of academic

PAGE 155

137 challenge and active learning, but had an averag e level of student-f aculty interaction. See Table 4-39 for reported construct scores of Class I student engagement. Table 4-39. Class I Student Mean Sc ores of Engagement Constructs Construct N Mean SD Min Max Total student engagement Academic challenge Active learning Student-faculty interaction 76 76 77 77 51.58 25.49 13.86 12.21 7.72 4.47 2.65 2.53 36 17 9 7 71 36 22 19 Note. Engagement was measured by the NSSE with 24 summated items. Possible range: Total Engagement (24-96), Academic Cha llenge (11-44), Active Learning (7-28), Student-Faculty Interaction (6-24). Coded: higher score equals higher level of engagement. All Students Students were grouped together (N=993, n= 716) to determine values of student cognitive style, stress, motivation and engage ment for all students participating in the study. There were 511 acceptable KAI responses to be used in determining student cognitive style. There are 32 items in the KAI providing a theoretical range of 32 to 160 with a mean of 95. Lower scores indicated an individual was more adaptive while higher scores indicated an individua l was more innovative. The most adaptive student in this study had a total KAI score of 46 while the mo st innovative student had a cognitive style score of 142. The mean of the total group was 93.28 (SD=15.95) which was 1.72 points lower than the general popul ation defined by Kirton (1999). Likewise, construct mean scores for cognitive style also indicated slight adaptiveness as scores were lower than the general population mean (Kirton): sufficien cy of originality was 0.19 points lower, efficiency was 1.11 points lower and rule/g roup conformity was 0.42 points lower. All construct scores of cognitive style were cons istent with a total cognitive style score of 93.28 (Kirton). See Table 4-40 for the total student c ognitive style for all participants of this study.

PAGE 156

138 Table 4-40. All Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=511) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total cognitive style Sufficiency of originality Efficiency Rule/Group conformity 93.28 40.81 17.89 34.58 15.95 8.19 4.58 7.52 46 21 7 16 142 62 32 58 Note. Cognitive style measured by the KAI with 32 items. Theoretical range: Total (32160), Sufficiency of Originality (13-65), Effi ciency (7-35) and Rule/Group Conformity (12-60). Coded: lower score equals more ad aptive, higher score equals more innovative. There were 697 usable SSI scores in de termining total perc eived stress for all participants. The SSI consisted of 22 summate d 5-point Likert scale items coded as one signifying low stress and five signifying high st ress. The student with the lowest level of perceived stress in this study scored 25 while the student with the highest level of perceived stress scored 94 for total percei ved stress. The total stress mean was 51.35 (SD=12.91), which was 18.74 points lower than the reported norm (Gadzella & Baloglu, 2001). Construct mean scores of student stress were also lower than the norm (Gadzella & Baloglu): frustrations was 5.96 points lower, conflicts wa s 2.82 points lower, pressures was 3.77 points lower, changes was 3.35 point s lower and self-imposed was 2.72 points lower. Note that one item was removed from the frustrations construct prior to data collection, which was discussed in chapter 3. This modification affects the comparison between norm values and the a ssessment of studen t stress in this st udy by lowering the summated scale for the frustrations stress construct as well as the total stress score. Of the constructs assessing student stre ss, all were more than one standard deviation lower than norm values except for self-imposed stress. See Table 4-41 for findings of stress of all participants of this study. There were 706 usable MSLQ scores fo r determining student motivation of all participants. The MSLQ consists of six standard ized constructs summed to provide a total

PAGE 157

139 Table 4-41. All Student Mean Sc ores of Stress Constructs Construct N Mean SD Min Max Total stress Frustrations Conflicts Pressures Changes Self-imposed 697 702 700 702 702 703 51.35 11.69 5.61 10.31 4.68 19.10 12.91 4.23 2.59 3.57 2.43 4.69 25 6 3 4 3 6 94 29 15 20 15 30 Note. Perceived stress was measured with th e SSI using 22 summated items. Possible range: Total (22 to 110), Frustr ations (6-30), Conf licts (3-15), Pressu res (4-20), Changes (3-15), Self-imposed (6-30). C oded: higher score equals higher level of perceived stress. motivation score and possible range of 6 to 48. The instrument uses 31, 7-point Likert scale items. The least motivated student par ticipating in the study had a total score of 12.60 while the most motivated student in th e study scored 39.80 in determining total motivation. Considering all part icipating students, the total mean motivation score was 30.81 (SD=4.04, n=706), which was 0.35 points higher than the norm reported by Pintrich et al. (1991). Comparing constructs of the mean scores with norm values (Pintrich et al.), motivation constructs of participating students varied positively and negatively within one standard deviation of the norm construct value. Specifically participating students reported the following construct mean sc ores with respect to values reported by Pintrich et al.: intrinsic motivation was 0.44 points lower, extrinsic motivation was 0.39 points higher, task value was 0.23 points lower, control of learning was .02 points higher, self-efficacy was 0.41 points higher and test anxiety was 0.20 points higher. See Table 4-42 for findings specific to student stress of all participants. For total student engagement there were 712 responses to the NSSE considered usable for this study. Twenty-four items were used from the NSSE to measure total student engagement. To complete the NSSE students completed items using a 4-point scale with one signifying low engagement and four signifying high engagement. The

PAGE 158

140 Table 4-42. All Student Mean Scor es of Motivation Constructs Construct N Mean SD Min Max Total motivation Intrinsic motivation Extrinsic motivation Task value Control of learning Self-efficacy Test anxiety 706 709 708 707 709 707 708 30.81 4.61 5.42 5.31 5.76 5.88 3.83 4.04 1.10 1.10 1.26 0.99 0.97 1.48 12.60 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.25 1.00 39.80 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 Note. Motivation was measured with the MS LQ using 31 items with standardized constructs. Possible range: Total motivation (6 -48), all constructs (1-7). Coded: higher score equals higher level of motivation. least engaged student in this study had a total score of 32 wh ile the most engaged student had a total engagement score of 80. The total me an for student engagement of all students was 49.58 (SD=8.20, n=712) which was 14.16 points lower than the national mean for college seniors (Kuh et al., 2001). Constructs of student engagement we re also lower than the national mean for college seniors (Kuh et al.): academic challenge was 7.99 points lower, active learning was 5.26 points lower and student-faculty interaction was 0.90 points lower. These construct mean score di fferences provide evid ence that student respondents had low levels of academic cha llenge and active learning, but an average level of student-faculty interaction. See Tabl e 4-43 for specific findings regarding student engagement of all participants of this study. Table 4-43. All Student Mean Scor es of Engagement Constructs Construct N Mean SD Min Max Range Total student engagement Academic challenge Active learning Student-faculty interaction 712 713 714 713 49.58 25.19 12.66 11.74 8.20 4.33 3.22 3.08 32 14 7 6 80 38 25 22 48 24 18 16 Note. Engagement was measured by the NSSE with 24 summated items. Possible range: Total Engagement (24-96), Academic Cha llenge (11-44), Active Learning (7-28), Student-Faculty Interaction (6-24). Coded: higher score equals higher level of engagement.

PAGE 159

141 Comparisons Between Classes The literature provided evidence that student s had more stress in courses requiring characteristics of adaptiveness (Puccio, Talbot & Joniak, 1993). To test this, a one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine significant di fferences of student stress levels between students taught by adaptive faculty members (Classes A, B, & C), middle score faculty members (Classes D, E & F) and i nnovative faculty members (Classes G, H & I). With total stress designated as the dependent variable, a significant difference was found between the three groups (F=8.92, p=.00). A Bonf erroni post-hoc test was conducted to further examine between group differences. Th e adaptive teacher group had student stress scores (M=54.51) that were significantly high er than the student stress scores of the middle score teacher group (M=49.49, p=.00) and si gnificantly higher than student stress scores of the innovative teacher grou p (M=50.72, p=.01). However, there was no significant difference between st ress scores for students in the middle score teacher group and the innovative teacher group (p=.87). Th is finding confirms the results found by previous research (Puccio et al., 1993) A one-way ANOVA was conducted to examin e significant differences of student motivation scores between c ourses taught by adaptive teacher group (Classes A, B & C), courses taught by the middle score teacher gr oup (Classes D, E & F) and courses taught by the innovative teacher group (Classes G, H & I). With total motivation as the dependent variable, a significant diff erence was found between the three groups (F=10.41, p=.00). A Bonferroni post-hoc test was conducted to further examine the significant differences between each of th e three groups. Students in the innovative teacher group had total motivation scores (M =30.27) that were significantly lower than student motivation scores in the mi ddle score teacher group (M=31.69, p=.00), a

PAGE 160

142 difference of 1.42 points on a 36 point scale. St udent respondents in the adaptive teacher group had motivation scores (M=30.28) that were also significantly lower than motivation scores in the middle score teach er group (p=.00). There was no significant difference for student motivation scores between the adaptive teacher group and the innovative teacher group (p=.99). This indicated that in these classes, students were less motivated in classes taught by more ad aptive faculty members and more innovative faculty members. To determine if student engagement va ried among adaptive faculty members and innovative faculty members, a one-way AN OVA was conducted to examine significant differences between an adaptive teacher group (Classes A, B & C), a middle score teacher group (Classes D, E & F) and an innovative teacher group (Classes G, H & I). Using total student engagement as the depe ndent variable, a signi ficant difference was found between groups (F=9.61, p=.00). A Bonfe rroni post-hoc test was conducted to further examine group differences. Students in the innovative teacher group had total engagement scores (M=51.22) significantly hi gher than engagement scores of students enrolled in the middle score teacher gr oup (M=48.05, p=.00). However, students in the innovative teacher group did not have signi ficantly higher engagement scores than students in the adaptive teacher grou p (M=49.75, p=.17). There was no significant difference for student engagement scores be tween the middle score teacher group and the adaptive teacher group (p=.07). This finding i ndicated that students in these classes taught by innovative faculty members tended to have higher engagement scores. In the nine classes utilized in this st udy, total student engagement mean scores were lower than the national average for co llege seniors (Kuh et al., 2001). However,

PAGE 161

143 only 41.06% of the total responde nts were seniors. It may be that freshman, sophomore and junior students lowered student engagement mean scores in each of the classes since college freshman tend to have lower levels of engagement than co llege seniors (Kuh et al.). A one-way ANOVA was conducted to exam ine if significant differences of student engagement scores existed between college freshman, sophomores, juniors and seniors. Significant differences were found among th e four groups of students (F=2.75, p=.04). However the assumption of homogeneity of variance was not met as Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances indicated to re ject the null hypothesis, (F=3.00, p=.03) and conclude that the four groups of students were not equal regarding variance. Because variances among the four groups of student s were not homogenous and sample sizes differed among the four groups, a Games-Howell post-hoc test was conducted to account for these differences. In this analysis, college senior student engagement scores were not significantly different from j unior student engagement scores (p=.07), sophomore student engagement scores (p=.99) or freshman student engagement scores (p=.87). The researcher concluded that low scores of st udent engagement found in this study were not attributed to colle ge classification. Summary of Findings for Objective Two In determining students’ cognitive style seven classes had total score means that were slightly adaptive (below the mean of 95), one class had total cognitive style score means that were slightly innovative (above th e mean of 95), and one class had a cognitive style score approximating 95. Although self-selec ted courses may have a tendency to be more adaptive or more innovative, the total m ean cognitive style scores of these classes were indicative of the percentage of females in the course. Kirton ( 1999) states that the total cognitive style mean score for females is 90, which is five points lower than the

PAGE 162

144 general population mean. In th is study, the overall cognitive style mean score for females was 91.49 (n=339), while the cognitive style mean score for males was 96.81 (n=170). Therefore, classes with a larger percentage of females tend to have more adaptive mean scores. Note that Class C was 72% male and had the most innovative total cognitive style mean score (M=100.86) of the nine classes examined. In all classes, cognitive style construc t mean scores were consistent for the respective total score (Kirton, 1999) However, it is interesting to note that the efficiency cognitive style construct was the most adaptive construct in Classes A, B, C, D, H and I. Among these six classes the difference between the efficiency cognitive style construct and the next most adaptive cognitive style construct ranged from .60 (Class H) to 2.00 (Class D). Non-response error limited the findings of this study as not every student completed all four instruments. Particularl y, non-response error may be higher in Class E given that less than 50% of the students responded. The low re sponse rate may be attributed to the faculty member not provi ding extra-credit points to participating students. No assessment for non-response erro r was conducted as explained in chapter 3. The KAI suffered a 29% mortality rate in this study. The KAI was scored by the researcher with the guidelines presented by Kirton (1999). Many of these scores were discarded as students tended to answer most of the items as easy or very easy indicating that all tasks were easy to perform over a l ong period of time. This left few or no marks to signify a specific task as hard or very hard to exhibit over a long period of time. Because everyone has difficulty with some aspect of solving a problem, students marking

PAGE 163

145 all items as easy or very easy were not providi ng a true measure of cognitive style, but were confounding the measure with cognitive level (Kirton). For student stress, there wa s a tendency for perceived stress mean scores to be lower than the reported norm by Gadzella and Baloglu (2001). One sm all contributor to this was the removal of one fr ustrations stress construct it em prior to data collection. Another contributor may be the time of year at which the instrument was administered. There was no indication of the semester that Gadzella and Balogl u conducted their study which provided instrument norms, but Shield s (2001) found that stud ent stress decreases during the second semester of the academic y ear. This may be why student stress mean scores in this study were low when compared to Gadzella and Balogl u as these data were collected during the spring semester. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to examin e significant differences of student stress levels between students taught by ad aptive faculty members, middle score faculty members and innovative faculty members. With total stress designate d as the dependent variable, a significant difference was found between the three gr oups (F=8.92, p=.00). A Bonferroni post-hoc test was conducted to further examine between group differences. The adaptive teacher group had student stress scores (M=54.51) that were on average significantly higher than the student stress scores of th e middle score teacher group (M=49.49, p=.00) and on average significantly higher than student stress scores of the innovative teacher group (M=50.72, p=.01). Th is finding confirms the results found by previous research (Puccio, Ta lbot, & Joniak, 1993) and indi cates a relationship between student stress and courses taught by adaptive faculty members.

PAGE 164

146 The MSLQ was used to determine level of student motivation in each course. Throughout the nine courses total motiva tion means ranged from 29.31 (Class A) to 32.42 (Class D) with no construct mean sc ore in any class exceeding one standard deviation from the norm (Pintrich et al., 1991). A one-way ANOVA was conducted to examin e significant differences of student motivation scores between courses taught by adaptive teacher group, middle score teacher group and innovative teacher group. With total motivation as the dependent variable, a significant difference was found between the three gr oups (F=10.41, p=.00). A Bonferroni post-hoc test was conducted to fu rther examine the significant differences between each group. Students in the innovative teacher group had a mean score of 30.27 which was significantly lower than student mo tivation mean scores in the middle score teacher group (M=31.69, p=.00), but not signifi cantly lower than the adaptive teacher group (M=30.28, p=.99). The evidence suggests th at students were less motivated in classes taught by more adaptive faculty me mbers and more innovative faculty members. Mean scores of total student engagement were low compared to national score means of college seniors. Kuh (2001) states th at engagement scores tend to increase with college classification. However, this was not found to be true in this study as no significant differences were found between st udent engagement scores of seniors and engagement scores of freshman, sophomores or juniors. That is, there was no evidence of this relationship among these data. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to examin e significant differences of student engagement between the adaptive teac her group, middle score teacher group and innovative teacher group. A significant di fference was found between groups (F=9.61,

PAGE 165

147 p=.00). A Bonferroni post-hoc test was conducted to furt her examine group differences. Students in the innovative teacher group had total engagement scores (M=51.22) significantly higher than engagement scores of students enrolled in the middle score teacher group (M=48.05, p=.00). This finding in dicated that students in these classes taught by innovative faculty members tended to have higher engagement scores. See Table 4-44 for a summary of student to tal mean scores for cognitive style, stress, motivation and student engagement per class. Table 4-44. Summary of Classe s Regarding Student Cognitive Style, Stress, Motivation and Engagement Mean Scores Course Total Cognitive Style Mean Total Stress Mean Total Motivation Mean Total Engagement Mean Class A Class B Class C Class D Class E Class F Class G Class H Class I All Classes 90.60 92.43 100.86 93.63 89.41 90.17 93.42 95.30 92.90 93.28 52.44 55.85 54.91 52.80 42.89 49.29 51.54 50.73 49.82 51.35 29.31 30.65 30.86 32.42 31.20 31.25 30.01 31.05 29.86 30.81 48.43 46.01 54.73 48.33 47.88 47.87 50.05 52.28 51.58 49.58 Objective Three Determine the cognitive style gap between fa culty and students and to explore its relationship with student stress, stude nt motivation, student engagement and specific demographic variables of undergraduate students. Student and faculty member participants in each class were asked to respond to the KAI to determine their cognitive style. The faculty member’s total cognitive style score and construct scores we re subtracted from students’ total cognitive style and construct scores which provided cognitive st yle gap scores for each individual student. Once cognitive style gap scores were cal culated between each student and their

PAGE 166

148 respective teacher, Pearson’s correlation coeffi cient was used to determine relationships between cognitive style gap and student stress, motivation, engagement and selected demographic variables. Gender was the only categorical variable and was dummy coded one for males and two for females. Mill er (1998) provided a classification for determining the magnitude of a correlation w ith r=0.01 to 0.09 described as negligible, r=0.10 to 0.29 described as low, r=0.30 to 0.49 described as moderate, r=0.50 to 0.69 described as substantial, r=0.70 to 0.99 desc ribed as very high, and r=1.0 described as perfect. Class A There were 58 usable KAI responses fo r determining cognitive style gap of students in Class A. The faculty member had a total cognitiv e style score of 64, indicating that she was more adaptive. The reported total cognitive style gap mean in Class A was 26.60 (SD=18.00), indicating that students on average were 26.60 points more innovative than the faculty member. In Class A, the most adaptive student had a 13 point lower cognitive style score than the faculty member’s cognitive style score. The most innovative student in the class scored 61 points higher th an the faculty member for the total KAI score. Note that stress become s apparent to individua ls with a cognitive style gap at 20 points or hi gher (Kirton, 2003). In Class A, 38 (65.5%) of the 58 student respondents had a cognitive styl e gap at or above 20 points. See Table 4-45 for findings specific to cognitive style gap of Class A. Once cognitive style gaps were calculat ed, Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to find relationships with total scores and constructs scores of stress, motivation, engagement and demographics.

PAGE 167

149 Table 4-45. Class A Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=58) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total cognitive style gap Sufficiency of originality gap Efficiency gap Rule/Group conformity gap 26.60 10.62 6.90 9.09 18.00 8.40 4.72 8.45 -13 -7 -2 -8 61 29 18 26 Note Cognitive style gap scores were calcula ted by subtracting faculty member’s KAI score from individual student’s KAI score. Coded: lower score equals more adaptive, higher score equals more innovative. Examining internal correlations for th e KAI, very high correlations were found between the total cognitive st yle gap score and the sufficiency of originality cognitive style gap (r=.87, p<.05) as well as the rule/group conformity gap (r=.93, p<.05). Sufficiency of originality gap was very highly correlated with rule/group conformity gap (r=.70, p<.05). However, efficien cy cognitive style gap had a substantial correlation with total cognitive style gap (r=.66, p<.05), but only a moderate correlation with sufficiency of originality (r=.36, p<.05). This data suggests that in Class A, sufficiency of originality gap and rule/group conformity gap are closely associated, while the efficiency cognitive style gap is less associated w ith total cognitive style gap. No te that direction and degree of construct gap correlations were dependent on cognitive style scores of faculty member in relation to students’ cognitive style mean scores. Another explanation to the lower efficiency gap correlations may include the lower post-hoc reliability coefficient for the efficiency scale. Total cognitive style gap had a significant moderate relationship with total stress (r=.34, p<.05), indicating an association w ith an innovative cognitive style gap and higher total stress scores. Al so note that efficiency cogni tive style gap had moderate correlations with stress constructs: frustra tions (r=.37, p<.05), c onflicts (r=.35, p<.05), and pressure (r=.38, p<.05). Furt hermore, rules group/conform ity cognitive style gap had

PAGE 168

150 moderate correlations with stress constructs : frustrations (r=.34, p<.05), and changes (r=.33, p<.05). These findings indicate a re lationship between higher stress construct scores and both constructs, efficiency c ognitive style gap and rule/group conformity cognitive style gap. Total cognitive style gap had a significant low relationship with total motivation (r=-.29, p<.05). This indicated that in this course taught by an adaptive faculty member, students’ innovative total cognitive style ga p was associated with students’ lower motivation scores. Also of interest, efficien cy cognitive style gap scores had moderate correlations with total motivation (r=-.33, p< .05), extrinsic motivation (r=-.36, p<.05) and self-efficacy (r=-.44, p<.05) indicating that a higher innovative gap was associated with lower stress among these constructs. Consid ering the rule/group conformity cognitive style gap, moderate correlations were found w ith total motivation (r=.31, p<.05) and task motivation (r=-.33, p<.05) signi fying that higher innovative rule/group conformity gaps were associated with lower motivation levels among these constructs in Class A. Total cognitive style gap had a negligib le correlation with total engagement (r=.04, p>.05) signifying little a ssociation between the two vari ables. No other significant correlations were found between constructs of cognitive style gap and constructs of student engagement. For internal correlations of the SSI, student total stress significantly correlated with stress constructs: frust rations (r=.83, p<.05), conflic ts (r=.59, p<.05), pressures (r=.73, p<.05), changes (r=.48, p<.05) and se lf-imposed (r=.60, p<.05). As expected, these correlations indicated th at the scales used to meas ure stress in this study were moderately to highly related with the total stress measured by the SSI.

PAGE 169

151 Total stress scores of students were negatively correlated wi th self-efficacy (r=.37, p<.05) indicating lower self-efficacy was associ ated with higher stress in this class. Self-efficacy was also negatively correlated with stress constructs frustrations (r=-.40), pressures (r=-.41, p<.05) and changes (r=-.31, p<.05). These correlati ons also indicated that low self-efficacy was associated with higher stress in this class. Examining student stress and student engagement, a moderate correlation was found between total stress and total student engagement (r=.37, p<.05). Total stress was also correlated with the engagement cons tructs: academic cha llenge (r=.30, p<.05) and student-faculty interact ion (r=.35, p<.05). The stress constr uct frustrations moderately correlated with total student engagement (r=.38, p<.05), academic challenge (r=.36, p<.05) and active learning (r=.32, p<.05). All of these correlations provide evidence that associations exist between stude nts’ higher stress scores and students’ higher engagement scores. For Class A, the MSLQ was used to meas ure motivation of students. Moderate to very high correlations were found between the total motivation score and construct scores: intrinsic motivation (r=.73, p<.05), extrinsic motivation (r=.62, p<.05), task motivation (r=.77, p<.05), control of lear ning (r=.31, p<.05) and self-efficacy (r=.33, p<.05). However, the correlation between total motivation scores and test anxiety scores was not significant, but did have a low correlation (r=.24, p>. 05). The data suggests that constructs used to measure motivation were related to the total motivation score, less test anxiety. Examining correlations between motivation and engagement in Class A, no significant relationship was found with tota l motivation and total engagement (r=.24,

PAGE 170

152 p>.05). However extrinsic motivation was mode rately correlated with total engagement (r=.32, p<.05) and student-facu lty interaction (r=.43, p<.05). Also task motivation was moderately correlated with total engage ment (r=.31, p<.05) and academic challenge (r=.33, p<.05). These correlations indicated that higher scores in st udent motivation were associated with higher scores in st udent engagement among the aforementioned constructs. However, a correlation was found in the opposite direction when considering motivation constructs contro l of learning and self-efficac y. Control of learning was negatively correlated with total student engagement (r=-.32, p<.05) and academic challenge (r=-.30, p<.05). These two correlations indicated that higher levels of student control of learning were associated with lo wer levels of student engagement and lower levels of academic challenge. Self-efficacy wa s also negatively correlated with active learning (r=-.32, p<.05) which indicated that lo wer levels of student self-efficacy were associated with higher levels of active learning. Considering the internal correlations for the NSSE found in this class, very high correlations existed between total student engagement and the constructs: academic challenge (r=.79, p<.05), active learning (r=.85, p<.05) and student-faculty interaction (r=.76, p<.05). These correlations signify a cl ose association between these constructs. See Table 4-46 for relationships between c ognitive style gap, stress, motivation and engagement.

PAGE 171

153Table 4-46. Class A Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations among Constructs of Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation an d Engagement (n=56) Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. Total gap -2. Gap-originality .87* -3. Gap-efficiency .66* .32* -4. Gap-rule .93* .70* .54* -5. Total stress .34* .24 .37* .29* -6. Frustrations .34* .20 .37* .34* .83* -7. Conflicts .21 .14 .35* .13 .59* .47* -8. Pressures .29* .14 .38* .28* .73* .57* .19 -9. Changes .35* .28* .28* .33* .48* .30* .20 .36* -10. Self-imposed .01 .10 -.09 -.03 .60* .28* .18 .24 .05 -11. Total motivation -.29*-.13 -.33*-.31*-.06 -.06 -.18 -.16 -.27* .30* -12. Intrinsic motivation -.13 .01 -.12 -.22 -.07 -.12 -.08 -.23 -.01 .18 .73* -13. Extrinsic motivation -.31*-.20 -.36*-.26 .02 .02 -.04 .01 -.10 .10 .62* .22 -14. Task motivation -.28*-.19 -.15 -.33*-.06 .06 -.08 -.12 -.21 .04 .77* .69* .37* 15. Control of learning .01 .06 -.11 .02 -.17 -.19 -.03 -.24 -.39* .15 .31* .07 .12 16. Self-efficacy -.13 .01 -.44*-.05 -.37*-.40*-.29* -.41*-.31* .11 .33* .06 .26 17. Test anxiety -.09 -.05 -.01 -.14 .27* .22 -.11 .27* .02 .34* .45* .24 .11 18. Total Engagement .04 -.02 .12 .04 .37* .38* .19 .29* .18 .16 .24 .27* .32* 19. Academic Challenge .16 .14 .17 .12 .30* .36* .16 .29* .17 -.01 .20 .28* .12 20. Active Learning -.02 -.12 .07 .04 .25 .32* .10 .17 .02 .13 .13 .17 .23 21. Faculty Interaction -.06 -.09 .03 -.06 .35* .21 .20 .23 .23 .28* .25 .17 .43* M 26.8 10.8 6.77 9.25 53.0 12.1 5.95 11.8 4.77 18.4 154 15.9 21.2 SD 18.0 8.32 4.70 8.32 10.4 3.82 2.64 3.34 1.92 3.80 17.4 4.26 4.10 Note. Cases excluded listwise. All constr ucts coded: high scores equals increased levels. signifies p<.05

PAGE 172

154 Table 4-46 (continued). Construct 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1. Total gap 2. Gap-originality 3. Gap-efficiency 4. Gap-rule 5. Total stress 6. Frustrations 7. Conflicts 8. Pressures 9. Changes 10. Self-imposed 11. Total motivation 12. Intrinsic motivation 13. Extrinsic motivation 14. Task motivation -15. Control of learning -.05 -16. Self-efficacy .11 .44* -17. Test anxiety .24 -.21 -.36*-18. Total Engagement .31* -.32*-.29* .27* -19. Academic Challenge .33* -.30*-.24 .24 .79* -20. Active Learning .20 -.24 -.32* .19 .85* .51* -21. Faculty Interaction .20 -.22 -.13 .21 .76* .32* .54* -M 27.2 23.3 48.6 17.9 49.0 25.2 12.0 11.9 SD 7.01 3.57 6.23 6.81 7.37 3.40 2.92 2.93 Note. Cases excluded listwise. All constructs coded: higher scores equals increased levels. signifies p<.05 Demographic questions were asked of st udents regarding age, gender, college classification and number of classes taken simila r to the content of Class A. The variable student age was found positively associated w ith total cognitive style gap (r=.31, p<.05) indicating that younger students were associated with sma ller cognitive style gaps. Student gender was found moderately rela ted with total cognitive style gap (r=-.32, p<.05), indicating that being female was related to lower total cognitive style gap with the faculty member. Considering the number of colle giate courses taken related to the subject area of Class A, a correlation was found with total engagement (r=.39, p<.05), indicating that more courses relevant to the subject matter of Class A was coupled with higher

PAGE 173

155 engagement. Also, college classification had a moderate association (r=.30, p<.05) with total student engagement, indicating that a hi gher class rank was a ssociated with higher engagement. Class B For cognitive style gap of Class B, there were 46 usable responses. The instructing faculty member of Class B scor ed 68 on the KAI providing evidence that his cognitive style was more adaptive. Cognitive style gap was calculated by subtracting the faculty member cognitive style score from the student cognitive style score. The reported mean of total cognitive style gap between th e faculty member and the students was 24.43 (SD=15.05) indicating that stud ents on average were 24.43 points more innovative than the faculty member. A cognitive style gap of 20 points has been identified as the threshold at which stress becomes apparent to involved individuals (Kirton, 2003). There were 29 (63.0%) students with a cognitive style gap of 20 points or higher with the faculty member in Class B. The most adaptiv e student scored 22 points less than this adaptive faculty member in determining total cognitive style. The most innovative student in the class had a 48 point gap in th e direction of innovation with the faculty member. See Table 4-47 for findings of calculated cognitive style gap scores. Table 4-47. Class B Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=46) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total cognitive style gap Sufficiency of originality gap Efficiency gap Rule/Group conformity gap 24.43 15.39 -1.59 10.63 15.05 8.45 4.65 6.68 -22 -3 -12 -7 48 34 9 23 Note Cognitive style gap scores were calcula ted by subtracting faculty member’s KAI score from individual student’s KAI score. Coded: lower score equals more adaptive, higher score equals more innovative.

PAGE 174

156 After calculating cognitive style gaps be tween the faculty me mber and individual students, Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to determine relationships among total and construct scores of st ress, motivation and engagement. Internal correlations of the KAI found that total cognitive style gap had very high correlations with sufficiency of originalit y gap (r=.86, p<.05), and rule/group conformity gap (r=.86, p<.05). A substantial correlation wa s found between sufficiency of originality gap and rule/group conformity gap (r=.63, p<.05 ) providing evidence that in Class B, a strong relationship existed between these two construct gaps. However, efficiency gap only had a moderate correlation with total c ognitive style gap (r=.43, p<.05) a negligible correlation with sufficiency of originalit y (r=.05, p>.05) and ru le/group conformity (r=.20, p>.05). This indicated that efficiency gap was not as closely associated with the two other cognitive style constructs which coincides with findings from cognitive style gap construct mean scores. For example, the mean score for efficiency gap was -1.59 whereas sufficiency of originality gap mean and the rule/group conformity gap mean was 15.39 and 10.63 respectively. Also note the lowe r post-hoc reliability of the efficiency construct. For Class B, there was a negligible correlation between total cognitive style gap and total student stress (r=-.01, p>.05). Add itionally, no significant correlations were found between cognitive style gap co nstructs and stress constructs. Interestingly, the cognitive style gap construct efficiency had a moderate correlation with total motivation (r=-.46, p<.05), intrinsic motivation (r=-.30, p<.05), extrinsic motivation (r=-.36, p< .05), control of learning (r=.35, p<.05) and self-efficacy

PAGE 175

157 (r=-.44, p<.05). These correlations indicated that among students in Class B, a larger efficiency gap was associated with lower levels of motivation in these constructs. Total cognitive style gap was moderately correlated with total student engagement (r=.31, p<.05) and active learning (r=.44, p<.05), indicating that more innovativeness was related to higher levels of student engageme nt and active learning. Likewise sufficiency of originality gap was positively correlated with total engagement (r=.33, p<.05) and active learning (r=.33, p<.05). Also rule/group c onformity gap was correlated with total engagement (r=.36, p<.05), active learning (r=. 48, p<.05) and student -faculty interaction (r=.32, p<.05); all indicating higher levels of engagement with st udent innovativeness. The SSI had internal correlations rangi ng from substantial to very high between total stress and stress constructs: frus trations (r=.76, p<.05), conflicts (r=.50, p<.05), pressures (r=.78, p<.05), changes (r=.69, p<.05) and self imposed (r=.65, p<.05). As expected, these correlations indicate that thes e scales of stress were closely associated. Considering the relationship between st ress and motivation in Class B, selfimposed stress was moderately correlated with total motivation (r=.34, p<.05) and extrinsic motivation (r=.40, p<.05), but substant ially correlated with test anxiety (r=.60, p<.05). These correlations provide evidence that higher levels of self-imposed stress were coupled with higher levels of total motiva tion, extrinsic motivation and test anxiety. Furthermore, test anxiety had moderate to s ubstantial correlations with total stress (r=.56, p<.05), frustrations (r=.34, p<.05), pressure s (r=.46, p<.05) and changes (r=.31, p<.05). These correlations provide evidence of a re lationship between high student stress scores and high test anxiety scores among students enrolled in Class B.

PAGE 176

158 There were significant negative correlati ons found between self-efficacy and total stress (r=-.30, p<.05), frustrations (r=.31, p<.05) and changes (r=-.44, p<.05). This indicated that lower levels of self-efficacy we re related to higher levels of total stress, frustrations and changes. Total motivation measured by the MSLQ had substantial and high correlations with internal constructs. Specifically, tota l motivation was correlated with intrinsic motivation (r=.74, p<.05), extrinsic motiva tion (r=.56, p<.05), ta sk motivation (r=.72, p<.05), control of learning (r=.71, p<.05) and self-efficacy (r=.62, p<.05). These correlations indicated a close relationship between motivation constructs and total motivation. However, the motivation construct test anxiety did not have a significant correlation with total motivation (r=.24, p>.05) i ndicating less of an association with the other motivation constructs. Total motivation was moderately correla ted with total engagement (r=.37, p<.05) as well as academic challenge (r=.43, p< .05). Likewise, intrinsic motivation was moderately correlated with total student engagement (r=.40, p<.05) and academic challenge (r=.35, p<.05) as well as stude nt-faculty interaction (r=.32, p<.05). Additionally, task motivation was moderately correlated with total student engagement (r=.46, p<.05), academic challenge (r=.41, p<.05) and student-faculty interaction (r=.32, p<.05). All of these correlations provide evidence that in Class B, higher levels of student motivation were associated with high er levels of student engagement. Examining the internal correlations of constructs measuring student engagement, very high correlations were found between to tal student engagement and constructs: academic challenge (r=.76, p<.05), active l earning (r=.74, p<.05) and student faculty

PAGE 177

159 interaction (r=.77, p<.05). Th ese correlations indicated a close relationship between scales of student engagement and total stud ent engagement. See Table 4-48 for findings specific to relationships between cognitive st yle gap, stress, motivation and engagement. Demographic questions were asked of st udents regarding age, gender, number of subject area courses and colle ge classification. For Class B, students’ age had a positive association with efficiency style gap (r=.30, p<.05) indicatin g that older students were associated with larger efficiency style gap. No other significant co rrelations were found among these demographic variables and cognitive style gap. Age was also correlated with intrinsic motivation (r=-.32, p< .05) indicating that older stud ents were associated with lower intrinsic motivation scores. However, neither gender or colle ge classification was associated with study variables at a moderate level or higher. Considering the number of collegiate courses related to the subject area of Class B, no significant correlations were found.

PAGE 178

160Table 4-48. Class B Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations among Constructs of Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation an d Engagement (n=44) Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. Total gap -2. Gap-originality .86* -3. Gap-efficiency .43* .05 -4. Gap-rule .86* .63* .20 -5. Total stress -.01 .02 .08 -.10 -6. Frustrations .11 .14 .15 -.05 .76* -7. Conflicts .20 .17 .16 .12 .50* .11 -8. Pressures -.18 -.12 -.09 -.19 .78* .38* .36* -9. Changes -.05 -.11 .19 -.09 .69* .41* .43* .56* -10. Self-imposed -.11 -.05 -.10 -.11 .65* .41* .12 .41* .18 -11. Total motivation -.15 .03 -.46*-.05 .06 -.04 -.01 .09 -.24 .34* -12. Intrinsic motivation .03 .13 -.30* .11 -.04 -.04 -.03 .05 -.18 .01 .74* -13. Extrinsic motivation -.19 -.02 -.36*-.16 .17 .13 .03 .03 -.06 .40* .56* .06 -14. Task motivation .10 .11 -.13 .18 -.05 .01 -.10 .01 -.23 .04 .72* .80* .11 15. Control of learning .03 .13 -.35* .15 -.24 -.35* .01 -.13 -.36* .04 .71* .43* .28 16. Self-efficacy -.13 .03 -.44*-.03 -.30*-.31*-.10 -.22 -.44* .04 .62* .42* .17 17. Test anxiety -.31*-.22 -.10 -.35* .56* .34* .18 .46* .31* .60* .24 -.04 .40* 18. Total Engagement .31* .33* -.10 .36* .02 .02 .03 .11 -.17 .03 .37* .40* .07 19. Academic Challenge .11 .22 -.16 .08 .14 .27 -.15 .09 -.12 .19 .43* .35* .33* 20. Active Learning .44* .33* .13 .48* .06 -.05 .19 .18 -.09 -.01 .03 .20 -.26 21. Faculty Interaction .21 .20 -.14 .32* -.16 -.24 .10 -.01 -.17 -.14 .29* .32* -.03 M 23.8 15.2 -1.6410.3 58.1 14.0 6.50 11.4 5.82 20.4 156 17.7 21.8 SD 15.1 8.56 4.74 6.61 13.0 5.30 2.86 4.04 2.73 3.79 25.8 5.37 4.79 Note. Cases excluded listwise. A ll constructs coded: higher scores equa ls increased levels. signifies p<.05

PAGE 179

161 Table 4-48 (continued). Construct 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1. Total gap 2. Gap-originality 3. Gap-efficiency 4. Gap-rule 5. Total stress 6. Frustrations 7. Conflicts 8. Pressures 9. Changes 10. Self-imposed 11. Total motivation 12. Intrinsic motivation 13. Extrinsic motivation 14. Task motivation -15. Control of learning .47* -16. Self-efficacy .34* .76* -17. Test anxiety -.10 -.27 -.35*-18. Total Engagement .46* .23 .06 .07 -19. Academic Challenge .41* .12 -.06 .32* .74* -20. Active Learning .26 .02 -.11 -.04 .74* .27 -21. Faculty Interaction .32* .36* .29 -.18 .77* .25 .51* -M 29.3 22.7 43.0 21.6 47.1 22.4 12.3 12.5 SD 8.69 5.44 10.9 8.71 7.01 3.70 2.56 3.14 Note. Cases excluded listwise. All constructs coded: higher scores equals increased levels. signifies p<.05 Class C For determining cognitive style gap, 56 responses were deemed acceptable by the researcher. The total cognitive style score was 83 for the faculty member instructing Class C indicating that she was more adaptiv e. The reported total cognitive style gap mean of this class was M=17.86 (SD=14.34). To in terpret, the average student in Class C was 17.86 points more innovative than the faculty member. It is also noted that the mean is just less than 20 points (Kirton, 2003) at which “clearly noticeable differences” (p. 67) may cause psychological stress. There were 26 (46.4%) students with a cognitive style gap of 20 points or higher in Class C. The mo st adaptive student in the class had an 18

PAGE 180

162 point gap with the faculty member while th e most innovative student had a 59 point gap with the faculty member. See Table 4-49 for reported results of cognitive style gap of Class C. Table 4-49. Class C Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=56) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total cognitive style gap Sufficiency of originality gap Efficiency gap Rule/Group conformity gap 17.86 4.59 7.61 5.66 14.34 6.59 4.28 7.50 -18 -8 -3 -9 59 22 17 27 Note Cognitive style gap scores were calcula ted by subtracting faculty member’s KAI score from individual student’s KAI score. Coded: lower score equals more adaptive, higher score equals more innovative. Cognitive style gap calculations allowed the researcher to look for relationships with student stress, motivation and student engagement, using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Examining total cognitive styl e gap correlations with cognitive style gap constructs found very high and moderate relati onships. Specifically, total cognitive style gap was correlated with sufficiency of originality gap (r=.86, p<.05), efficiency gap (r=.40, p<.05) and rule/group conformity ga p (r=.93, p<.05). Furthermore sufficiency of originality gap was highly correlated with rule/group conformity gap (r=.76, p<.05), but was negligibly correlated w ith efficiency gap (r=-.01, p> .05). These findings indicated that although constructs of cognitive style were associated with total cognitive style, the construct gap efficiency had low or negligible association with the other two constructs. The may partially be explained by the lowe r post-hoc reliability of the efficiency construct. Considering correlations between cognitive style gap and student stress, significant correlations were found only with th e self-imposed stress construct. That is, self-imposed stress had negative moderate corr elations with total c ognitive style gap (r=-

PAGE 181

163 .31, p<.05) and rule/group conformity gap (r= -.31, p<.05). This indicated that lower levels of self-imposed stress were associat ed with more innova tive total cognitive gap and innovative rule/group conformity gap. This finding does not coincide with Kirton’s (2003) adaption-innovation theory as applied in this context. Moderate correlations were found between total motivation and total cognitive style gap (r=-.34, p<.05) and efficiency gap (r=-.30, p< .05) indicating that among students in Class C, larger c ognitive style gaps and efficiency gaps were related to lower total motivation. The same wa s found with extrinsic motivation when comparing this construct to total cognitive style gap (r=-.34, p<.05) and rule/group conformity gap (r=.31, p<.05). Test anxiety was moderately correla ted with total cognitive style gap (r=-.49, p<.05), sufficiency of originality gap (r=-.47, p<.05) and rule/group conformity gap (r=.41, p<.05) signifying an associ ation between low test anxi ety and high innovative gap within these cognitive style constructs. Only one moderate correlation was found be tween cognitive style gap scores and student engagement scores. Sufficiency of orig inality was correlated with active learning (r=.31, p<.05) which provided evidence that having a more innovative sufficiency of originality gap with the faculty member was associated with having a higher level of active learning in Class C. For scales of student stress, correlatio ns were moderate and very high between total stress and constructs of total stress. Specifically in Class C, total stress was correlated with frustrations (r=.81, p<.05), conflicts (r=.70, p<.05), pressures (r=.81, p<.05), changes (r=.54, p<.05) and self-imposed (r=.71, p<.05). These findings indicated that scales of stress were closely associated with total stress.

PAGE 182

164 Total stress was correlated with extr insic motivation (r=.39, p<.05) and test anxiety (r=.52, p<.05) indicating higher levels of student stress was coupled with higher levels of extrinsic motivation and higher levels of test anxiety. Furthermore, test anxiety was moderately or substan tially correlated with frustra tions (r=.41, p<.05), pressures (r=.40, p<.05) and self-imposed stress (r=.54, p<.05). Correlation coefficients in these relationships indicated that hi gher levels of test anxiety were associated with higher levels of these stress constructs. Examining relationships between student stress and student engagement in Class C, a moderate correlation was found between conflicts and student faculty interaction (r=.35, p<.05). This finding indicated that higher levels of conflict stress were related to higher levels of student-facu lty interaction. Furthermore, self-imposed stress was correlated with total st udent engagement (r=.31, p<.05) indi cating higher levels of selfimposed stress were associated with higher levels of st udent engagement. This is interesting in the light of the negative re lationship found between lower self-imposed stress and higher cognitive style gap. Total motivation was substantially to ve ry highly correlated with motivation constructs: intrinsic motivation (r=.62, p<.05) extrinsic motivati on (r=.66, p<.05), task motivation (r=.79, p<.05), control of lear ning (r=.47, p<.05) and test anxiety (r=.57, p<.05). However self-efficacy was not signifi cantly correlated with total motivation. Findings indicated that motivation constructs were related to tota l motivation, except for self-efficacy. Examining the relationships between mo tivation and engagement among students in Class C, total motivation was moderately correlated with academic challenge (r=.43,

PAGE 183

165 p<.05) and substantially correlated with academic challenge (r=.50, p<.05). Likewise, task motivation was moderately correlated with total engagement (r=.41, p<.05) and substantially correlated with academic challenge (r=.56, p<.05). Extrinsic motivation was moderately correlated with total engagement (r=.34, p<.05), active learning (r=.30, p<.05) and student faculty interaction (r=.30, p<.0 5). All of these corr elations indicated a higher level of motivation associated with a higher level of student engagement. For correlations regarded as internal to the NSSE, total student engagement was very highly correlated with constructs: academic challenge (r=.77, p<.05), active learning (r=.80, p<.05) and student-facult y interaction (r=.76, p<.05). Thes e correlations indicated that constructs of engagement were closel y related to total engagement. See Table 4-50 for relationships among cognitive style ga p, stress, motivation and engagement of respondents in Class C. Demographic questions were asked of st udents regarding age, gender, number of related courses taken and co llege classification. For ge nder, a moderate negative correlation was found with total cognitive styl e gap (r=-.38, p<.05). That is, being male was associated with a larger innovative cogni tive style gap in Cla ss C. Student college classification of the student had significantly correlated with total cognitive style gap (r=.42, p<.05). This indicated that higher college rank was associated with higher cognitive style gap. No other demographic variables had statis tically significant relationships with cognitive style gap in this course.

PAGE 184

166Table 4-50. Class C Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations among Constructs of Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation an d Engagement (n=56) Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. Total gap -2. Gap-originality .86* -3. Gap-efficiency .40* -.01 -4. Gap-rule .93* .76* .20 -5. Total stress -.22 -.25 -.07 -.16 -6. Frustrations -.14 -.22 .01 -.08 .81* -7. Conflicts -.08 -.14 -.03 -.02 .70* .55* -8. Pressures -.13 -.19 -.01 -.07 .81* .58* .54* -9. Changes -.03 -.04 -.07 .01 .54* .24 .42* .41* -10. Self-imposed -.31*-.22 -.14 -.31* .71* .41* .23 .43* .21 -11. Total motivation -.34*-.24 -.30*-.28* .26* .14 -.03 .09 .06 .50* -12. Intrinsic motivation .02 .06 -.12 .06 -.06 -.15 -.14 -.16 .06 .14 .62* -13. Extrinsic motivation -.34*-.29*-.17 -.31* .39* .24 .14 .21 .17 .51* .66* .28* -14. Task motivation -.22 -.11 -.22 -.20 -.04 -.10 -.25 -.10 .03 .19 .79* .68* .34* 15. Control of learning .10 .18 -.17 .13 .04 .07 -.02 .02 -.17 .12 .47* .09 .16 16. Self-efficacy .08 .18 -.07 .04 -.27*-.22 -.27* -.36*-.20 -.01 .15 .27* .01 17. Test anxiety -.49*-.47*-.21 -.41* .52* .41* .24 .40* .15 .54* .57* -.05 .33* 18. Total Engagement -.05 .09 -.17 -.08 .22 .01 .16 .23 .14 .31* .43* .30* .34* 19. Academic Challenge -.14 -.01 -.23 -.13 .18 -.02 .04 .29* .11 .24 .50* .23 .21 20. Active Learning .11 .31* -.15 .02 .08 -.06 .01 .03 .01 .27* .25 .25 .30* 21. Faculty Interaction -.06 -.06 -.01 -.06 .27* .09 .35* .12 .20 .21 .21 .22 .30* M 17.9 4.59 7.61 5.66 55.4 13.1 6.00 10.7 4.82 20.8 162 19.3 21.8 SD 14.3 6.59 4.28 7.50 13.5 4.98 2.60 3.43 2.60 4.84 18.8 3.56 4.51 Note. Cases excluded listwise. A ll constructs coded: higher scores equa ls increased levels. signifies p<.05

PAGE 185

167 Table 4-50 (continued). Construct 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1. Total gap 2. Gap-originality 3. Gap-efficiency 4. Gap-rule 5. Total stress 6. Frustrations 7. Conflicts 8. Pressures 9. Changes 10. Self-imposed 11. Total motivation 12. Intrinsic motivation 13. Extrinsic motivation 14. Task motivation -15. Control of learning .19 -16. Self-efficacy -.02 .29* -17. Test anxiety .29* .13 -.37*-18. Total Engagement .41* -.01 .03 .26* -19. Academic Challenge .56* .16 -.17 .41* .77* -20. Active Learning .22 -.07 .21 .01 .80* .38* -21. Faculty Interaction .11 -.16 .09 .12 .76* .30* .56* -M 30.8 23.2 47.4 20.0 53.4 27.6 13.5 12.3 SD 8.35 3.55 5.32 7.88 8.63 4.35 3.42 3.35 Note. Cases excluded listwise. All constructs coded: higher scores equals increased levels. signifies p<.05 Class D Cognitive style gap was measured by subtra cting faculty membe r’s total cognitive style score and construct scores from students’ total cognitiv e style and construct scores in each class. Calculating cognitive style ga p for Class D, the researcher found 73 usable KAI responses. Reported total cognitive st yle gap mean was approximately zero (M=0.37, SD=17.40) indicating that the average stude nt in Class D had lit tle cognitive style gap with the faculty member. This was expected as the total cognitive style score of the faculty member was 94, one point less than the general population mean (Kirton, 1999).

PAGE 186

168 All the same, this course was still worthy of examination as the cognitive style score range included one student who was 39 point s more adaptive and one student 41 points more innovative. Kirton (2003) claims indi viduals become aware of cognitive style differences given a 20-point cognitive style ga p which results in stress. In Class D, 24 (32.9%) student responses from the 73 usable responses had a cogniti ve style gap of 20 points or higher with the faculty member. See Table 4-51 for findings concerning Class D cognitive style gap. Table 4-51. Class D Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=73) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total cognitive style gap Sufficiency of originality gap Efficiency gap Rule/Group conformity gap -0.37 -6.51 2.06 4.07 17.40 8.37 5.37 7.98 -39 -25 -8 -11 41 7 17 24 Note Cognitive style gap scores were calcula ted by subtracting faculty member’s KAI score from individual student’s KAI score. Coded: lower score equals more adaptive, higher score equals more innovative. Cognitive style gap scores were used to find associations with student stress, motivation and engagement using Pearson’ s correlation coefficient. Examining correlations between constructs of cognitive style, total cognitive style correlated with sufficiency of originality gap (r=.81, p<.05), efficiency gap (r=.61, p<.05), and rule/group conformity gap (r=.89, p<.05). These correlations indicated that construct measures of cognitive gap were closely associated with total cognitive style gap measured by the KAI. However, efficiency gap was not significantly correlated with sufficiency of originality (r=.16, p>.05) indicating little association. Th is finding may be explained by the degree and direction of cognitive style gaps of constr ucts; the sufficiency of originality cognitive style gap mean was -6.51 whereas the e fficiency gap mean was 2.06 in Class D. Furthermore, the reliability coefficient for the efficiency construct was below par.

PAGE 187

169 Only one moderate correlation was found among cognitive style gap scores and stress scores in Class D. A correlation wa s found between efficiency gap and selfimposed stress (r=-.36, p<.05) indicating an association betw een higher innovative efficiency gap and lower self-imposed stress. This correlation wa s not congruent with previous research conducted by Kirton (2003) as applied in the context of this study. In Class D, only one moderate correl ation was found among student scores of cognitive style and motivation. Specifically, e fficiency cognitive style gap was correlated with extrinsic motivation (r=-.38, p<.05) whic h provided evidence that larger innovative efficiency gap was related to lower leve ls of extrinsic motivation. There were no significant correlations among c ognitive style gap and student engagement in Class D. Considering the internal correlations of th e SSI, total student stress had very high correlations with frustrations (r=.84, p<.05) conflicts (r=.74, p<.05) pressures (r=.84, p<.05), changes (r=.74, p<.05) and self-impos ed (r=.76, p<.05). These correlations indicate that stress constructs were closel y associated with the total stress measure. In Class D, correlations were found among the stress construct self-imposed and the motivation constructs self-efficacy and test anxiety. That is self efficacy was correlated with total stress (r=-.40, p<.05), frustrations (r=-.50, p<.05), co nflicts (r=-.33, p<.05), pressures (r=-.34, p<.05) and changes (r= -.30, p<.05); all indica ting that increase in self-efficacy scores was asso ciated with a decrease of stre ss scores in these students. Test anxiety was moderately to substantially related to stress as this construct correlated with total stress (r=.64, p<.05), frustrati ons (r=.52, p<.05), conf licts (r=.46, p<.05), pressures (r=.59, p<.05), changes (r=.50, p<.05) and self-imposed stress (r=.44, p<.05). All of the correlations between the test anxiety construct and stress scores suggest an

PAGE 188

170 increase in stress was associated with an increase in test anxiety. Furthermore, selfimposed stress was moderately correlated with extrinsic motivation (r=.34, p<.05) indicating that higher levels of extrinsic motivation was coupled with high levels of selfimposed stress. No significant correlations were found among motivation scores and engagement scores for students in Class D. Moderate and very high correlations we re found between total motivation and motivation constructs: intrin sic motivation (r=.78, p<.05), extrinsic motivation (r=.66, p<.05), task motivation (r=.72, p<.05), contro l of learning (r=.77, p<.05) and self-efficacy (r=.70, p<.05). However, test a nxiety did not have a signific ant correlation with total motivation. Considering these correlations, the data suggests a close relationship exists between motivation constructs and the meas ure of total motivation, except for test anxiety. Examining relationships between mo tivation and engagement, moderate correlations were found between total motivation and total engagement (r=.38, p<.05) as well as the engagement construct academic challenge (r=.36, p<.05). These correlations describe an association of higher levels of motivation and higher levels of student engagement and higher levels of academic cha llenge. In Class D, m oderate correlations with task motivation also existed with tota l student engagement (r=.42, p<.05) as well as engagement constructs academic challe nge (r=.33, p<.05) and active learning (r=.38, p<.05). That is, high levels of task motivation in Class D were relate d to high levels of total engagement including the constructs academic challenge and active learning. This study used three constructs to determ ine a total student engagement score. In Class D, total student engagement was corr elated with these c onstructs: academic

PAGE 189

171 challenge (r=.74, p<.05), active learning (r=.74, p<.05) and student-faculty interaction (r=.67, p<.05). This data suggests that constr uct scores of student engagement were closely related to the total measure of student engagement used in this study. See Table 452 for reported associations between Class D cognitive style gap, stress, motivation and engagement. For demographic information concerning Cl ass D, participating students were asked their age, gender, number of cour ses taken related to Class D and college classification. The number of collegiate courses similar to the subject area of Class D was significantly correlated to tota l cognitive style gap (r=-.24, p< .05). Said differently, there was an association between more innovative cognitive style and fewer courses taken similar to the content taught in Class D. No other student demographic variable was statistically significant w ith cognitive style gap. For age, there were no significant correlati ons found with other variables used in this study in Class D. Concerning gender, th ere was a significant lo w correlation (r=-.24, p<.05) with test anxiety. That is in Class D, being male was associated with higher levels of test anxiety. College level of classification had a modera tely negative a ssociation (r=.32, p<.05) with total stress. This finding indi cated an association between higher college classification and lower levels of stress.

PAGE 190

172Table 4-52. Class D Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations among Constructs of Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation an d Engagement (n=67) Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. Total gap -2. Gap-originality .81* -3. Gap-efficiency .61* .16 -4. Gap-rule .89* .56* .49* -5. Total stress -.09 -.03 -.21 -.02 -6. Frustrations .03 -.01 -.05 .10 .84* -7. Conflicts .15 .12 -.03 .22 .74* .69* -8. Pressures -.18 -.15 -.14 -.14 .84* .57* .44* -9. Changes -.08 -.07 -.21 .04 .74* .57* .42* .65* -10. Self-imposed -.21 -.01 -.36*-.19 .76* .42* .42* .61* .40* -11. Total motivation -.05 .11 -.22 -.09 .10 .03 .03 .10 -.03 .24* -12. Intrinsic motivation .07 .19 -.10 -.01 -.06 -.10 -.07 -.02 -.09 .01 .78* -13. Extrinsic motivation -.25*-.09 -.38*-.20 .19 .05 .04 .14 .14 .34* .66* .27* -14. Task motivation -.09 .04 -.13 -.15 -.12 -.12 -.15 -.11 -.19 .02 .72* .72* .24* 15. Control of learning .12 .20 .04 .01 -.12 -.18 -.04 -.11 -.17 .02 .77* .68* .34* 16. Self-efficacy .01 .20 -.18 -.10 -.40*-.50*-.33* -.34*-.30*-.10 .70* .61* .37* 17. Test anxiety .01 -.06 -.03 .09 .64* .52* .46* .59* .50* .44* .17 -.20 .18 18. Total Engagement .09 .20 -.10 .05 .09 -.03 .03 .13 .05 .17 .38* .30* .12 19. Academic Challenge .01 .09 -.12 -.01 .18 .14 .09 .19 .12 .14 .36* .27* .15 20. Active Learning .19 .20 .09 .13 -.08 -.20 -.15 .01 -.06 .06 .28* .29* -.01 21. Faculty Interaction .02 .15 -.18 -.01 .07 -.05 .12 .04 .01 .15 .15 .06 .08 M -0.57-6.571.97 4.03 54.2 12.2 5.40 11.1 4.61 20.9 166 19.1 22.5 SD 16.8 8.56 5.13 7.61 13.8 4.50 2.60 3.71 2.51 4.24 22.0 4.43 4.70 Note. Cases excluded listwise. All constr ucts coded: higher scores equals increased levels. signifies p<.05

PAGE 191

173 Table 4-52 (continued). Construct 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1. Total gap 2. Gap-originality 3. Gap-efficiency 4. Gap-rule 5. Total stress 6. Frustrations 7. Conflicts 8. Pressures 9. Changes 10. Self-imposed 11. Total motivation 12. Intrinsic motivation 13. Extrinsic motivation 14. Task motivation -15. Control of learning .55* -16. Self-efficacy .56* .69* -17. Test anxiety -.23 -.16 -.38*-18. Total Engagement .42* .26* .28* .05 -19. Academic Challenge .33* .19 .07 .26* .74* -20. Active Learning .38* .26* .40* -.18 .74* .26* -21. Faculty Interaction .17 .10 .17 -.05 .67* .17 .40* -M 33.7 24.2 46.6 20.3 48.3 24.1 12.0 12.2 SD 6.90 3.61 9.04 7.60 7.78 4.35 3.38 3.11 Note. Cases excluded listwise. All constructs coded: higher scores equals increased levels. signifies p<.05 Class E There were 32 usable responses in determining cognitive style gap of Class E. The faculty member instructing Class E had a cognitive style score of 95 which was equivalent to the general population mean defined by Kirton (1999). The total cognitive style gap mean (M=-5.59, SD=14.95) was more than 14 points lower than the threshold of 20 points at which stress between dissimilar cognitive styles becomes apparent (Kirton, 2003). Only nine (28.1%) of the 32 student respondents had a cognitive style gap of 20 points or higher with the faculty me mber. This course was still worthy of examination as the lowest total cognitive style gap score was 29 points more adaptive

PAGE 192

174 than the faculty member and the highest total cognitive gap score was 21 points more innovative than the faculty member. See Table 4-53 for cognitive style gap findings for Class E. Table 4-53. Class E Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=32) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total cognitive style gap Sufficiency of originality gap Efficiency gap Rule/Group conformity gap -5.59 -2.00 -0.94 -2.66 14.95 7.87 3.65 7.30 -29 -16 -8 -16 21 15 8 10 Note Cognitive style gap scores were calcula ted by subtracting faculty member’s KAI score from individual student’s KAI score. Coded: lower score equals more adaptive, higher score equals more innovative. Once calculating the cognitive style gap of Class E, the researcher explored associations with stress, motivation and engagement using the Pearson correlation coefficient. First, cognitive style constructs were examined for relationships with total cognitive style gap. Very high correlations were found between total cognitive style gap and cognitive style constructs sufficiency of originality gap (r=.91, p<.05) and rule/group conformity gap (r=.94, p<.05). However, the corr elation between efficiency gap and total cognitive style gap was not significant (r=.24, p<.05). This finding may partially be explained by examining the differences of gap score means between students and the faculty member instructing Class E. It may al so be partially explained by the low internal reliability of the efficiency construct. There were no significant correlations found among scores of cognitive style gap and scores of student stress. However, c onsidering motivation, moderate correlations were found between sufficiency of originalit y gap and motivation constructs intrinsic motivation (r=.36, p<.05) and self-efficacy (r=. 38, p<.05). These correlations indicated that more innovative sufficiency of originalit y gap was associated w ith higher scores of

PAGE 193

175 motivation and higher scores of self-effi cacy. There were no significant correlations found between scores of cognitive style and sc ores of student engagement in Class E. Regarding the internal correlations of stude nt stress, total stress was substantially to very highly correlated with stress cons tructs: frustrations (r =.78, p<.05), conflicts (r=.58, p<.05), pressures (r=.85, p<.05), change s (r=.56, p<.05) and self-imposed (r=.83, p<.05). These correlations indicate that scales used to measur e stress in this study closely related to total stress scores. Total stress was not significantly corr elated with total motivation (r=.26, p<.05) but was moderately correlated with both extrinsic motivation (r=.48, p<.05) and test anxiety (r=.44, p<.05). This data suggests that higher levels of extrinsic motivation were coupled with high levels of extrinsic motivation and high levels of test anxiety in Class E. Likewise, the pressures constr uct was correlated with extr insic motivation (r=.43, p<.05) and test anxiety (r=.51, p<.05). Considering self -imposed stress, moderate and substantial correlations were found betw een total motivation (r=.44, p< .05), extrinsic motivation (r=.60, p<.05) and task motivation (r=.43, p<.05). All of these correla tions indicated that higher levels of stress were associat ed with higher levels of motivation. Only one significant correlation was found considering st ress and student engagement. The pressures stress construc t was correlated with active learning (r=.50, p<.05) which indicated that higher levels of st udent pressures were a ssociated with higher levels of student active learning. For correlations among scales of student motivation, to tal student motivation was correlated with constructs: intrinsic motivation (r=.70, p< .05), extrinsic motivation (r=.74, p<.05), task motivation (r=.86, p<.05), control of learning (r=.68, p<.05) and test

PAGE 194

176 anxiety (r=.32, p>.05). The correlation between total motivation and test anxiety was smaller, but still moderate. These correl ations provided evidence that motivation constructs were positively asso ciated with total motivation. Interestingly, only one correlation was found between scores of motivation and scores of student engagement. There was a moderate correlati on between extrinsic motivation and active learning (r=.40, p<.05) The finding indicated an association between higher levels of extrinsic motivation and higher levels of act ive learning in this class. Examining internal correlations for stude nt engagement, total student engagement was correlated with constructs: academic challenge (r=.83, p<.05), active learning (r=.59, p<.05) and student-faculty interaction (r=.58, p<.05). These correla tions suggest that student engagement construct sc ores were closely related to the measure of total student engagement. See Table 4-54 for findings specific to correlates of cognitive style gap, stress, motivation and engagement for Class E. The researcher examined correlations among demographic information as students answered questions regarding age, gender, number of courses taken similar to the course and college classification. None of the demographic variables were found to correlate with cognitive style gap in Class E. However, numbe r of college courses related to the subject area of Class E was significantly correlated with student-faculty interaction (r=.48, p<.05). This finding indicat ed that taking more classes in the subject area of Class E was moderately associated with higher levels of st udent-faculty interaction.

PAGE 195

177Table 4-54. Class E Correlations, Means, a nd Standard Deviations among Constructs of Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation an d Engagement (n=31) Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. Total gap -2. Gap-originality .91* -3. Gap-efficiency .24 -.08 -4. Gap-rule .94* .82* .07 -5. Total stress -.02 -.03 .13 -.08 -6. Frustrations .08 .02 .16 .05 .78* -7. Conflicts .03 -.01 .10 .03 .58* .40* -8. Pressures -.24 -.20 -.01 -.28 .85* .52* .44* -9. Changes -.09 -.10 -.01 -.07 .56* .39* .69* .38* -10. Self-imposed .05 .06 .15 -.04 .83* .47* .21 .68* .25 -11. Total motivation .19 .35 -.15 .08 .26 .14 -.22 .21 .06 .44* -12. Intrinsic motivation .27 .36* -.11 .22 -.08 -.15 -.28 -.15 .01 .13 .70* -13. Extrinsic motivation .20 .30 .01 .06 .48* .29 .03 .43* .08 .60* .74* .29 -14. Task motivation .15 .26 .01 .02 .22 .15 -.29 .10 .10 .43* .86* .68* .56* 15. Control of learning -.07 .09 -.15 -.18 -.01 -.01 -.18 -.08 -.14 .16 .62* .44* .27 16. Self-efficacy .18 .38* -.33 .11 -.19 -.19 -.44* -.13 -.22 .01 .68* .58* .44* 17. Test anxiety .02 .02 -.09 .07 .44* .33 .20 .51* .30 .30 .32 -.16 .32 18. Total Engagement .14 .15 -.13 .19 .23 .28 .16 .18 .01 .13 .10 .05 .27 19. Academic Challenge .16 .12 -.07 .23 .18 .27 .22 .13 .03 .04 .10 .09 .19 20. Active Learning -.14 -.11 -.05 -.15 .30 .24 -.11 .50* -.10 .26 .20 -.11 .40* 21. Faculty Interaction .19 .24 -.14 .21 .01 .06 .14 -.17 .06 .01 -.08 .08 .02 M -4.94-1.87-0.84-2.2343.3 9.39 4.52 9.16 3.48 16.8 164 18.3 21.1 SD 14.7 7.97 3.67 6.99 12.2 3.95 2.22 3.30 1.12 5.30 21.9 4.59 4.37 Note. Cases excluded listwise. A ll constructs coded: higher scores equa ls increased levels. signifies p<.05

PAGE 196

178 Table 4-54 (continued). Construct 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1. Total gap 2. Gap-originality 3. Gap-efficiency 4. Gap-rule 5. Total stress 6. Frustrations 7. Conflicts 8. Pressures 9. Changes 10. Self-imposed 11. Total motivation 12. Intrinsic motivation 13. Extrinsic motivation 14. Task motivation -15. Control of learning .49* -16. Self-efficacy .43* .54* -17. Test anxiety .15 -.20 -.12 -18. Total Engagement .20 -.04 -.10 -.02 -19. Academic Challenge .17 .12 -.13 -.07 .83* -20. Active Learning .19 -.14 .08 .32 .59* .33 -21. Faculty Interaction .05 -.14 -.11 -.21 .58* .16 .04 -M 33.5 23.4 49.5 17.8 48.3 24.5 13.0 10.9 SD 7.15 4.16 6.83 6.56 5.75 3.66 2.04 2.66 Note. Cases excluded listwise. All constructs coded: higher scores equals increased levels. signifies p<.05 Class F For cognitive style gap of Class F, 71 responses were considered usable. The faculty member instructing Class F had a total cognitive style score of 103, indicating she was slightly innovative. The total cognitive st yle gap mean was calculated by subtracting the faculty member’s cognitive style score from each student’s cognitive style score. The mean difference was -12.83 (SD=16.28) indi cating that the average student was 12.83 points more adaptive than the faculty member. The most adaptive student had a cognitive style gap of 48 points lower than the instru ctor while the most innovative student had a

PAGE 197

179 cognitive style gap of 29 points higher than the faculty member. Note that Kirton (2003) identifies a cognitive style gap of 20 points as the threshold for awareness of cognitive style differences, which may result in stress In Class F, 30 (42.3%) student respondents had a cognitive style gap of 20 points or highe r with the instructing faculty member. See Table 4-55 for findings specific to cognitive style gap scores of Class F. Table 4-55. Class F Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=71) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total cognitive style gap Sufficiency of originality gap Efficiency gap Rule/Group conformity gap -12.83 -11.80 9.15 -10.18 16.28 8.89 4.01 6.81 -48 -30 1 -26 29 9 17 8 Note Cognitive style gap scores were calcula ted by subtracting faculty member’s KAI score from individual student’s KAI score. Coded: lower score equals more adaptive, higher score equals more innovative. Calculated cognitive style gaps were used to find relationships with student stress, motivation and engagement. Pearson’s correla tion coefficient was used for this task. Considering internal correlations for cogni tive style gap, total cognitive style gap was correlated with sufficiency of originality gap (r=.89, p<.05), efficiency gap (r=.52, p<.05) and rule/group conformity gap (r=.89, p<.05). Fu rthermore, sufficiency of originality gap was substantially correlated with rule s/group conformity gap (r=.67, p<.05). These correlations indicated that su fficiency of originality gap and rule/group conformity gap were closely related to tota l cognitive gap. Conversely, effi ciency gap did not have a significant correlation with sufficiency of origin ality gap. This data suggests that in Class F, cognitive style construct gaps were relate d to total cognitive style gap, but there was little association between efficiency gap and sufficiency of originality gap. This may partially be explained by examining the degr ee and direction of cognitive style gap mean scores for this class. For example in Class F, the mean score for sufficiency of originality

PAGE 198

180 gap was -11.80 whereas the mean score for efficiency gap was 9.15. Also note that the post-hoc reliability coefficient for the effici ency construct was lower than the acceptable level of .70 (Schmitt, 1996). No moderate correlations were found among scores of cognitive style gap and scores of stress, or scores of engagement However, one moderate correlation was found between sufficiency of originality gap a nd extrinsic motivation (r=-.33, p<.05). This indicated that a more innovative gap was related to less extr insic motivation among students in Class F. For correlations within total stress and st ress constructs subs tantial to very high correlations were found. Specifical ly, total stress was correlated with frustrations (r=.86, p<.05), conflicts (r=.68, p<.05), pressures (r =.81, p<.05), changes (r=.59, p<.05) and selfimposed (r=.65, p<.05). The correlations imply th at these stress constructs were closely related to the measure of total stress. Examining relationships between stress sc ores and motivation scores, significant correlations were found between self-efficacy and total stress (r=-.44, p<.05), frustrations (r=-.50, p<.05), pressures (r=-.46, p<.05) and ch anges (r=-.38). This provided evidence that lower scores of self-efficacy were asso ciated with higher sc ores of these stress constructs. Positive relationships were found between test anxiety and total stress (r=.42, p<.05), frustrations (r=.33, p<.05), pressu res (r=.44, p<.05) and self-imposed (r=.42, p<.05). These correlations indicated that highe r scores of test anxi ety were related to these higher stress constructs. No significant correlations were f ound with regard to stress scores and engagement scores.

PAGE 199

181 Concerning relationships among motiva tion scores, moderate to very high correlations existed within the data. Specifical ly, total motivation correlated with intrinsic motivation (r=.64, p<.05), extrinsic motiva tion (r=.52, p<.05), ta sk motivation (r=.82, p<.05), control of learning (r=.56, p<.05), sel f-efficacy (r=.30, p<.05) and test anxiety (r=.53, p<.05). These correlations indicated that all of the motivation constructs were related to the total measure of motivation. There were three moderate correlations between scales of motivation and scales of engagement. Academic challenge was co rrelated with both total motivation (r=.31, p<.05) and intrinsic motivation (r=.33, p<.05). Th is finding indicates that higher levels of academic challenge were associated with highe r levels of total motivation with emphases on intrinsic motivation. Active learning was nega tively correlated with control of learning (r=-.33, p<.05). Interestingly, this indicated lower leve ls of control of learning associated with higher levels of active learning. For correlations among constructs of stude nt engagement, total engagement was very highly correlated w ith academic challenge (r=.72, p<.05), active learning (r=.73, p<.05) and student-faculty interaction (r=.70, p<.05). This provided evidence that constructs of student engagement were clos ely related to total st udent engagement. See Table 4-56 for findings concerning relations hips among cognitive style gap, stress, motivation and engagement.

PAGE 200

182Table 4-56. Class F Correlations, Means, a nd Standard Deviations among Constructs of Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation an d Engagement (n=69) Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. Total gap -2. Gap-originality .89* -3. Gap-efficiency .52* .18 -4. Gap-rule .89* .67* .39* -5. Total stress .06 .11 .05 -.03 -6. Frustrations .01 .01 .06 -.01 .86* -7. Conflicts .18 .25* .01 .10 .68* .54* -8. Pressures -.09 -.04 .02 -.17 .81* .64* .40* -9. Changes .16 .17 .06 .13 .59* .51* .41* .46* -10. Self-imposed .03 .09 .04 -.08 .65* .40* .27* .41* .01 -11. Total motivation -.12 -.12 -.04 -.10 -.04 .04 -.20 .13 -.25* .24* -12. Intrinsic motivation -.01 .10 -.21 -.03 -.01 -.07 .02 .05 -.12 .05 .64* -13. Extrinsic motivation -.29*-.33*-.03 -.23* .14 .29* -.23 .20 -.07 .15 .52* -.15 -14. Task motivation -.15 -.20 -.01 -.08 -.08 .01 -.26* .05 -.30* .05 .82* .55* .39* 15. Control of learning -.01 -.01 -.17 .10 -.17 -.22 -.08 -.15 -.36* .11 .56* .38* .06 16. Self-efficacy .17 .23 -.11 .17 -.44*-.50*-.22 -.46*-.38*-.09 .30* .30* -.12 17. Test anxiety -.06 -.10 .25* -.15 .42* .33* .01 .44* .17 .42* .53* .12 .44* 18. Total Engagement -.01 .03 -.06 -.01 .12 .16 .02 .07 -.01 .13 .09 .07 .10 19. Academic Challenge -.16 -.08 -.16 -.17 .18 .18 .02 .15 -.05 .23 .31* .33* .05 20. Active Learning .16 .12 .04 .19 .09 .20 -.03 .04 .17 -.04 -.15 -.19 .15 21. Faculty Interaction .04 .05 .03 .02 -.04 -.06 .04 -.07 -.13 .04 -.05 -.10 .03 M -13.2-12.09.07 -10.349.1 10.9 5.32 9.32 4.54 19.0 163 17.9 21.6 SD 15.6 8.75 3.95 6.55 12.6 4.01 2.70 3.60 2.53 4.40 18.5 4.63 4.27 Note. Cases excluded listwise. All constr ucts coded: higher scores equals increased levels. signifies p<.05

PAGE 201

183 Table 4-56 (continued). Construct 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1. Total gap 2. Gap-originality 3. Gap-efficiency 4. Gap-rule 5. Total stress 6. Frustrations 7. Conflicts 8. Pressures 9. Changes 10. Self-imposed 11. Total motivation 12. Intrinsic motivation 13. Extrinsic motivation 14. Task motivation -15. Control of learning .39* -16. Self-efficacy .19 .45* -17. Test anxiety .25* -.08 -.33*-18. Total Engagement .10 -.14 -.03 .13 -19. Academic Challenge .28* .10 .04 .19 .72* -20. Active Learning -.12 -.32*-.12 .02 .73* .23 -21. Faculty Interaction -.03 -.14 -.01 .05 .70* .16 .46* -M 34.6 23.2 47.8 17.6 47.8 25.6 11.5 10.8 SD 6.98 3.55 5.93 6.99 7.49 4.18 3.05 3.18 Note. Cases excluded listwise. All constructs coded: higher scores equals increased levels. signifies p<.05 The researcher examined correlations among demographic information as students answered questions regarding age, ge nder, number of classes taken similar to the class and college classifica tion. No significant correlations were found in Class F regarding these demographic variab les and total cognitive style gap. However, age was associated with ex trinsic motivation, (r=-.30, p<.05). This finding indicated that older st udents were associated with less extrinsic motivation in Class F. Gender was moderately correlated to total student motivation (r=.42, p<.05). That is, females in this class were associ ated with higher levels of total motivation.

PAGE 202

184 Considering students’ college classification, a moderate corr elations was found with test anxiety (r=-.35, p<.05). The findi ng indicated that higher leve ls of test anxiety were associated with lower college classification. Considering the number of collegiate courses related to the subject area of Class F, no significant correlations were found. Class G There were 65 responses considered us able by the researcher for determining cognitive style gap. The faculty member inst ructing Class G had a total KAI score of 116, indicating her cognitive style was more innovati ve. The mean cognitive style gap of Class G was -22.58 (SD=15.04). Said differently, th e average student in Class G was 22.58 points more adaptive than the faculty member. The lowest total score cognitive style gap was 67 points more adaptive than the faculty member while the highest total score cognitive style gap was 9 points more innovati ve than the faculty member. Note that Kirton (2003) has determined that a 20 point gap between two individu als is the point at which cognitive style differences become a pparent. In this cla ss, 39 (60.0%) student respondents had a cognitive style gap of 20 poi nts or more with the faculty member. See Table 4-57 for results regarding Class G cognitive style gap. Table 4-57. Class G Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=65) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total cognitive style gap Sufficiency of originality gap Efficiency gap Rule/Group conformity gap -22.58 -8.82 -2.69 -11.08 15.04 7.67 4.76 7.85 -64 -28 -12 -30 9 7 8 8 Note Cognitive style gap scores were calcula ted by subtracting faculty member’s KAI score from individual student’s KAI score. Coded: lower score equals more adaptive, higher score equals more innovative. Calculated cognitive gap scores were utilized in finding relationships with student stress, student motivation and student engage ment. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was

PAGE 203

185 used to find correlations among total scores a nd construct scores of cognitive style gap, stress, motivation and engagement. In Class G, total cognitive style gap was internally corr elated with sufficiency of originality gap (r=.83, p<.05), efficiency gap (r=.44, p<.05) and rule/group conformity gap (r=.84, p<.05) indicating a close relationship among construct gap scores and the total measure of cognitive style gap. However, efficiency gap was not significantly correlated with either sufficiency of or iginality gap (r=.12, p> .05) or rule/group conformity gap (r=.13, p>.05). This finding can partially be explai ned by differences among construct gap mean scores found in Cl ass G. Another explanation may be the lower post-hoc reliability coefficient for th e cognitive style efficiency construct. Only one moderate correlation existed among constructs of cognitive style gap and constructs of student stress. Sufficiency of originality gap was correlated with selfimposed stress (r=.33, p<.05) indicating a more innovative sufficiency of originality gap was associated with higher scor es of self-imposed stress. No significant correlations were found be tween scores of cognitive style gap and scores of total motivation. However total cogni tive style gap was co rrelated with active learning (r=.30, p<.05) indicating a more i nnovative gap in this class taught by an innovative faculty member was associated with higher levels of active learning. Considering correlations internal to the measurement of stress, substantial and very high correlations were found between total stress and frustrations (r=.85, p<.05), conflicts (r=.68, p<.05), pressures (r=.85, p<.05), changes (r=.76, p<.05) and selfimposed (r=.71, p<.05). These correlations indicated that constructs of student stress were closely related to the measure of total stress.

PAGE 204

186 Examining correlations between stress and motivation in Class G, self-efficacy was negatively correlated with total stress (r=-.59, p<.05), frustr ations (r=-.63, p<.05), conflicts (r=-.37, p<.05), pressures (r=-.41, p<.05), changes (r=-.61, p<.05) and test anxiety (r=-.30, p<.05). These correlations indi cated that lower self-efficacy scores were associated with high stress scores among all co nstructs. On the othe r hand, test anxiety was moderately to substantia lly correlated with total stre ss (r=.55, p<.05), frustrations (r=.48, p<.05), pressures (r=.44, p<.05), change s (r=.47, p<.05) and self-imposed stress (r=.47, p<.05). The data suggests an association between high levels of test anxiety and high levels of stress among the aforementi oned constructs. Further explaining selfimposed stress, moderate correlations were found with total motivation (r=.38, p<.05) and extrinsic motivation (r=.36, p<.05). Thes e correlations indicat ed an association between higher scores of self-imposed stre ss and higher score of total motivation and extrinsic motivation. Total student stress in Class G was corre lated with total student engagement (r=.32, p<.05). Furthermore, tota l engagement was correlated with frustrations (r=.34, p<.05). Additionally, total stress was correla ted with academic challenge (r=.30, p<.05). These correlations indicated that higher levels of stress were associat ed with higher levels of engagement in the aforementioned constructs. For correlations internal to the measure of motiva tion, total motivation was correlated with intrinsic mo tivation (r=.58, p<.05), extrin sic motivation (r=.69, p<.05), task motivation (r=.67, p<.05), control of learning (r=.51, p<.05), self-efficacy (r=.29, p<.05), and test anxiety (r= .43, p<.05). These correlations provided evidence that

PAGE 205

187 constructs of motivation were related to the measure of total motivation. However, the measure of self-efficacy was less related with total motivation then expected. Considering the relationships among stude nt motivation and student engagement in Class G, total engagement was correlated with total motivation (r=.42, p<.05), intrinsic motivation (r=.42, p<.05), extrinsic motivati on (r=.43, p<.05) and task motivation (r=.36, p<.05). Likewise, the engagement construct academic challenge was correlated with total motivation (r=.43, p<.05), intrinsic motivati on (r=.35, p<.05), extrinsic motivation (r=.45, p<.05) and task motivation (r=.32, p<.05). Si milarly, active learni ng was significantly correlated with total motiv ation (r=.30, p<.05), intrin sic motivation (r=.37, p<.05), extrinsic motivation (r=.31, p<.05) and task motivation (r=.26, p<.05). These correlations indicated that higher levels of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and task motivation were associated with higher levels of academic challenge and active learning. Examining relationships among constructs of student engagement f ound that total student engagement was correlated with academic challenge (r=.85, p<.05), active learning (r=.71, p<.05) and student faculty interaction (r=.73, p<.05). Th ese very high correlations suggest a close relationship between constructs of student engagement and the measure of student engagement. See Table 4-58 for co rrelations among total cognitive style gap, stress, motivation and engagement. Student respondents were asked demogra phic questions including age, gender, number of classes taken similar to Class G and college classification. None of these demographic variables were significantly a ssociated with total cognitive style gap. Furthermore, no moderate correlations were found among demographic variables.

PAGE 206

188Table 4-58. Class G Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations among Constructs of Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation an d Engagement (n=64) Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. Total gap -2. Gap-originality .83* -3. Gap-efficiency .44* .12 -4. Gap-rule .84* .54* .13 -5. Total stress .17 .18 .12 .08 -6. Frustrations .08 .04 .17 -.01 .85* -7. Conflicts .10 .03 .07 .11 .68* .64* -8. Pressures .08 .07 .07 .05 .85* .63* .49* -9. Changes .15 .13 .01 .16 .76* .67* .46* .66* -10. Self-imposed .22 .33* .12 .04 .71* .40* .23 .52* .31* -11. Total motivation .10 .22 -.15 .07 .17 .02 -.10 .22 -.04 .38* -12. Intrinsic motivation .11 .18 -.12 .11 .10 .01 .01 .11 .03 .18 .58* -13. Extrinsic motivation .04 .13 -.16 .05 .34* .22 .07 .39* .15 .36* .69* .23 -14. Task motivation .13 .11 .06 .12 .09 .01 -.11 .14 -.19 .29* .67* .45* .40* 15. Control of learning .06 .22 -.20 .02 -.25*-.34*-.29* -.21 -.23 .02 .51* .17 .15 16. Self-efficacy -.01 .01 -.11 .03 -.59*-.63*-.37* -.41*-.61*-.30* .29* .02 .02 17. Test anxiety .01 .08 -.01 -.06 .55* .48* .23 .44* .47* .47* .43* .04 .27* 18. Total Engagement .19 .14 .11 .16 .32* .34* .18 .27* .16 .23 .42* .42* .43* 19. Academic Challenge .05 .09 .04 -.02 .30* .36* .13 .24 .14 .22 .43* .35* .45* 20. Active Learning .30* .18 .20 .28* .25* .23 .20 .21 .18 .15 .30* .37* .31* 21. Faculty Interaction .11 .04 .03 .15 .18 .17 .11 .16 .03 .16 .20 .22 .20 M -22.6-8.78-2.73-11.151.3 11.8 5.97 10.7 4.95 17.8 160 19.0 20.5 SD 15.2 7.73 4.79 7.91 14.1 4.16 2.70 3.93 2.57 4.82 17.2 3.81 4.63 Note. Cases excluded listwise. A ll constructs coded: higher scores equa ls increased levels. signifies p<.05

PAGE 207

189 Table 4-58 (continued). Construct 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1. Total gap 2. Gap-originality 3. Gap-efficiency 4. Gap-rule 5. Total stress 6. Frustrations 7. Conflicts 8. Pressures 9. Changes 10. Self-imposed 11. Total motivation 12. Intrinsic motivation 13. Extrinsic motivation 14. Task motivation -15. Control of learning .02 -16. Self-efficacy .11 .52* -17. Test anxiety .10 .01 -.40*-18. Total Engagement .36* .01 -.08 .14 -19. Academic Challenge .32* .07 -.14 .22 .85* -20. Active Learning .26* -.01 .01 .02 .71* .39* -21. Faculty Interaction .24 -.06 -.03 .03 .73* .46* .27* -M 31.5 22.4 48.4 18.3 49.1 24.1 14.0 10.9 SD 7.07 3.71 7.07 6.81 7.42 3.87 2.99 2.78 Note. Cases excluded listwise. All constructs coded: higher scores equals increased levels. signifies p<.05 Class H For cognitive style gap of Class H, ther e were 50 usable responses. The course was instructed by a faculty member with a total KAI score of 132, indicating a preference to solve problems innovatively. Cognitive styl e gap score was calcu lated by subtracting the faculty member’s cognitive style from each student’s cognitive style. The total cognitive style mean for Class H was -36.70 (SD=15.01). That is, the average student in Class H was 36.70 points more adaptive than th e faculty member instructing the course. Note that stress is noticeable between dissimilar cognitive styl es with at least a 20-point gap (Kirton, 2003). In this class, 45 ( 90.0%) of the 50 students with usable KAI

PAGE 208

190 responses had a cognitive style gap of 20 poi nts or more with the faculty member. The most adaptive cognitive style gap score wa s 65 points lower than the faculty member. The most innovative student’s cognitive style was identified as 3 points more innovative than the faculty member. See Table 4-59 for fi ndings of calculated cognitive style gap for Class H. Table 4-59. Class H Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=50) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total cognitive style gap Sufficiency of originality gap Efficiency gap Rule/Group conformity gap -36.70 -11.76 -10.36 -14.58 15.01 8.65 3.75 7.04 -65 -31 -19 -31 3 7 -2 1 Note Cognitive style gap scores were calcula ted by subtracting faculty member’s KAI score from individual student’s KAI score. Coded: lower score equals more adaptive, higher score equals more innovative. Once cognitive style gaps were calculat ed, Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to find relationships among total and c onstruct scores of stress, motivation and engagement. For correlations examini ng relationships between cognitive style gaps, total cognitive style gap was correlated with su fficiency of originality gap (r=.84, p<.05), efficiency gap (r=.47, p<.05) and rule/group conformity gap (r=.85, p<.05). These correlations indicated that su fficiency of originality gap and rule/group conformity gap were closely related to the to tal measure of cognitive style gap. However, efficiency gap was less associated with total cognitive style gap. The corre lation between sufficiency of originality gap and efficiency gap was not st atistically significant. The lower correlations associated with the efficiency gap may be attributed to differences of size among gap constructs. The efficiency cogniti ve style construct also suffer ed in reliability as the posthoc alpha coefficient was lower than an acceptable level of .70 (Schmitt, 1996).

PAGE 209

191 In Class H, moderate correlations were found between rule/group conformity gap and total stress (r=-.36, p<.05), frustrations (r=-.30, p<.05) and pressures (r=-.49, p<.05). These negative correlations indicated that a more innovative gap was associated with lower levels of stress in this class taught by an innovative faculty member. This finding was congruent with previous rese arch conducted by Kirton (2003). Examining relationships between cognitive style gap and motivation, moderate correlations were found between intrinsic motivation and to tal cognitive style gap (r=.32, p<.05), sufficiency of originality gap (r= .35, p<.05), and rule/group conformity gap (r=.30, p<.05). The data suggests that a more innovative gap in these two constructs was associated with higher levels of intrinsic motivation in Class H. Total cognitive style gap was correlate d with total student engagement (r=.40, p<.05), active learning (r=.46, p<.05) and stude nt-faculty interact ion (r=.41, p<.05). Likewise, sufficiency of orig inality gap was correlated wi th total engagement (r=.33, p<.05), active learning (r=.41, p<.05) and student -faculty interaction (r=.31, p<.05). Also rule/group conformity gap was moderately correlated with tota l engagement (r=.32, p<.05), active learning (r=.40, p<.05) and student -faculty interaction (r=.37, p<.05). This evidence suggests that more innovative sufficiency of originality gap and rule/group conformity gap was associated with higher levels of active lear ning and student-faculty interaction in Class H. For internal correlations of stress sc ales, total stress was correlated with frustrations (r=.64, p<.05), conflicts (r=.71, p<.05), pressures (r=.73, p<.05), changes (r=.67, p<.05) and self-imposed (r=.71, p<.05) These correlations signify a close relationship between stress constructs and the total measure of stress.

PAGE 210

192 In Class H, correlations were found betw een test anxiety an d total stress (r=.52, p<.05), frustrations (r=.31, p<.05), conflicts (r=.30, p<.05), pressu res (r=.36, p<.05) and self-imposed (r=.49, p<.05). The data suggests that higher levels of these stress constructs were related to test anxiety. Negative corre lations were found betw een self-efficacy and total stress (r=-.33, p<.05), frus trations (r=-.46, p<.05) and co nflicts (r=-.31, p<.05). This provided evidence that higher levels of self-efficacy were associated with lower levels of stress constructs frustrations and conflic ts. No significant correlations were found between constructs of stress a nd constructs of engagement. Total motivation in Class H was correl ated with intrinsic motivation (r=.72, p<.05), extrinsic motivation (r=.65, p<.05), task motivation (r=.81, p<.05), control of learning (r=.63, p<.05) and self-efficacy (r=.62, p<.05). These correlations indicated that constructs of motivation were related to the measure of total motivation. However, note that the correlation between total motivation and test anxiety was not significant (r=.22, p>.05) indicating a low association. Considering the relationship between total motivation and total student engagement, a moderate correlation (r=.44, p< .05) indicated higher le vels of motivation associated with higher levels of student engagement. This finding was supported by correlations found between constructs of motivation and engagement. Specifically, moderate and substantial correlations existed between intrinsic motivation and total engagement (r=.50, p<.05), active learning (r=. 49, p<.05) and student -faculty interaction (r=.41, p<.05). Likewise, task motivation was moderately correlated with total student engagement (r=.41, p<.05), academic challenge (r=.31, p<.05) and student-faculty

PAGE 211

193 interaction (r=.32, p<.05). Again, these correl ations provided eviden ce that higher levels of motivation were associated with higher levels of engagement in this class. Considering the internal correlations to scales of student engagement, total engagement was very highly correlated with academic challenge (r=.75, p<.05), active learning (r=.86, p<.05) and student-faculty inte raction (r=.79, p<.05). These correlations provided evidence that these constructs are clos ely related to the tota l measure of student engagement. See Table 4-60 for associations of cognitive style gap, student stress, student motivation, and student engagement for Class H. Student respondents were asked demographi c questions specific to age, gender, number of courses taken similar to the c ontent of Class H and college classification. Answers to these questions were used to find correlations with cogni tive style gap. None of these demographic variables were found to significantly correlate with total cognitive style gap in Class H.

PAGE 212

194Table 4-60. Class H Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations among Constructs of Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation an d Engagement (n=50) Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. Total gap -2. Gap-originality .84* -3. Gap-efficiency .47* .11 -4. Gap-rule .85* .51* .34* -5. Total stress -.23 -.14 .06 -.36*-6. Frustrations -.21 -.14 .05 -.30* .64* -7. Conflicts -.08 -.08 .08 -.13 .71* .44* -8. Pressures -.32*-.15 -.01 -.49* .73* .49* .43* -9. Changes -.03 -.03 .05 -.05 .67* .33* .61* .41* -10. Self-imposed -.12 -.07 .04 -.20 .71* .11 .29* .28* .33* -11. Total motivation .14 .22 -.04 .05 .01 -.16 -.05 -.03 -.21 .24 -12. Intrinsic motivation .32* .35* -.09 .30* -.17 -.21 .03 -.29*-.18 -.01 .72* -13. Extrinsic motivation -.03 .02 .14 -.16 .15 .01 -.10 .18 -.07 .28* .65* .23 -14. Task motivation .20 .27 -.09 .15 -.24 -.19 -.14 -.29*-.42*-.01 .81* .77* .36* 15. Control of learning .09 .12 .03 .03 -.04 -.20 -.09 -.01 -.05 .09 .63* .28* .26 16. Self-efficacy .19 .28* -.18 .16 -.33*-.46*-.31* -.15 -.21 -.11 .62* .36* .31* 17. Test anxiety -.20 -.18 .03 -.22 .52* .31* .30* .36* .13 .49* .22 -.02 .22 18. Total Engagement .40* .33* .23 .32* .10 -.03 .14 -.02 .08 .16 .44* .50* .25 19. Academic Challenge .08 .07 .19 -.01 .22 .05 .24 .10 .11 .22 .32* .29* .27 20. Active Learning .46* .41* .15 .40* .02 .08 .01 -.04 .05 -.01 .35* .49* .18 21. Faculty Interaction .41* .31* .22 .37* .02 -.19 .08 -.11 .04 .16 .37* .41* .16 M -36.7-11.8-10.4-14.649.3 11.4 5.34 9.56 4.10 19.0 158 19.0 21.6 SD 15.0 8.65 3.75 7.04 10.2 3.00 2.21 2.92 1.74 4.84 20.7 4.63 4.07 Note. Cases excluded listwise. A ll constructs coded: higher scores equa ls increased levels. signifies p<.05

PAGE 213

195 Table 4-60 (continued). Construct 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1. Total gap 2. Gap-originality 3. Gap-efficiency 4. Gap-rule 5. Total stress 6. Frustrations 7. Conflicts 8. Pressures 9. Changes 10. Self-imposed 11. Total motivation 12. Intrinsic motivation 13. Extrinsic motivation 14. Task motivation -15. Control of learning .50* -16. Self-efficacy .56* .68* -17. Test anxiety -.15 -.21 -.41*-18. Total Engagement .41* .32* .27 -.10 -19. Academic Challenge .31* .28* .19 -.10 .75* -20. Active Learning .35* .18 .20 -.08 .86* .50* -21. Faculty Interaction .32* .30* .25 -.05 .79* .32* .57* -M 33.1 22.5 43.5 18.7 51.2 26.3 13.2 11.7 SD 6.81 3.92 8.11 7.34 7.75 3.15 3.22 3.30 Note. Cases excluded listwise. All constructs coded: higher scores equals increased levels. signifies p<.05 Class I For Class I, there were 60 usable KAI responses for calculating cognitive gap. The faculty member instructing Class I had a total cognitive style score of 134 which was subtracted from each student’s cognitive style score. In Class I, th e total cognitive style gap mean was -41.10 (SD=14.25) which was obvious ly larger than the 20-point cognitive style gap Kirton (2003) claims as a threshol d for noticeable differences. Furthermore, 55 (91.7%) of the 60 students with usable responses had a cognitive styl e gap of 20 points or higher with this innovative faculty member The most adaptive student was 84 points lower than the faculty member’s cognitive st yle while the most innovative student in

PAGE 214

196 Class I was 10 points more innovative than the faculty member. See Table 4-61 for findings of calculated cognitive style gap reported in Class I. Table 4-61. Class I Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=60) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total cognitive style gap Sufficiency of originality gap Efficiency gap Rule/Group conformity gap -41.10 -18.87 -2.37 -19.87 14.25 7.61 4.77 7.42 -84 -35 -13 -36 -10 -2 9 -1 Note Cognitive style gap scores were calcula ted by subtracting faculty member’s KAI score from individual student’s KAI score. Coded: lower score equals more adaptive, higher score equals more innovative. Calculated cognitive style gap scores were used to find relationships with student stress, student motivation and student engage ment. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to complete this task. For correlations internal to the measurement of cognitive style gap, total cognitive style gap was correlated with sufficiency of originality gap (r=.75, p<.05), efficiency gap (r=.46, p<.05) and rule/group conformity gap (r=.84, p<.05). These correlations indicated a positive relationship between construct m easures of cognitive style gap and total cognitive style gap. However, efficiency gap was negatively correlated with sufficiency of originality (r=-.05, p<.05). This correla tion provides evidence of a negligible relationship between the two constructs; howev er this may be explained by examining differences between the sufficiency of origin ality gap mean and the efficiency gap mean. That is, correlations between gap score constructs were affe cted by degree and direction of the gap between the faculty member and the student. Another explanation for lower correlations may be attributed to the lower posthoc reliability of the efficiency construct. One moderate correlation was found be tween efficiency cognitive style gap and conflict stress (r=.35, p<.05) indicating that more innovative students ha d higher levels of

PAGE 215

197 conflict stress in this innovativ e class; a finding that conflicts with Kirton’s (2003) theory as applied in this context. No other cognitive style gap constructs were correlated with stress constructs, motivation constructs or student engagement constructs in Class I. Considering correlations internal to the measurement of student stress, total stress was correlated with the constr ucts: frustrations (r=.74, p<.05 ), conflicts (r=.67, p<.05), pressures (r=.71, p<.05), changes (r=.63, p<.05) and self-imposed (r=.67, p<.05). The data suggests that all of the constructs were at least substantially rela ted to student stress. The motivation construct self-efficacy was negatively correlated with the total student stress (r=-.60, p<.050), as well as st ress constructs: frustr ations (r=-.55, p<.05), conflicts (r=-.35, p<.05), pressures (r=-.52, p<.05) and changes (r=-.43, p<.05). These correlations indicated that lower levels of self-efficacy were associated with higher levels of stress among these stress constructs. On the other hand, test anxiety was positively correlated with total stre ss (r=.63, p<.05) and stress cons tructs: frustrations (r=.58, p<.05), conflicts (r=.33, p<.05), pressures (r= .35, p<.05) and self-imposed (r=.52, p<.05). This provided evidence that a re lationship exists between higher levels of test anxiety and higher levels of the aforementioned stress constructs in Class I. Self-imposed stress was moderately correlated with total motivation (r=.33, p<.05) and the construct extrinsic motivati on (r=.35, p<.05). This fi nding indicated an association between higher levels of self-i mposed stress and higher levels of total motivation with emphasis placed on extrinsic motivation. No moderate correlations were found between constructs of stude nt stress and constructs of student motivation in Class I. Moderate correlations internal to the measurement of total motivation were found to be moderate to substantial. Specifically, total motivation was correlated with intrinsic

PAGE 216

198 motivation (r=.58, p<.05), extrinsic motiva tion (r=.53, p<.05), ta sk motivation (r=.68, p<.05), control of learning (r=.51, p<.05), sel f-efficacy (r=.36, p<.05) and test anxiety (r=.48, p<.05). This data provide d evidence that constructs used to measure motivation were related to the total motivation scale used in Class I. Examining relationships between total engagement and motivation, total student engagement was moderately correlated with total motivation (r=.38, p<.05), intrinsic motivation (r=.33, p<.05) and task motiva tion (r=.41, p<.05). Furthermore, academic challenge was correlated with total motiva tion (r=.40, p<.05), intrin sic motivation (r=.34, p<.05) and task motivation (r=.45, p<.05). The data indicated an association between higher levels of motivation w ith higher levels of engagement among these constructs. Total student engagement had very high correlations with engagement constructs academic challenge (r=.82, p<.05), active l earning (r=.77, p<.05) and student-faculty interaction (r=.74, p<.05). Thes e correlations indicated th at constructs of student engagement were closely related to the total measurement of student engagement in Class I. See Table 4-62 for findings regarding rela tionships among cognitive style gap, stress, motivation and engagement in Class I. Student respondents were asked demographi c questions specific to age, gender number of course relevant classes taken and college cla ssification. Answers to these questions were used to find correlations w ith cognitive style gap. Gender had a moderate negative relationship with intrinsic motivation (r=-.36, p<.05) and control of learning (r=.31, p<.05). That is, females in Class I were a ssociated with lower levels of intrinsic motivation.

PAGE 217

199Table 4-62. Class I Correlations, Means, a nd Standard Deviations among Constructs of Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation an d Engagement (n=59) Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. Total gap -2. Gap-originality .75* -3. Gap-efficiency .46* -.04 -4. Gap-rule .84* .42* .27* -5. Total stress .06 -.01 .26* -.06 -6. Frustrations .06 .07 .22 -.11 .74* -7. Conflicts .18 .02 .35* .11 .67* .40* -8. Pressures .05 -.10 .13 .12 .71* .42* .31* -9. Changes .11 .15 -.01 .06 .63* .42* .53* .41* -10. Self-imposed -.11 -.09 .16 -.21 .67* .23 .25 .38* .10 -11. Total motivation -.10 .02 .06 -.26* .21 .15 .09 .01 -.02 .33* -12. Intrinsic motivation .04 .09 .01 -.03 .29* .26* .18 .20 .21 .15 .58* -13. Extrinsic motivation -.07 .15 -.04 -.27* .13 .02 -.09 -.01 -.01 .35* .53* .06 -14. Task motivation -.14 -.14 .12 -.21 .06 .05 .12 .01 -.09 .08 .68* .47* .21 15. Control of learning -.10 -.09 .04 -.12 -.21 -.22 -.13 -.24 -.15 -.03 .51* .11 -.02 16. Self-efficacy -.05 .09 -.16 -.08 -.60*-.55*-.35* -.52*-.43*-.24 .36* .03 .17 17. Test anxiety -.01 .01 .12 -.10 .63* .58* .33* .35* .23 .52* .48* .17 .22 18. Total Engagement -.03 .16 -.09 -.16 .29* .27* .05 .27* .26* .15 .38* .33* .25 19. Academic Challenge -.13 .04 -.16 -.19 .30* .25 .11 .32* .19 .17 .40* .34* .24 20. Active Learning -.02 .10 .02 -.15 .08 .13 -.11 .01 .07 .10 .26* .19 .20 21. Faculty Interaction .16 .29* -.03 .02 .26* .24 .06 .24 .38 .05 .17 .21 .12 M -40.7-18.8-2.25-19.750.1 10.8 6.04 9.98 4.66 18.6 156 17.2 21.3 SD 14.1 7.65 4.73 7.33 11.6 4.15 2.69 2.83 2.42 4.78 18.4 4.27 4.47 Note. Cases excluded listwise. A ll constructs coded: higher scores equa ls increased levels. signifies p<.05

PAGE 218

200 Table 4-62 (continued). Construct 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1. Total gap 2. Gap-originality 3. Gap-efficiency 4. Gap-rule 5. Total stress 6. Frustrations 7. Conflicts 8. Pressures 9. Changes 10. Self-imposed 11. Total motivation 12. Intrinsic motivation 13. Extrinsic motivation 14. Task motivation -15. Control of learning .27* -16. Self-efficacy .17 .50* -17. Test anxiety .05 -.02 -.34*-18. Total Engagement .41* -.01 -.17 .25 -19. Academic Challenge .45* .01 -.13 .23 .82* -20. Active Learning .31* -.01 -.09 .15 .77* .39* -21. Faculty Interaction .12 -.01 -.19 .19 .74* .34* .55* -M 28.6 22.2 49.2 17.7 51.6 25.4 14.0 12.3 SD 7.41 4.06 7.12 7.82 7.61 4.32 2.73 2.64 Note. Cases excluded listwise. All constructs coded: higher scores equals increased levels. signifies p<.05 Considering the number of collegiate courses re lated to the subject area of Class I, a moderate correlation was found with academic challenge (r=.44, p<.05). This finding signifies that taking more c ourses related to the content of Class I was coupled with higher levels of academic challenge. All Students This study combined all participants in to one group for broader data analysis. There were 511 participants with usable KAI scores to calculate c ognitive style gap. For analysis, students retained their individual cognitive style gap with the faculty member from their respective classes. The mean cogniti ve style gap for all pa rticipants was -6.30

PAGE 219

201 (SD=28.19) indicating that on av erage, students’ cognitive style gap in this group of students was 6.30 points more adaptive then their respective faculty member. The most adaptive cognitive style gap was 84 points lower than the student’s faculty member while the most innovative cognitive style gap was 61 points higher than the faculty member. Note that awareness of cognitive style differences between individuals occurs at a 20point gap (Kirton, 2003). Of the 511 usable KAI respons es from students, 295 (57.7%) students had at least a 20 point cognitive st yle gap with the faculty member. See Table 463 for findings relevant to cognitive style gap for all student respondents. Table 4-63. All Student Class Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=511) Construct Mean SD Min Max Total cognitive style gap Sufficiency of originality gap Efficiency gap Rule/Group conformity gap -6.30 -4.09 1.35 -3.56 28.19 13.24 7.41 12.88 -84 -35 -19 -36 61 34 18 27 Note Cognitive style gap scores were calcula ted by subtracting faculty member’s KAI score from individual student’s KAI score. Coded: lower score equals more adaptive, higher score equals more innovative. Using calculated student cogni tive style gaps, the resear cher was able to look for relationships among student stress, student mo tivation and student engagement. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to find such relationships. Among all the students, correlations inte rnal to the measurement of cognitive style gap were examined for the purpose of determining degree and direction of relationships. Total cognitive style gap was very highly correlated with sufficiency of originality gap (r=.90, p<.05) and rule/group co nformity gap (r=.94, p<.05). Furthermore, the correlation between sufficiency of origin ality gap and rule/group conformity gap was .80 (p<.05). This indicated a very close associ ation between these tw o constructs and the total measure of cognitive style gap. Efficien cy gap was substantially correlated with

PAGE 220

202 total cognitive style gap (r= .56, p<.05), but had a low correlation with sufficiency of originality gap (r=.23, p<.05) and a moderate co rrelation with rule group conformity gap (r=.40, p<.05). These correlations indicated that efficiency gap was associated with total cognitive style gap, but had le ss association with the other two gap constructs. Partial explanation to why efficiency gap was less re lated to other cognitive style gap constructs may exist in the differences found between cognitive style gap means for all students. That is, efficiency cognitive style gap was th e only construct mean w ith a negative value. Another explanation may exist in the lower pos t-hoc reliability of the efficiency scale. Examining correlations between cognitive style gap and student stress, no moderate correlations were found among total scores and construct scores for these students. There were no moderate correlati ons found between scales of cognitive style gap and scales of student motivation. Furthe rmore, no moderate correlations were found between scales of cognitive style gap a nd student engagement. Although there were relationships between the aforementioned scal es among individual cla sses, the researcher concluded that measures of cognitive styl e gap had little association with stress, motivation and engagement in these students. For correlations between the measurement of stress, total student stress was very highly correlated with frustrati ons (r=.81, p<.05), substantiall y correlated with conflicts (r=.66, p<.05), highly correlate d with pressures (r=.80, p<.05) substantially correlated with changes (r=.65, p<.05) and very highly correlated with self -imposed stress (r=.70, p<.05). These correlations indicated a very close relationship betw een total stress and each of the constructs measuring stress.

PAGE 221

203 Moderate correlations were found be tween total stress and the motivation construct self-efficacy (r=-.40, p<.05). Fu rthermore, self-efficacy was negatively correlated with stress constr ucts: frustrations (r=-.43, p< .05), pressures (r=-.32, p<.05) and changes (r=-.36, p<.05). These correlations indicated that lower levels of selfefficacy were associated with higher levels of these stress constructs. Test anxiety was substantially correlate d with total student stress (r=.53, p< .05) indicating an association between higher levels of stress and highe r levels of test anxiety among all student participants. Test anxiety was also mode rately correlated with stress constructs: frustrations (r=.42, p<.05), pressures (r= .43, p<.05) and self imposed stress (r=.48, p<.05). Again, higher levels of te st anxiety were associated with higher levels of stress among these constructs. There were no moderate correlations f ound among measurements of stress and measurement of student engagement among stude nts surveyed for this study. However, a low correlation was found between total stress and total engagement (r=.18, p<.05) indicating that higher levels of stress were associated with higher levels of student engagement. Concerning the measurement of motivati on, correlations were found between total student motivation and motivation constr ucts: intrinsic motiv ation (r=.68, p<.05), extrinsic motivation (r=.61, p<.05), task mo tivation (r=.75, p<.05), control of learning (r=.58, p<.05), self-efficacy (r=.44, p<.05) a nd test anxiety (r=.37, p<.05). As expected, these correlations suggest that constructs of motivation were related to the total measurement of motivation.

PAGE 222

204 A moderate correlation existed between total motivation and total engagement (r=.30, p<.05) indicating that higher levels of student motivation were associated with higher levels of student engagement am ong these respondents. Additionally, total motivation was correlated with the engageme nt construct academic challenge (r=.33, p<.05) suggesting that higher levels of student motivati on were coupled with higher levels of academic challenge. Moderate co rrelations were also found between task motivation and total engagement (r=.30, p< .05) as well as academic challenge (r=.34, p<.05). The data suggests that among these st udents, higher levels of total motivation were associated with total student engage ment with emphasis placed on the constructs academic challenge and task motivation. For the correlations specific to the m easurement of student engagement, total student engagement was correla ted with internal constructs : academic challenge (r=.77, p<.05), active learning (r=.76, p<.05), and stude nt-faculty interact ion (r=.71, p<.05). These correlations provided evidence that c onstructs measuring motivation were closely related to the total measure of student engagement. See Table 4-62 for findings regarding relationships among cognitive style gap, stre ss, motivation and engagement for all participating students. For demographic questions, student re spondents were asked to specify age, gender, number of similar courses taken and college classification. Responses were used to correlate with cognitive style gap. No moderate correlations existed among demographic variables and the measurement of cognitive style gap, stress, motivation and engagement.

PAGE 223

205Table 4-64. All Student Class Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations among C onstructs of Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation and Engagement (n=496) Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. Total gap -2. Gap-originality .90* -3. Gap-efficiency .56* .23* -4. Gap-rule .94* .80* .40* -5. Total stress .15* .15* .08 .13* -6. Frustrations .16* .15* .10* .15* .81* -7. Conflicts .10* .10* .07 .08 .66* .49* -8. Pressures .11* .09* .05 .11* .80* .55* .41* -9. Changes .11* .11* .03 .11* .65* .46* .45* .51* -10. Self-imposed .06 .07 .04 .04 .70* .37* .25* .43* .21* -11. Total motivation -.04 .01 -.08 -.03 .11* .03 -.08 .07 -.11* .33* -12. Intrinsic motivation -.01 .05 -.13* .01 -.01 -.04 -.03 -.04 -.04 .10* .68* -13. Extrinsic motivation -.06 -.02 -.08 -.06 .22* .15* -.02 .17* .04 .35* .61* .15* -14. Task motivation -.11*-.12*-.03 -.10*-.06 -.05 -.17* -.07 -.19* .12* .75* .63* .31* 15. Control of learning .08 .09* -.01 .09* -.13*-.18*-.10* -.12*-.23* .08 .58* .30* .19* 16. Self-efficacy -.02 .02 -.03 -.04 -.40* -.43*-.27* -.32*-.36*-.12* .44* .27* .15* 17. Test anxiety .01 .01 -.01 .01 .53* .42* .21* .43* .28* .48* .37* .03 .28* 18. Total Engagement .01 .05 -.04 -.01 .18* .13* .10* .15* .07 .17* .30* .29* .23* 19. Academic Challenge -.04 -.02 .03 -.08 .18* .17* .07 .16* .05 .16* .33* .28* .21* 20. Active Learning -.03 .03 -.10*-.04 .08 .06 .02 .08 .04 .07 .15* .20* .13* 21. Faculty Interaction .11 .13* -.03 .12* .14* .05 .15* .09* .08 .15* .16* .16* .16* M -6.53-4.141.29 -3.6851.8 11.8 5.71 10.5 4.68 19.2 160 18.1 21.5 SD 28.1 13.3 7.39 12.8 12.9 4.36 2.63 3.57 2.38 4.66 20.2 4.47 4.44 Note. Cases excluded listwise. A ll constructs coded: higher scores equa ls increased levels. signifies p<.05

PAGE 224

206 Table 4-64 (continued). Construct 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1. Total gap 2. Gap-originality 3. Gap-efficiency 4. Gap-rule 5. Total stress 6. Frustrations 7. Conflicts 8. Pressures 9. Changes 10. Self-imposed 11. Total motivation 12. Intrinsic motivation 13. Extrinsic motivation 14. Task motivation -15. Control of learning .31* -16. Self-efficacy .24* .54* -17. Test anxiety .06 -.10*-.36*-18. Total Engagement .30* .03 .03 .12* -19. Academic Challenge .34* .08 -.02 .18* .77* -20. Active Learning .17* -.06 .07 .01 .76* .34* -21. Faculty Interaction .12* .02 .04 .05 .71* .25* .44* -M 31.4 23.0 47.2 18.8 49.6 25.1 12.8 11.7 SD 7.70 3.94 7.71 7.47 7.74 4.14 3.13 3.07 Note. Cases excluded listwise. All constructs coded: higher scores equals increased levels. signifies p<.05 Group Comparisons Kirton (2003) theorized and provided evid ence that individuals with more than a 20-point cognitive style gap differ in the manner in which they solve problems. As the two individuals perceive the pr oblem differently, they also di ffer in how they generate solutions, create change and uti lize rules in their problem solv ing efforts. Stress is a result of the two individuals working to gether in solving a problem (Kirton). To test if this data supports Kirton’s theory, a two-tailed indepe ndent sample t-test was conducted to examine stress score differences between st udents with less than a 20-point gap and

PAGE 225

207 students with more than a 20-point gap with their respective instructor. Groups were coded one for students with a 20-point gap or higher and zero for students with less than a 20-point gap. No significant difference was found (t=-.05, p=.96) in total stress scores between students with more than a 20-poi nt gap (M=51.76, n=284) a nd students with less than a 20-point gap (M=51.82, n=212). The data suggests that ther e was no significant difference of stress scores between students with more than a 20-point cognitive style gap and students with less than a 20-point cognitive style gap. 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 stude nts 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). This indicated that students with less than a 20-point gap with their respective instructor had on average scored 1.11 points higher than students with more than a 20-point gap on the MSLQ. Note that in objective 2, courses taught by innovative instructors (Classes A, B & C) and adaptive instructor s (Classes G, H & I) were found to have students with significantly lower levels of motivation than students in course s taught by instructors with a cognitive style score si milar to the general populati on mean (Classes D, E & F). Were motivation scores lower when students had more than a 20-point gap and taught by an adaptive instructor or innovative instructor? A tw o-way ANOVA was conducted to examine the interaction effect of these two variables. With motivation as the dependent variables, a significant difference was f ound (F=3.94, p=.03) for the interaction of

PAGE 226

208 students with a 20-point cogniti ve style gap and the group effect of faculty members’ cognitive style. A closer examination of group means finds that the lowest motivation scores were found in student s with a 20-point gap taught by adaptive faculty members (M=29.24). This motivation mean score was 2.07 points lower than students enrolled in the same courses with a cognitive style gap less than 20 points (M=31.32). The MSLQ scale has a range of 36 points. Consider ing students enrolled in courses taught by innovative faculty members, students with more than a 20-point gap scored less (M=30.08) than students with less than a 20-point gap (M=30.52), a difference of 0.44 points. In the middle score teaching group, the difference between those with more than a 20-point gap and those with less than a 20point gap was 0.24. The evidence suggests that in these classes, students with more than a 20-point gap enrolled in an adaptive course on average have lower levels of motivation. Another 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 inst ructor. No significan t difference was found (t=1.14, p=.25) between the group with less th an a 20-point gap (M=49.11) and the group with more than a 20-point gap (M=49.91). This finding provided evidence that among these respondents, students having a 20-point gap with their respective faculty member did not differ in engagement scores measured by the NSSE. Summary of Findings for Objective Three This study calculated dissimilar cognitive style by subtracting the faculty member’s cognitive style score from each individual student’s cognitive style score which yielded a cognitive style gap. Kirton ( 2003) stated that indi viduals become aware of cognitive style gap above 20 points, at which stress becomes apparent.

PAGE 227

209 As expected, faculty members who were either highly ad aptive or highly innovative also had more cognitive style gap scores higher than twen ty points with their students. For example, Class E had the least number of students ha ving a cognitive style gap of more than 20 points (n=9, 28.1%), wh ile Class I had the most students having a cognitive style gap of more than 20 points (n=55, 91.7%). Note that every class had students with more than a 20-point cognitive style gap. For all students participating in this study, 295 (57.7%) students had at least a 20 point cognitive style gap scor e with the faculty member. C onsidering all participating students, the most adaptive cognitive style gap was 84 point s lower than the student’s faculty member while the most innovative c ognitive style gap was 61 points higher than the faculty member. The total cognitive styl e gap score mean (M=-6.30) was slightly adaptive for all students combined. This was reflective of the faculty member cognitive style mean of 98.78 which was slightly innovati ve and the students’ cognitive style mean of 93.28 which was slightly adaptive. Note th at number of student s in each class gives different amounts of weight to the mean cognitive style gap when accounting for all students. A two-tailed independent sample t-test wa s conducted to examine if stress scores differed between students with less than a 20point 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) in total st ress scores between students with more than a 20-point cognitive style gap (M=51.76, n=284) and students with less than a 20point cognitive style gap (M=51.82, n=212). Th e data suggests that students in these

PAGE 228

210 classes with a 20-point cognitive style gap with their faculty member do not have higher levels of stress, which does not support previous research co nducted by Kirton (2003). A two-tailed independent sample t-te st was conducted to examine motivation score differences between students with more than a 20-point cognitive style gap and students with less than a 20-point cognitive style gap. A significant difference was found (t=-3.13, p=.00) between motivation scores of students having more than a 20-point cognitive style gap (M=30.09) and students having less than a 20-point cognitive style gap (M=31.20). That is, a 1.11 point difference between the two groups on a 36-point scale. This indicates that in these classes, students with more than a 20-point cognitive style gap with their instructor on average ha ve lower levels of motivation. In further analysis, a two-way ANOVA was conducted to ex amine the interaction effect of students with a 20-point cognitive style gap and students enrolled in a course taught by an adaptive faculty member. With motivation as the dependent variables, a significant difference was found (F=3.94, p=.03). The lowest motivation scores were found in students with a 20-point c ognitive style gap taught by adaptive faculty members (M=29.24). This motivation mean score was 2.07 points lower than students enrolled in the same courses with a cognitive st yle gap less than 20 points (M=31.32). Another t-test was conducted to examine differences of total student engagement between students with less than a 20-point cognitive style ga p with their instructor and students with more than a 20-point cognitiv e style gap with their instructor. No significant difference was found (t=1.14, p=.25) between the group with less than a 20point cognitive style gap (M =49.11) and the group with more than a 20-point cognitive style gap (M=49.91). The data suggests that students in these cl asses with a 20-point

PAGE 229

211 cognitive style gap or more with the facu lty member did not have lower engagement scores. Among all classes, total cognitive styl e gap had very high correlations with sufficiency of originality ga p and rule/group conformity gap indicating a very close relationship. However the efficiency gap was less correlated in these classes and sometimes negatively correlated with the othe r two cognitive style constructs. This may partially be explained by the degree and direction of students’ mean cognitive style gap in relation to the faculty member cognitive style gap. The lower post-hoc reliability of the efficiency scale may also have contributed to the efficiency constr uct being less related. For the SSI, total motivation consistently correlated with stress constructs at a substantial or very high level. This indicat ed a very close relationship between stress constructs and the total meas ure of stress. Although stress constructs did not always significantly correlate with other stress constructs, the correlations were always positive. Correlations were examined between total motivation and motivation constructs to determine the degree of association the construct had with the total measure of motivation. The constructs intrinsic motivati on, extrinsic motivation, and task motivation were always substantially or very highly correlated with the total measurement of motivation in these classes. Control of learni ng had correlations with total motivation that ranged from moderate to very high. In all classes except Class C and Class G, selfefficacy was moderately or substantially co rrelated with total mo tivation. In both these classes, this correlation was low. For test a nxiety, correlations were generally moderate in these classes except for Classes B, D and H, in which correlations were low. Still, all

PAGE 230

212 correlations were positive and evidence was provided that motivation constructs were related to the total m easurement of motivation. In these classes, total student engage ment was substantially or very highly correlated with the three constructs of student engagement used from the NSSE. However, the construct active learning had low correlations with academic challenge and student-faculty interaction in Classes B, D, E and F. This indicated that active learning was less associated with the other two engage ment constructs in these four classes. Except for Class A, total student stress had no significant rela tionship with total cognitive style gap. Class A was unique in that both the efficiency gap and the rule/group conformity gap significantly correlated with at least three stress constructs. Further examining other classes found that self-imposed stress had moderate correlations with a cognitive style gap construct in Classes C, D and G. However in these classes, the data suggests that the relationship between student stress and cognitive style gap are minimal. Examining relationships between cogn itive style gap and motivation Classes A and B had moderate correlations between e fficiency gap and specific constructs of motivation. Also, extrinsic motivation was corre lated with at least one cognitive style gap construct in every class except for Classes G, H and I, which were taught by innovative faculty members. Only Classes G and I had no moderate correlations. However, examining all students together as a group, no moderate correlations were found between any measures of motivation and measures of cognitive style gap. The data suggests that there are no consistent relationships between constructs of motivati on and constructs of cognitive style gap, although relationships do exist.

PAGE 231

213 For student engagement, cognitive styl e gaps sufficiency of originality and rule/group conformity had moderate and posit ive relationships with active learning in Classes B and H. However, Classes A, D, E, F and I had no moderate correlations between any student engagement construct and cognitive style gap construct. Likewise considering all students grouped, no mode rate correlation was found between any construct of student engagement and any construct of cognitive style gap. The data suggests that relationships do exist between cognitive style gap and student engagement, but no relationships provided a consistent pattern. In every class the motivation construc t self-efficacy was negatively correlated with constructs of stress, of ten with moderate level correl ations. This evidence supports the literature review written by Pfeiffer (2001). Also, test anxi ety consistently had at least one moderate correlation with a stress constr uct in every class. This finding helps confirm the research conducted by Misra and McKean (2000). Considering correlations between to tal student stress and total student engagement only Classes A and G had modera te correlations between the two measures; both of which were positive relationships. Also in these two classes, the frustrations stress construct was moderately correlate d with total engagement and academic challenge. The data suggests that in thes e two classes moderate relationships exist between student stress and engagement w ith emphasis placed on frustrations and academic challenge. Considering all students, total student engagement had positive and moderate correlations with total student motiva tion (r=.30, p<.05). However, a moderate correlation was not found in Classes A, E and F. Furthermore Classes A and F had

PAGE 232

214 moderate inverse relationships between constr ucts of student engagement and constructs of motivation. This finding contradicts th e depicted relationship by Astin (1984). However, among classes B, D, G, H and I ta sk motivation was moderately correlated with academic challenge and one other st udent engagement construct. Likewise, academic challenge was a prominent construct in finding correlations with motivation. Also, note that Classes B, G and H had many moderate correla tions between constructs of motivation and constructs of engagement when compared to other classes. This provided evidence that the relationships between enga gement and motivation in these classes did not offer consistent patterns of association. Pintrich and Schunk (2002) claim that e xpectancy components of motivation are related to student engagement. The two expect ancy motivational measures used in this study include control of learning and self-e fficacy. Although Classes A, B, D, F and H had a moderate correlation between one expect ancy motivation construct and one student engagement construct, the data did not provide evidence of any consistent pattern for this relationship. That is, these correlations we re negative in Classes A and F. The data provided evidence that the expectancy compone nts of motivation as measured in this study did not provide a consistent pattern to determine the relationship among these variables and student engagement. Objective Four Explain Undergraduate Student Motivation and Student Stress based on Cognitive Style Gap and Selected Demographic Variables. The goal of objective four was to use backward stepwise multiple regression to explain student stress from the cognitive st yle gap between a student and his or her respective teacher. This data analysis proce dure was utilized to determine if dissimilar

PAGE 233

215 cognitive style between a student and the faculty member inst ructing the course contributed to the explanation of student perceived stress. Finding a relationship in the appropriate direction woul d provide evidence to suppor t Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation theory. Demographic variables included as i ndependent variables in data analysis were gender, age, number of similar courses the student had taken and co llege classification. Additionally, backward stepwise multiple regression was used to explain student motivation from cognitive style gap between student and faculty member. This data analysis procedure was utilized to determ ine if dissimilar cognitive style between a student and the faculty member instructing th e course contributed to the explanation of student motivation. Finding a relationship in the appropriate direction would provide evidence that students were using coping be havior (Kirton, 2003) to operate at a cognitive style closer to the faculty me mber instructing the course. Demographic variables included as independent variables in data analysis included gender, age, number of similar courses student had taken and college classification. Gender was the only categorical variable and was dummy code d one for males and two for females. For data analysis cognitive style gap was calculated by subtracting the faculty member cognitive style score from the student cognitive style score. Before employing backward stepwise multiple regression to an alyze data in each class, the researcher examined the possibility of cognitive st yle gap constructs having a curvilinear relationship with total stress and with total motivation. However, no curvilinear relationships contributed more explanation of the dependent va riable stress or motivation. Furthermore, the researcher examined the possibility of interaction effects between

PAGE 234

216 variables. No interaction eff ects were found in the data analysis for determining student stress and student motivation in these classes. Class A In Class A, student stress was explai ned by efficiency cognitive style gap ( =.33) and students’ age ( =.31) using a backward stepwise regression analysis. The model had an adjusted R2 of .20 indicating that 20% of the vari ance of students’ perceived stress in Class A was contributed by these two variab les (p<.05). For Class A, both independent variables had a positive relationship with student stress, but efficiency cognitive style gap was more important than age in explaining the dependent variable. The data provided evidence that 21 year-old students in Class A with an innovative 5-point efficiency cognitive style gap with the faculty member have an average total stress score of 51.22. However, 21 year-old students with no efficien cy cognitive style gap with this faculty member have an average total stress level score of 47.52. Note that total stress had a possible range of 88 points. The researcher conc luded that in Class A, controlling for age, students with an innovative e fficiency cognitive style gap with this adaptive faculty member have higher levels of total stress. This indicated that as student efficiency cognitive style gap moved from adaptiveness to innovativeness with respect to the faculty member, students have increased stress leve ls. See Table 4-65 for the unstandardized coefficient (B), intercept (Constant ), and standardized coefficient ( ). Table 4-65. Class A Backward Stepwise Multip le Regression Explaining Student Total Stress (n=57) Construct B SE Beta t. Sign. Model F Sign. (Constant) Efficiency gap Age 17.07 0.74 1.45 11.77 0.27 0.55 .33 .31 1.45 2.76 2.61 .15 .01 .01 8.04 .01 Note. Adjusted R2=.20

PAGE 235

217 In Class A, two independent variable s were best found to explain student motivation. Efficiency cognitive style gap ( =-.37) and number of similar courses ( =.17) contributed to the explanation of variance in student motivation. However, efficiency cognitive style gap was more important in explaining student motivation in Class A. Students in this course having taken 1 to 2 similar courses and with a 5-point innovative efficiency cognitive style gap with the faculty member have an average total motivation score of 28.74. Students with 1 to 2 courses ta ken with similar content to Class A and no efficiency cognitive style gap with the faculty member have an average motivation score of 30.14, a 1.40 point difference. Note the range of motivation in this study was 6 to 48. The data suggests that contro lling for the number of simila r courses taken, students with an innovative efficiency cogni tive style gap with this ad aptive faculty member have lower levels of motivation. This provided evidence that as student efficiency cognitive style gap moved from adaptiveness to innova tiveness, student motiv ation decreased in Class A. The fitted model had an adjusted R2 of .13. That is, 13% of the variance of total motivation in Class A was from efficiency gap and was significant. See Table 4-66 for the unstandardized coefficient (B), intercept (Constant), and standardized coefficient ( ) for motivation of Class A. Table 4-66. Class A Backward Stepwise Multip le Regression Explaining Student Total Motivation (n=57) Construct B SE Beta t. Sign. Model F Sign. (Constant) Efficiency gap Number of similar courses 29.17 -0.28 0.97 1.61 0.09 0.71 -.37 .17 18.18 -2.95 1.35 .00 .01 .18 5.19 .01 Note. Adjusted R2=.13

PAGE 236

218 Class B Backward stepwise multiple regression was used to explain student stress of Class B. No significant model explained student stress given the indepe ndent variables of cognitive style gap, gender, age, number of similar classes taken and college classification. Backward stepwise multiple regression was used to explain student motivation of Class B to find the best fitting model. On e variable, efficiency cognitive style gap, explained 19% of the variance in student motivation ( =-.46, Adjusted R2=.19). The model indicates that students in Class B with an innovative 5-point efficiency style gap with the faculty member have an average total motivation score of 27.00 as opposed to students with no efficiency style gap ha ving a total motivation score of 29.35, a 2.35 point difference. The researcher concluded that in Class B, students with a higher innovative efficiency cognitive style gap with this more adaptive faculty member have less motivation. This finding indicated that as student efficiency cognitive style gap moved from adaptiveness to i nnovativeness students have decr eased levels of motivation. See Table 4-67 for the unstandardized coefficient (B), intercept (Constant), and standardized coefficient ( ). Table 4-67. Class B Backward Stepwise Multip le Regression Explaining Student Total Motivation (n=45) Construct B SE Beta t. Sign. Model F Sign. (Constant) Efficiency gap 29.35 -0.47 0.69 0.14 -.46 42.56 -3.40 .00 .01 11.54 .01 Note. Adjusted R2=.19 Class C For Class C, backward stepwise regre ssion was used to explain total student stress. The best fitting model left three va riables including sufficiency of originality

PAGE 237

219 cognitive style gap ( =-.31), gender ( =-.21) and age ( =.22). Of these three independent variables, sufficiency of originality cognitive style gap was most important in explaining the dependent variable. The model provided evidence that 21 year-o ld female students with an innovative 5-point sufficiency of or iginality cognitive style gap with the faculty member in Class C had an average total st ress score of 3.20 points lower than the same students with no sufficiency of originality c ognitive style gap with this faculty member. The total stress scale had an 88-point range. The data suggests that controlling for age and gender in Class C, students with highe r innovative sufficiency of originality cognitive style gap with this adaptive faculty member exhib ited lower levels of stress. Findings from Class C indicated that as studen t sufficiency of origin ality cognitive style gap moved from adaptiveness to innovativeness students have decreasing levels of total stress while controlling for age and gender. The fitted model had an adjusted R2 of .13 signifying that 13% of the va riance of stress in Class C was from these three variables (p<.05). See Table 4-68 for the unstandardized coefficient (B), intercept (Constant), and standardized coefficient ( ). Table 4-68. Class C Backward Stepwise Multip le Regression Explaining Student Total Stress (n=56) Construct B SE Beta t. Sign. Model F Sign. (Constant) Sufficiency of originality gap Gender Age 19.51 -0.64 -6.49 2.07 30.40 0.27 4.31 1.23 -.31 -.21 .22 0.64 -2.35 -1.50 1.68 .52 .02 .14 .10 3.76 .02 Note. Adjusted R2=.13 Also in Class C, total student motivat ion was regressed with the independent variables of efficiency style gap ( =-.18), gender ( =.33) and age ( =.20). Of the three variables, gender was most important in e xplaining student motivation in Class C.

PAGE 238

220 However, the explanation of motivation contributed by effici ency cognitive style gap was the focus of this objective. To interpret the model, students in Class C with an innovative 5-point efficiency cognitive style gap have an average 0.80 points lower to tal motivation score than students with no efficiency cogni tive style gap while controlling for gender and age. Note that the total motivation scal e has a 42-point range. Th e data suggests that students with a higher innovative efficiency c ognitive style gap score with this more adaptive faculty member of Class C have lower levels of total motivation. That is in Class C, as student efficiency c ognitive style gap moved from more adaptive to more innovative, students have lower levels of motivation. The model had an adjusted R2 of .14 indicating that 14% of the variance of motivation in Cl ass C was explained by these three variables (p<.05). See Table 4-69 for th e unstandardized coefficient (B), intercept (Constant), and standa rdized coefficient ( ). Table 4-69. Class C Backward Stepwise Multip le Regression Explaining Student Total Motivation (n=56) Construct B SE Beta t. Sign. Model F Sign. (Constant) Efficiency gap Gender Age 17.18 -0.16 2.88 0.51 8.99 0.12 1.21 0.35 -.18 .33 .20 1.91 -1.38 2.38 1.44 .06 .17 .02 .16 3.88 .01 Note. Adjusted R2=.14 Class D With respect to Class D, backward st epwise multiple regression was used to explain total student stress. The best fitti ng model included the variables efficiency cognitive style gap ( =-.15) and the demographic variab le of college classification ( =.29). For Class D, the more important variable in explaining student stress was college classification. However, the focus of objectiv e 4 was to examine the relationship between

PAGE 239

221 cognitive style gap and student stress. Students enrolled in Class D with an innovative 5point efficiency cognitive styl e gap with the faculty member have an average 1.95 points lower perceived stress score than students with no efficiency cognitive style gap controlling for college classification. The tota l stress scale had a range of 88 points. The data suggests that students with a higher i nnovative efficiency cogni tive style gap have lower perceived stress scores. Th is finding indicated that in Class D, as student efficiency cognitive style gap moved from adaptivene ss to innovativeness stude nts have decreased stress scores. This model had an adjusted R2 of .10. That is, 10% of the variance of stress in Class D was explained by these two va riables (p<.05). See Table 4-70 for the unstandardized coefficient (B), intercept (C onstant), and standard ized coefficient ( ). Table 4-70. Class D Backward Stepwise Multip le Regression Explaining Student Total Stress (n=66) Construct B SE Beta t. Sign. Model F Sign. (Constant) Efficiency gap College classification 73.70 -0.39 -5.89 7.87 0.32 2.40 -.15 -.29 9.37 -1.23 -2.45 .00 .22 .02 4.44 .02 Note. Adjusted R2=.10 Backward stepwise multiple regression was again used in Class D to explain total student motivation as a result of cognitive style gap and demographic variables. The best fitting model included efficiency cognitive style gap ( =-.21), but this model was not statistically significant (p=.08) and provided little explanatio n of the dependent variable (Adjusted R2=.03). Class E In Class E, backward stepwise multiple regression was utilized to regress total student stress with cognitive style gap betw een the student and the instructing faculty

PAGE 240

222 member as well as demographic variables in cluding gender, age, similar number of courses taken and college clas sification. However, no model wa s statistically significant. For student motivation, sufficiency of originality cognitive style gap ( =.44) and gender ( =.27) contributed to a model to expl ain student motivation in Class E. Sufficiency of originality was a more impor tant variable than gender in explaining student stress. To interpret, students in Class E with an innovative 5-point sufficiency of originality gap have an average total motiva tion score of 1.20 points higher than students with no sufficiency of originality cognitive style gap while controlling for gender. The total motivation measure used in this study had a range of 42 points. The researcher concluded that students in Class E with hi gher innovative sufficiency of originality gap with the faculty member also have higher to tal motivation scores. Said differently, as student sufficiency of originality cognitive style gap moved from more adaptive to more innovative, students have highe r levels of motivation. The model had an adjusted R2 of .13 indicating that 13% of the variance of student total mo tivation was explained by these two variables. See Table 4-71 fo r the unstandardized coefficient (B), intercept (Constant), and standardized coefficient ( ). Table 4-71. Class E Backward Stepwise Multip le Regression Explaining Student Total Motivation (n=32) Construct B SE Beta t. Sign. Model F Sign. (Constant) Sufficiency of originality gap Gender 26.69 0.24 2.66 3.18 0.10 1.77 .44 .27 8.39 2.49 1.50 .00 .02 .14 3.38 .05 Note. Adjusted R2=.13

PAGE 241

223 Class F Backward stepwise multiple regression was used in Class F to explain the dependent variable of total student stress with cognitive style gap constructs and demographic variables including age, gender, number of similar courses taken and college classification. However, no models us ing these independent variables were found significant to explain student stress. Considering motivation of Class F, backward stepwise multiple regression was used to explain the dependent variable total motivation. Two variables, college classification ( =-.19) and gender ( =.26) contributed to the explanation of student motivation in Class F. None of the cognitive style gap constructs significantly contribute to the model. Gender was found most important in explaining student motivation in Class F. To interpret, college females in Cla ss F scored an averag e 2.20 points higher on the measure of total motivation than males while controlling for college classification. The model had an adjusted R2 of .06 indicating that 6% of the variance of total motivation was attributed to students’ college classifi cation and gender. The researcher concluded that cognitive style gap offe red no explanation of student motivation in Class F, but higher motivation scores was credited to ge nder. See Table 4-72 fo r the unstandardized coefficient (B), intercept (Constant ), and standardized coefficient ( ). Table 4-72. Class F Backward Stepwise Multip le Regression Explaining Student Total Motivation (n=71) Construct B SE Beta t. Sign. Model F Sign. (Constant) Gender College classification 30.21 2.20 -0.94 2.41 0.99 0.58 .26 -.19 12.53 2.22 -1.61 .00 .03 .11 3.31 .04 Note. Adjusted R2=.06

PAGE 242

224 Class G In Class G, backward stepwise multiple regression was used to explain students’ total stress using variables of cognitive st yle gap and student de mographics including age, gender, number of similar courses ta ken, and college classification. However, no model significantly explained student stre ss with these independent variables. Total student motivation was regressed w ith the same independent variables to find the best fitting model. Again, no signifi cant model had explained student motivation in Class G. Class H In Class H, two independent variables explained the dependent variable student stress using a backward st epwise regression analysis They include rules/group conformity cognitive style gap ( =-.36) and number of similar courses taken by the student ( =.21). In this model, rules/group c onformity cognitive style gap was more important in explaining the variance of stude nt stress. In Class H, students with an adaptive 5-point rule/g roup conformity cognitive style gap have an average 2.55 points higher than students with no rule/group confor mity gap while controlling for number of similar courses taken by the student. The tota l stress scale used in this study had an 88point range. The data suggests that students in Class H with a higher adaptive rule/group conformity gap with this innovative faculty me mber have higher total stress scores. This finding indicated that in Cla ss H, as student rule/group c onformity cognitive style gap moved from more innovative to adaptive, students have hi gher levels of stress. The model had an adjusted R2 of .13 indicating that 13% of th e variance of stress in Class H was from these two variables (p<.05). See Table 4-73 for the unstandardized coefficient (B), intercept (Constant), and standardized coefficient ( ) for Class H total stress.

PAGE 243

225 Table 4-73. Class H Backward Stepwise Multip le Regression Explaining Student Total Stress (n=49) Construct B SE Beta t. Sign. Model F Sign. (Constant) Rules/Group conformity gap Number of similar courses 36.86 -0.51 2.02 4.63 0.19 1.31 -.36 .21 7.97 -2.66 1.54 .00 .01 .13 4.68 .01 Note. Adjusted R2=.13 For motivation of Class H, backward stepwise multiple regression was used to find the best fitting model with independent variables including cognitive style gap constructs and students’ gende r, age, number of simila r courses taken and college classification. However no models were found significant with these independent variables. Class I Regarding Class I, backward stepwise regression was used to explain the dependent variable, student tota l stress with the best fitti ng model and most explanation by the independent variables. Cognitive styl e gap constructs and student demographic variables were included in the analysis. Two variables, efficiency style gap ( =.29) and age ( =.22) accounted for 10% of the varian ce in explaining tota l student stress (Adjusted R2=.10, p<.05). Of the two independent variables efficiency cognitive style gap was more important in explaini ng the variance of total stress in Class I. To interpret the findings concerning Class I, 21 year-old stude nts with an adaptive 5-point efficiency cognitive style gap with this faculty memb er had an average total stress score of 55.85. This was compared to the same students with no efficiency cognitive style gap having an average stress score of 52.25, a 3.60 point diffe rence. The total stress measure comprised

PAGE 244

226 a range of 88 points. The data suggests that students in Class I having a higher adaptive efficiency cognitive style gap with this innovati ve faculty member have higher total stress scores. That is, as efficiency cognitive style gap moved fr om more innovative to more adaptive, students exhibited higher levels of stress. See Table 4-74 for the unstandardized coefficient (B), intercept (Constant ), and standardized coefficient ( ) for Class I total stress. Table 4-74. Class I Backward Stepwise Mult iple Regression Expl aining Student Total Stress (n=60) Construct B SE Beta t. Sign. Model F Sign. (Constant) Efficiency gap Age 3.95 0.72 2.30 26.91 0.30 1.30 .29 .22 0.15 2.37 1.77 .88 .02 .08 4.16 .02 Note. Adjusted R2=.10 Considering total student motivation of Class I, the same independent variables were used in backward stepwise regression da ta analysis to find the best fitting model with the most explanation of student mo tivation. Rule/group conformity style gap ( =.28) and gender ( =-.20) were both consider ed significant contributo rs to the model. The adjusted R2=.08 indicating that 8% of the variance of total student motivation was explained by these two indepe ndent variables. The model was statistically significant (p<.05). Of the two independent variables, ru le/group conformity c ognitive style gap was more important in explaining the variance of student motivation in Class I. Students having an adaptive 5-point efficiency cognitive style gap with the faculty member have an average 0.70 points higher to tal motivation score than students having no efficiency cognitive style gap while controlling for ge nder. The total motivation score range was 6 to 48 points. The data suggests that students in Class I with higher adaptive efficiency cognitive style gap with the innovative f aculty member have higher total motivation

PAGE 245

227 scores while controlling for ge nder. That is, as student e fficiency cognitive style gap moved from more innovative to more adaptive students have higher levels of motivation. See Table 4-75 for the unstandardized coefficient (B), intercept (Constant), and standardized coefficient ( ) for Class I total stress. Table 4-75. Class I Backward Stepwise Mult iple Regression Expl aining Student Total Motivation (n=60) Construct B SE Beta t. Sign. Model F Sign. (Constant) Rules/Group conformity gap Gender 29.45 -0.14 -1.52 1.94 0.06 0.93 -.28 -.20 15.20 -2.22 -1.64 .00 .03 .11 3.60 .03 Note. Adjusted R2=.08 All Students All students participating in this study were grouped together to explain student stress based on cognitive style gap and student demographic va riables. Considering all of the students, the best fitting model to expl ain total stress included the independent variables sufficiency of originality cognitive style gap ( =.15), college classification ( =.11) and number of similar courses taken ( =.09). The most importa nt variable of these three was sufficiency of originality cognitive style gap. Controlling for college classification and number of similar course s taken, students having an innovative 5-point sufficiency of originality c ognitive style gap have an av erage 0.75 point higher stress scores than the same students with no sufficiency of originality cognitive style gap. The total stress range as measured in this study was 22 to 110. The data suggests that considering these students and controlling fo r college classifica tion and number of similar courses taken, students having an innova tive sufficiency of originality cognitive style gap with their faculty member have higher stress scores. That is, as student

PAGE 246

228 sufficiency of originality cognitive styl e gap moved from more adaptive to more innovative, students have higher levels of stress. See Table 4-76 for the unstandardized coefficient (B), intercept (Constant ), and standardized coefficient ( ) for student stress. Table 4-76. All Students Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total Stress (n=496) Construct B SE Beta t. Sign. Model F Sign. (Constant) Sufficiency of originality gap College classification Number of similar courses 55.51 0.15 -1.93 1.21 2.90 0.04 0.84 0.60 .15 -.11 .09 19.12 3.51 -2.30 2.02 .00 .00 .02 .04 5.74 .01 Note. Adjusted R2=.03 Considering total motivation of all stude nts participating in this study, backward stepwise multiple regression was used to fi nd the best fitting model with the most explanation using the independent variables cognitive style gap and student demographics. Three independent variables were found to be significant (p<.05) in explaining student motivation. They incl ude efficiency cognitive style gap ( =-.08), gender ( =.12) and number of similar courses taken by the student ( =.10). Considering all the student participants and controlling for gender and number of similar courses, students with an innovative 5-point efficien cy cognitive style gap have an average 0.20 point lower total motivation score than the same students with no efficiency cognitive style gap. The total motivation scale used in this study had a 42-poi nt range. The data suggests that students participating in this study having an innovative efficiency cognitive style gap have lower total motivation scor es controlling for gender and number of relevant courses. This finding indicated th at among these participants, as student efficiency cognitive style gap moved from more adaptive to more innovative, students

PAGE 247

229 have lower levels of motivation. However, the adjusted R2 was .03 for the model indicating that only 3% of th e variance of motivation wa s attributed to the three independent variables. See Table 4-77 for th e unstandardized coefficient (B), intercept (Constant), and standa rdized coefficient ( ) for explanation of motivation for all students. Table 4-77. All Students Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total Motivation (n=502) Construct B SE Beta t. Sign. Model F Sign. (Constant) Efficiency gap Gender Number of similar courses 27.92 -0.04 0.97 0.41 0.81 0.02 0.37 0.18 -.08 .12 .10 34.38 -1.80 2.61 2.29 .00 .07 .01 .02 5.20 .01 Note. Adjusted R2=.03 Summary of Findings for Objective Four This study used backward stepwise multip le regression to examine if cognitive style gap contributed to th e explanation of student stress and student motivation. Considering the explanation of student st ress in adaptive courses, Class A provided evidence that students in these classes with a more innovative cogni tive style construct had increased levels of total stress. The same was true for Class D. Note that Class D was taught by a middle score faculty member, but scored 94 for tota l cognitive style designating him adaptive by one point. For inno vative 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 suggest s that Kirton’s (2003) A-I theory was upheld in Classes A, D, H and I as a cognitive styl e construct gap did expl ain some variance of stress in these four courses. Class C was taught by a more adaptive facu lty member, but the data suggests that students having an innovative sufficiency of originality cognitive style gap have lower

PAGE 248

230 stress scores. This finding conflicts with Kirt on’s A-I theory as appl ied in this context. Classes B, E, F and G found no significant e xplanation of student stressed based on a cognitive style gap between the student and th e faculty member. The data suggests that in these four courses, cognitive style gap was not a significant contributor to the explanation of student stress. Considering all students participating in this study, students having an innovative sufficiency of originality cogni tive style gap have higher le vels of stress. This makes sense as the cognitive style for all st udents on average was slightly adaptive. For demographic variables associated with explaining stress, the most frequent was age. In Classes A, C and I, older stude nts had higher levels of stress. However, considering all participat ing students as a group, stude nts having a lower college classification had higher levels of stress while controlling for number of similar courses taken. Models describing classes that found a cognitive styl e gap contributing to the variance of total stress had Adjusted R2 values ranging between .10 and .20, indicating that 10% to 20% of the vari ance was explained. Considering all students, only 3% of the variance was explained. There was evidence th at in these courses, cognitive style gap between the undergraduate studen t and the faculty member of fered some explanation to student total stress scores. For student motivation, Classes A, B, and C each found that students with an innovative efficiency cognitive style gap had lower total motivation scores. The amount of variance of student motiva tion explained in these mode ls ranged from 13% to 19%.

PAGE 249

231 Note that in the three classes taught by adap tive faculty members an innovative efficiency cognitive style gap was detrimental to student motivation. Class I was taught by an innovative faculty member and evidence from the data suggests that students with la rger adaptive rules/group confor mity gap have higher levels of motivation. Findings in Class I differed fr om findings in Classes A, B and C in that motivation increased as students bridged their sufficiency of originality cognitive style gap. The finding in Class I may suggest ev idence of coping behavior (Kirton, 2003). Interestingly, students in Class E with an innovative sufficiency of originality cognitive style gap have increased levels of motivation. Note that the faculty member instructing Class E scored 95 points for to tal cognitive style placing her in the middle score teaching group. Classes D, F, G and H found no model that included a cognitive style gap construct to significan tly explain student motivation. For demographic variables contributing to the explanation of motivation, gender was the most prominent variable. In Classes C, E, and F, females had higher motivation scores. Note that these three courses were taught by women. Conversely, in Class I males had higher levels of motivation in a course taught by a young woman. Note that the other two classes taught by women (Classes A & G) di d not have a gender effect in explaining motivation indicating that f aculty member gender was not necessarily a factor in increasing female student motivation. Objective Five Explain undergraduate student engagement based on cognitive style gap, student stress, student motivation and selected demographic variables. Objective five was achieved by using backward stepwise multiple regression to explain student engagement from the independent variables of cognitive style gap

PAGE 250

232 constructs, student stress, student motiv ation and student demographics. Student demographic variables used in this study incl uded age, gender, number of similar courses taken and college classifica tion. Gender was the only cat egorical variable and was dummy coded one for males and two for fema les. This data analysis procedure was utilized to determine if dissimilar learni ng style measured by cognitive style gap can explain student engagement. Classes were coded by le
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0015620/00001

Material Information

Title: Dissimilar Cognitive Styles and their Relationships with Undergraduate Student Stress, Motivation, and Engagement
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0015620:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0015620/00001

Material Information

Title: Dissimilar Cognitive Styles and their Relationships with Undergraduate Student Stress, Motivation, and Engagement
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0015620:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












DISSIMILAR COGNITIVE STYLES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS WITH
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT STRESS, MOTIVATION, AND ENGAGEMENT















By

CURTIS ROBERT FRIEDEL


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006

































Copyright 2006

by

Curtis Robert Friedel

































This document is dedicated to my parents, Larry and Susan Friedel.
Thank you for everything.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are many people to thank who have pushed and pulled me to the creation of

this document. First, I would like to thank Dr. Rick Rudd for his advising,

encouragement, and friendship, all of which gave reason for me to start and complete my

Ph.D. My advisory committee members, Drs. Gary Fairchild, Howard Ladewig, and Ed

Osborne, all contributed in their own way by adding their expertise. This document is a

reflection of the scholarship and rigor imposed by these three gentlemen. Also, I would

like to thank Dr. Michael Kirton for his wisdom and counsel regarding cognitive style.

To say that my Ph.D. in agricultural education was earned in my three years at the

University of Florida would be an exaggeration. I owe many thanks to my undergraduate

advisor, Dr. Marvin Hoskey, a master teacher. Likewise, I appreciate the teachers and

administrators at Laurel-Concord Public Schools who served as models of excellent

teaching and learning early in my career.

I cannot say thank you enough to my parents for teaching me the value of hard

work and never letting me forget what is important in life. I also must thank my wife,

Beth, not only for patiently waiting for me to write this document, but for showing me

her approach towards life which helps me become better each and every day.

Last, but not least, a special thank you goes to my fellow graduate students with

whom I shared an office. The times we spent making trips for ice cream, discussing the

unspeakable over lunch, spending time at the Jones's on weekends, and building

camaraderie have all helped the time fly by. I have learned from all of them.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES .............. ................. ........... ................... ........ xi

LIST OF FIGURES ......... ....................... .......... ....... ............ xvi

ABSTRACT .............. ..................... .......... .............. xvii

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY AND PROBLEM STATEMENT ....................1

B background of Study ............................................... ..... .................... .. 1
Introduction to Learning Styles .............................................................. ............... 2
Introduction to Kirton's Theory of Adaption-Innovation .........................................7
The Need for Student Engagem ent......... ............................................ ............. .. 9
Problem Statem ent ........ .... ....... ............ ........ .................... ......10
S ig n ifican ce ................................................................12
Purpose of the Study ....... ..... ................................ ... ............................. 13
A ssu m p tio n s ............................................................................................................... 14
L im station s .................................................................................................... 14
D efin itio n s ................................................................1 5
S u m m ary ............. ............. .................................................................18

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................ ........ .... .........19

T h eoretical F ram ew ork ......................................................................................... 2 0
Learning and Learning Styles ............... ..... .....................29
Learning Style and Learning Process .............................................. ........33
Learning Style and Learning Level ........................................ ............... 35
Kirton's Cognitive Style...................................................................36
The Scale of Adaption and Innovation .....................................................37
Summary of Learning and Learning Styles.............................. ............ ...39
L earn in g an d S tre ss ............................................................................................... 4 0
Stress in the C classroom ....................................................... 4 1
Demographic Variables Related to Stress ........................................ ....43
M easurem ent of Stress ................................................. ........ 44
Summary of Learning and Stress ........................................... 45


v









L earning and M otivation .................................................. .............................. 46
Expectancy-V alue Theory ............................................................................ 47
The expectancy component........................ ........... ................... 48
The value com ponent ...........................................................................49
A effective m motivation ............................................. ............ ............... 51
Demographic Variables Related to Motivation......... ...... ........ ............... 52
Measurement of Motivation ................................................................ 52
Summary of Learning and Motivation ......................................................54
Learning and Engagem ent ............. .................................... ..................................... 55
The Influence of Faculty Members ........................................ ............... 56
Demographic variables related to engagement.................................................58
Measurement of Engagement ... .. ..........................................58
Summary of Learning and Engagement................................. ......................61
Su m m ary ...................................... .................................................. 62

3 M E T H O D S ........................................................................................................... 6 4

R e se arch D e sig n ................................................................................................... 6 5
P o p u la tio n ............................................................................................................. 6 7
Instrumentation .............................................. .. .......... ............... ..69
Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory.............................. .................. 69
Student-life Stress Inventory .............. .......................... ........................... 70
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire ............................................72
National Survey of Student Engagement .................................... ...............73
D ata C collection Procedures ............................................... ............................. 75
Data Analysis Procedures ........... ........ ................................ 79
R research O bjectiv e O ne ........................................................... .....................79
R research O objective Tw o........................................................... ............... 80
R research O objective Three......................................................... ............... 80
R research Objective Four ................. ........ .............. ............................80
R research O objective Five...................... .... ................ ................. ............... 81
S u m m ary ...................... .. .. ......... .. .. ................................................. 8 1

4 R E S U L T S .............................................................................8 3

Instrument Post-hoc Reliability ................................. ........................... 84
O bje ctiv e O n e ...................... .. ............. .. ................................................8 5
C la s s A ........................................................................................................... 8 7
C la s s B ........................................................................................................... 8 8
C la s s C ........................................................................................................... 9 0
C la s s D ........................................................................................................... 9 1
C la s s E ........................................................................................................... 9 3
C la s s F ........................................................................................................... 9 4
C la s s G ........................................................................................................... 9 6
C la s s H ........................................................................................................... 9 7
C la s s I ...................... .. ............. .. .....................................................9 9
All Students ..................................... ............ ... .........101









Summary of Findings for Objective One .............. ...........................................103
Objective Tw o .................................... .. .. ........... ........ ..... 105
C la ss A ................................................................. 1 0 5
C la s s B ..................................................................................................... 1 0 9
C la s s C ..................................................................................................... 1 1 2
Class D .................. .......... ............... 116
Class E ...................................... ........................... 119
C la ss F ...............................................................12 3
C la ss G ............................................................12 7
C lass H ................................................................................................ 13 0
C la ss I ................................................................................................ 13 4
All Students .......................................................................... ........ ...................137
Com prisons Betw een Classes .............. ................................................. 141
Summary of Findings for Objective Two .............. ............. ...............143
O bje ctiv e T h re e ................................................................................................... 14 7
C la ss A ............................................................14 8
Class B .......... ............................ ............... 155
C la ss C ............................................................1 6 1
Class D ................. .......... .................... 167
Class E ...................................... ........................... 173
C la ss F ...............................................................1 7 8
C la ss G ..............................................................1 8 4
C lass H ................................................................................................ 18 9
C la ss I ................................................................................................ 19 5
A ll S tu d en ts ...............................................................2 0 0
Group Comparisons.................. ............................206
Summary of Findings for Objective Three ................................................ ......... 208
Objective Four ..... ....................... .................. 214
C la ss A ............................................................ 2 1 6
C la ss B .............................................................. 2 1 8
C la ss C ............................................................ 2 1 8
C la ss D ............................................................2 2 0
C la ss E ..............................................................2 2 1
C la ss F ...............................................................2 2 3
C la ss G ............................................................2 2 4
C la ss H ............................................................2 2 4
Class I ................. .......... .................... 225
A ll Students ........................................227
Summary of Findings for Objective Four ...... ................. ...............229
O objective Five .............. ........ ...................................................................... 231
C la ss A ............................................................2 3 2
C la ss B ............................................................2 3 3
C la ss C ............................................................2 3 4
C la ss D ..............................................................2 3 5
C la ss E ..............................................................2 3 6
C la ss F ...............................................................2 3 7










C la ss G ...............................................................2 3 7
C la ss H ...............................................................2 3 8
Class I ................................................. .................... 239
A ll Stu dents ....................................................... 240
Summary of Findings for Objective Five ............ ......... ................... 242
S u m m a ry ................................ ............................................................................. 2 4 3

5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ........................................ ... ........ 245

Summary of Problem Statement ................. .......................245
Purpose and O objectives ........................................... ............................................246
M eth o d o lo g y ................................ ....................................................................... 2 4 7
Conclusions and D discussion ............................................... ........ 249
Objective One ............... ......... ............... 250
C la ss A ...............................................................2 5 0
C lass B ................................................................. ......251
C lass C ................................................................. ......251
C la ss D ...............................................................2 5 2
C la s s E ................................................................................................... 2 5 2
C la ss F ........................................................................2 5 3
C la ss G ...............................................................2 5 3
C la ss H ...............................................................2 5 4
C la ss I ............................................................2 5 4
All Participants ................................................ 255
Discussion for objective one ..............................................255
O objective T w o .............. .................. ......... .......................................... .. .257
C la ss A ...............................................................2 5 7
C la s s B ................................................................................................... 2 5 8
C la s s C ................................................................................................... 2 5 8
C la ss D ...............................................................2 5 8
C la s s E ................................................................................................... 2 5 9
C la ss F ........................................................................2 5 9
C la ss G ...............................................................2 6 0
C la ss H ...............................................................2 6 0
C la ss I ............................................................2 6 1
All students........................................... 261
Comparison between classes ............... .. ............. ..... ................ 262
Discussion for objective two ..............................................263
Objective Three ......................................................................267
C la ss A ...............................................................2 6 8
C la s s B ................................................................................................... 2 6 9
C la s s C ................................................................................................... 2 6 9
C la ss D ...............................................................2 7 0
C la s s E ................................................................................................... 2 7 1
C la ss F ........................................................................2 7 1
C la ss G ...............................................................2 7 2
C la ss H ...............................................................2 7 2


v111









C la ss I ............................................................2 7 3
All Students ..... ......... .. ........ .......... ........274
G roup C om parisons........................................................... ............... 274
Discussion for objective three..... .................... .............276
Objective Four ................. ........ .................... 280
C la ss A ...............................................................2 8 0
C la s s B ................................................................................................... 2 8 1
C la s s C ................................................................................................... 2 8 1
C la ss D ...............................................................2 8 2
C la s s E ................................................................................................... 2 8 2
C la s s F ................................................................................................... 2 8 2
C la ss G ...............................................................2 8 3
C la ss H ...............................................................2 8 3
C la ss I ............................................................2 8 4
All Students ..... ......... .. .......... ..........284
Discussion for objective four ............................................................. 285
Objective Five ................. ......... ..................287
C la ss A ...............................................................2 8 8
C la s s B ................................................................................................... 2 8 8
C la s s C ................................................................................................... 2 8 9
C la ss D ...............................................................2 8 9
C la s s E ................................................................................................... 2 8 9
C la s s F ................................................................................................... 2 9 0
C la ss G ...............................................................2 9 0
C la ss H ...............................................................2 9 0
C la ss I ............................................................2 9 1
All Students ..... ............ ............ ..........291
Discussion for objective five ...... ...................... ........ 291
Concluding Discussion ............. .. ......... .................293
Recommendations.......................................................298
S u m m a ry .............. ..... ............ ................. .................................................. 3 0 0

APPENDIX

A INTERNAL REVIEW BOARD SUBMISSION FORM ........................................301

B FACULTY INFORMED CONSENT ............................................... 304

C STUDENT INFORMED CONSENT ..................................... ............................. 306

D EXAMPLE ITEMS OF KIRTON' S ADAPTION-INNOVATION
IN V E N T O R Y .................................................................................................. 3 0 8

E EXAMPLE ITEMS OF STUDENT-LIFE STRESS INVENTORY............309

F EXAMPLE ITEMS OF MOTIVATED STRATEGIES FOR LEARNING
Q U E S T IO N N A IR E .................................................................................................. 3 10










G EXAMPLE ITEMS OF NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT
E N G A G E M E N T ............................................................................ .. .............. 11

L IST O F R EFE R E N C E S ........................................................................... ..............312

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ........................................... ...........................................325



















































x
















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 Factor Traits of Adaptors and Innovators ..................................... .................36

3-1 Construct Reliability of Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory.............................70

3-2 Construct Reliability of Student-life Stress Inventory ..........................................71

3-3 Construct Reliability of Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire ............73

3-4 Construct Reliability of National Survey of Student Engagement ........................75

4-1 Listing of Classes designated by Faculty Members' Total Cognitive Style Score
(N = 9 ) ...............................................................................8 6

4-2 Summary of Classes Regarding Reported Demographic Information of
Participating Faculty M em bers ........................................ ........................ 103

4-3 Summary of Classes Regarding Reported Demographic Information of
P participating Students.................................................. ............................... 104

4-4 Class A Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=58)....................106

4-5 Class A Student Mean Scores of Stress Constructs ............................................107

4-6 Class A Student Mean Scores of Motivation Constructs................................ 108

4-7 Class A Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs (n=70).........................109

4-8 Class B Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=46) .................. 109

4-9 Class B Student Mean Scores of Stress Constructs (n=68)..................................110

4-10 Class B Student Mean Scores of Motivation Constructs ................ ............... 111

4-11 Class B Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs (n=70) ......................... 112

4-12 Class C Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=56)....................113

4-13 Class C Student Mean Scores of Stress Constructs ......................... ............114









4-14 Class C Student Mean Scores of Motivation Constructs (n=71) ...........................115

4-15 Class C Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs (n=71) .........................115

4-16 Class D Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=73)....................116

4-17 Class D Student Mean Scores of Stress Constructs ............... ..........117

4-18 Class D Student Mean Scores of Motivation Constructs ............. ............... 118

4-19 Class D Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs (n= 108)....................19

4-20 Class E Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=32) ..................120

4-21 Class E Student Mean Scores of Stress Constructs................... ... .............121

4-22 Class E Student Mean Scores of Motivation Constructs (n=48)..........................122

4-23 Class E Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs (n=48) .......................123

4-24 Class F Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=71)................... 124

4-25 Class F Student Mean Scores of Stress Constructs (n= 12)..............................125

4-26 Class F Student Mean Scores of Motivation Constructs (n= 115).......................... 126

4-27 Class F Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs (n= 115)........................127

4-28 Class G Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=65)....................127

4-29 Class G Student Mean Scores of Stress Constructs (n=84) .................................128

4-30 Class G Student Mean Scores of Motivation Constructs (n=85) .........................129

4-31 Class G Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs (n=85).........................130

4-32 Class H Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=50)....................131

4-33 Class H Student Mean Scores of Stress Constructs (n=70) .................................132

4-34 Class H Student Mean Scores of Motivation Constructs (n=70) .........................132

4-35 Class H Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs................................... 133

4-36 Class I Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=60)....................134

4-37 Class I Student Mean Scores of Stress Constructs (n=77)...................................135

4-38 Class I Student Mean Scores of Motivation Constructs (n=77).............................136









4-39 Class I Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs .....................................137

4-40 All Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Constructs (n=511) .......................138

4-41 All Student M ean Scores of Stress Constructs...................................................... 139

4-42 All Student M ean Scores of M otivation Constructs..............................................140

4-43 All Student Mean Scores of Engagement Constructs .........................................140

4-44 Summary of Classes Regarding Student Cognitive Style, Stress, Motivation and
Engagem ent M ean Scores ......................................................... .............. 147

4-45 Class A Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=58) ............149

4-46 Class A Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations among Constructs of
Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation and Engagement (n=56) ......................153

4-47 Class B Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=46)............155

4-48 Class B Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations among Constructs of
Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation and Engagement (n=44) ......................160

4-49 Class C Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=56).............162

4-50 Class C Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations among Constructs of
Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation and Engagement (n=56) ......................166

4-51 Class D Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=73) ............168

4-52 Class D Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations among Constructs of
Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation and Engagement (n=67) ......................172

4-53 Class E Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=32).............174

4-54 Class E Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations among Constructs of
Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation and Engagement (n=31)......................177

4-55 Class F Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=71)............ 179

4-56 Class F Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations among Constructs of
Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation and Engagement (n=69) ......................182

4-57 Class G Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=65) ............184

4-58 Class G Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations among Constructs of
Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation and Engagement (n=64) ........................188

4-59 Class H Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=50) ...........190









4-60 Class H Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations among Constructs of
Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation and Engagement (n=50) ......................194

4-61 Class I Student Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=60)............196

4-62 Class I Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations among Constructs of
Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation and Engagement (n=59) ......................199

4-63 All Student Class Mean Scores of Cognitive Style Construct Gaps (n=511) ........201

4-64 All Student Class Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations among
Constructs of Cognitive Style Gap, Stress, Motivation and Engagement
(n=496) ............................................................... ..... ..... ......... 205

4-65 Class A Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
S tre ss (n = 5 7 ) ..................................................................... 2 16

4-66 Class A Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
M motivation (n=57) ...................... .... ............ ................. .... ....... 217

4-67 Class B Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
M motivation (n=45) ...................... .... ............ ................. ..........218

4-68 Class C Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
S tre ss (n = 5 6 ) ..................................................................... 2 19

4-69 Class C Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
M motivation (n=56) ...................... .... ............ ................. .... ....... 220

4-70 Class D Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
S tre ss (n = 6 6 ) ..................................................................... 2 2 1

4-71 Class E Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
M motivation (n=32) ...................... .................. ................. .... ....... 222

4-72 Class F Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
M motivation (n=71) .................. ..................................... .. ........ .... 223

4-73 Class H Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
S tre ss (n = 4 9 ) ..................................................................... 2 2 5

4-74 Class I Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total Stress
(n=60) ............................................................... ..... ...... ........ 226

4-75 Class I Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
M motivation (n=60) ...................... .... ............ ................. .... ....... 227

4-76 All Students Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
S tre ss (n = 4 9 6 ) .................................................................... 2 2 8









4-77 All Students Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
M motivation (n=502) ........................................ ............... .... ....... 229

4-78 Class A Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
Engagem ent (n=56) .................. ..................................... .. ........ .... 233

4-79 Class B Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
Engagem ent (n=45) .................. ........................... ...................... 234

4-80 Class C Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
Engagem ent (n=56) ............ ..... ...... ....... .......... .. .... .............. 235

4-81 Class D Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
Engagem ent (n=66) .................. ........................... ...................... 236

4-82 Class E Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
Engagem ent (n=3 1) .................. ............................. ........ .. ........ .... 237

4-83 Class G Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
Engagem ent (n=63) .................. ..................................... .. ........ .... 238

4-84 Class H Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
Engagem ent (n=49) .................. ........................... ...................... 239

4-85 Class I Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
Engagem ent (n=59) .................. ..................................... .. ........ .... 240

4-86 All Student Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Explaining Student Total
E ngagem ent (n= 493) ................................................................... .....................24 1
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

2-1 Kirton's theoretical model of Adaption and Innovation applied to the
undergraduate classroom ........................................ ......... ..... ................. 24

2-2 Interaction of cognitive style gap, stress, motivation and engagement....................27















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

DISSIMILAR COGNITVE STYLES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS WITH
UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT STRESS, MOTIVATION, AND ENGAGEMENT

By

Curtis R. Friedel

December, 2006

Chair: Rick Rudd
Major Department: Agricultural Education and Communication

Few studies have examined dissimilar cognitive style between faculty members

and students and its relationships with student stress, motivation and engagement. In the

search for variables explaining student engagement, researchers have examined the

cognitive level of instructional discourse, but few have examined the cognitive style of

the instructor as it corresponds to the cognitive style of the student. Identifying how

dissimilar learning styles relate to student stress and motivation may have implications

for increasing student engagement.

Kirton's Adaption-Innovation theory provided the theoretical framework for this

study. An ex post facto design was used to accomplish the objectives of this study. Nine

undergraduate courses in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at the University

of Florida were administered four standardized instruments: Kirton's Adaption-

Innovation Inventory, Student-life Stress Inventory, Motivated Strategies for Learning

Questionnaire, and National Survey of Student Engagement. Dissimilar cognitive style









was measured by subtracting the faculty members' cognitive style score from each

individual student's cognitive style score. The difference provided a cognitive style gap

which was used to determine relationships among student stress, motivation and

engagement in the classroom.

Findings indicated that in these courses, students with more than a 20-point

cognitive style gap did not have higher levels of stress than students with less than a 20-

point cognitive style gap. However, students with more than a 20-point cognitive style

gap did have significantly lower levels of motivation. Student motivation was further

decreased when students were taught by an adaptive faculty member. Backwards

stepwise multiple regression was used to explain student stress, student motivation and

student engagement based on cognitive style gap and selected demographic variables.

Results provided evidence that cognitive style gap did contribute to the explanation of

student stress, motivation and engagement in some classes. However, cognitive style gap

was not significant in explaining these dependent variables in all nine classes.

Further research should employ qualitative methods to examine how cognitive

style is exhibited in instructional discourse. Researchers may use these findings to further

examine the relationships between learning style and learning process in the effort of

improving student engagement.


xviii














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY AND PROBLEM STATEMENT

Background of Study

This study examined relationships between dissimilar cognitive styles (Kirton,

2003), stress, motivation and classroom engagement at the University of Florida.

Educators have long known through pragmatic and empirical evidence that students learn

in a variety of styles. Many assessments of learning styles and personality have been

developed to determine how students interact with and process the learning environment.

All learning style theories share in common the contention that learning improves in

learning environments that match a student's learning style (Coffield, Moseley, Hall and

Ecclestone, 2004). Nevertheless, few studies have been conducted to assess the

interaction between the learning style of the student and the learning style of the

instructor; nor the positive and negative effects from this interaction. Cognitive style as

defined by Kirton may offer insight into how a style of learning influences other variables

in the college classroom. Using the Kirton's Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI), the

researcher determined the cognitive style of undergraduate students and university

instructors in the college classroom. The interval difference between an individual

student's cognitive style and the instructor's cognitive style yielded a cognitive style gap

score (Kirton). Individual cognitive style gap scores were compared to other student

variables including student stress, motivation, engagement, and selected demographics.









Introduction to Learning Styles

A current trend in undergraduate education is a transition from teacher-centered

classrooms to student-centered classrooms (Acharya, 2002). Although teachers are still

accountable for student learning, great interest has been given in support of self-regulated

learning (Winne, 1995) and student engagement (Kuh, 2003). Boekaerts (1999) stated

that student understanding of learning styles is critical to increasing successful learning.

But, what is a learning style? To define learning style, the researcher reviewed an

array of definitions, theories, measurements and beliefs which included those written by

Allinson and Hayes (1996), Apter (2001), Dunn (1984), Gregorc (1979), James and

Gardner (1995), Keefe (1979), Kirton (1976), Kolb (1984), Sternberg (1988) and Witkin

and Goodenough (1977). Throughout the literature the terms learning style and cognitive

style have been used interchangeably with few authors making distinctions between the

two concepts (Sadler-Smith, 2001). Additionally, authors have been congruent in

defining both learning style and cognitive style. For example, Claxton and Ralston (1978,

p. 7) define learning style as a "consistent way of responding to and using stimuli in the

context of learning." Messick (1984, p. 143) defines cognitive style as a "consistent

individual differences in ways of organizing and processing information and experience."

Both definitions were deemed appropriate for use in this study with the two terms used

synonymously throughout this document.

In a literature review of learning styles, Coffield, Moseley, Hall and Ecclestone

(2004) reported 71 different assessments of learning style. To categorize the various

learning style theories, a continuum of learning style families was developed based on the

degree of the learning style being fixed and innate. Anchoring one end of the continuum

were strongly fixed and innate learning styles possibly stemming from genetics. The









other end of the continuum is anchored by learning styles which are influenced by

situational factors such as the environment, motivation, stress and learning strategies.

From one through five, this continuum of learning style families and their respective

theorists included the following:

1. Learning styles and preferences are largely constitutionally based including the four
modalities: visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile. Learning style theorists in this
family include Bartlett, Betts, Dunn and Dunn, Gordon, Gregorc, Marks, Paivio,
Richardson, Sheehan and Torrance.

2. Learning styles reflect deep-seated features of the cognitive structure, including
patterns of ability. Learning style theorists in this family include Broverman,
Cooper, Gardner et al., Guilford, Holzman and Klein Hudson, Hunt, Kagan, Kogan,
Messick, Pettigrew, Riding, and Witkin.

3. Learning styles are one component of a relatively stable personality type. Learning
style theorists in this family include Apter, Epstein and Meier, Harrison-Branson,
Jackson, Miller, and Myers-Briggs.

4. Learning styles are stable learning preferences with a degree of flexibility. Learning
style theorists in this family include Allinson and Hayes; Felder and Silverman;
Herrmann; Hermanussen, Wierstra, de Jong, and Thij ssen; Honey and Mumford;
Kaufmann; Kirton; Kolb; and McCarthy.

5. Learning styles are approaches, strategies, orientations and conceptions of learning.
Learning style theorists in this family include Biggs; Conti and Kolody; Entwistle;
Grasha-Riechmann; Hill; Marton and Saljo; McKenney and Keen; Pask; Pintrich,
Smith, Garcia and McCeachie; Schmeck; Sternberg; Vermunt; Weinstein,
Zimmerman and Palmer; and Whetton and Cameron.

(Coffield, Moseley, Hall & Ecclestone, 2004, p. 9)

This simple categorization of learning styles ignores the depth of theory

supporting learning, validity and reliability of the instrumentation, and classroom

implications; however, the work done by Coffield, Moseley, Hall and Ecclestone gives

the best reference point for the discussion of strengths, weaknesses, and similarities of


learning styles.









Even within categories of learning styles there are disagreements. For example in

category four, Kolb (1984) defines his measure of learning style as stable cognitive

programs formed by past experiences of education, choice of career, and the current task

at hand. Kirton (2003) asserts his measure of learning style is based on fixed and innate

traits used in problem solving, but people may cope outside of their style. Kolb's (1984)

model of experiential learning requires four learning styles to complete the experiential

learning process. Kirton (2003) claims that the process of learning is independent of

learning style (de Ciantis & Kirton, 1996). Additionally, Kolb (1984) claims that a

preferred learning style will allow a person to be more competent in completing a

particular task. Kirton (2003) argues that everyone has the capability to solve all

problems within their own style. That is, learning style is distinct and independent of

learning level or capacity. Level of learning can be defined as an individual's ability to

learn and can be expressed as intelligence (Kirton, 2003). The literature is unclear in

distinguishing an individual's style of learning and level of learning, which is an assertion

of Kirton's theory. This assertion is supported by the literature as Ericsson, Krampe and

Tesch-Romer (1993) found that in all domains of knowledge, the single greatest

contribution to expertise was deliberate practice. In addition, no evidence was found that

a particular learning style or individual difference played a role in acquiring expertise

within a domain of knowledge. However, it may be possible that experts have a preferred

style when producing an expert performance.

Learning styles have been included as a variable in many educational studies.

Still, research conducted in the area of learning styles has provided conflictive findings.

For example, Smith, Sekar and Townsend (2002) reviewed studies in which students









were given instructional discourse that matched their individual learning style. Results

were mixed with only nine of eighteen studies supporting the contention that students

learn best when taught in their preferred learning style. In another example, Wingenbach

(2000) used the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) (Witkin, Oltman, Raskin & Karp,

1971) and found undergraduates with field-independent learning styles had a moderately

positive and significant relationship with student academic achievement. However,

DeTure (2004) used the GEFT and found no evidence to significantly predict student

academic achievement from learning style. Why do these findings conflict? If Kirton

(2003) is correct, all students are capable of achieving academic success within their own

cognitive style. If academic achievement is dependent on the expectations of the faculty

member, could dissimilar cognitive style between students and the faculty member be an

intervening variable?

Kirton's Adaption-Innovation (A-I) Theory (2003) identifies cognitive style as a

preference to the amount of structure that one undertakes when solving problems. Within

the continuum of learning style families (Coffield et al., 2004), Kirton's work resides in

the fourth family noted above, "flexibly stable learning preferences" (p.9). Some people

are more adaptive when solving problems, and other people are more innovative when

solving problems. Adaptiveness and innovativeness anchor on continuums of how people

approach problems, produce ideas, and adhere to structures. These three constructs

measure a fixed perception of an environment in which the individual interacts with and

responds in the process of learning while solving a problem; a fit to this study's definition

of learning style (Claxton and Ralston, 1978). More detail will be given to Kirton's

cognitive style's relationship to learning in chapter 2.









Instructional material designed to incorporate learning styles may increase

students' motivation to learn, (Larkin-Hein, 2000); however, more research is warranted

in this area. Few studies have been conducted to measure the impact of curriculum

delivered in a learning style different than the student. Nor have studies been conducted

to examine how instructional discourse of a dissimilar learning style relates to a student's

stress and motivation in the classroom; an assertion of Kirton's A-I theory.

The primary focus of research and practice of learning style theory is aligning

curriculum and instruction to meet the needs of diverse learning styles in a given

classroom (Curry, 1990). However, much of the literature fails to recognize the learning

style of the instructor and how this variable plays in the context of the classroom. The

effect of dissimilar learning styles of people working together to develop a new idea or

product and the stress resulting from this interaction is lacking in the literature (Smulders,

2004); yet the study of this phenomenon is the aim of A-I theory (Kirton, 2003). Since

students and teachers of different learning styles commonly come together in a classroom

to generate ideas with varying degrees of motivations, attitudes and stressors, it is clear

that many research questions are still unanswered.

Limitations have been placed on the application of learning styles in the

classroom. After an extensive review of the literature, Coffield, Moseley, Hall and

Ecclestone (2004) cautioned practitioners' application of learning styles in the classroom

as many types of style have little theoretical backing, low reliability and insufficient

validity. Furthermore, few studies have found learning styles to "explain more than 16%

of the variance in academic achievement" (p. 127). Other authors have agreed that many

measures of learning style are psychometrically weak and therefore offer little use to the









practitioner (Curry, 1990; Hargreaves, 2005; Price, 2004; Smith 2002,). It is evident that

future research must use psychometrically solid measures of learning style with strong

theoretical ties in order to provide recommendations to education practitioners.

Introduction to Kirton's Theory of Adaption-Innovation

In Kirton's (2003) A-I theory, a person's cognitive style can be determined as

more adaptive versus more innovative along a continuum. Cognitive style is ultimately a

measure of how individuals solve problems with indication of preferences for learning

(de Ciantis & Kirton, 1996). Kirton (2003) describes cognitive style in context as

individuals interacting and reacting to the environment in consistent and stable

approaches when solving problems, which is consistent with definitions of learning style

and cognitive style used in this study (Claxton & Ralston, 1978; Messick, 1984). A

person may find their preferred style of problem solving along the adaptive-innovative

continuum by completing the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI).

Kirton's (2003) measure of cognitive style along a continuum allows for interval

scale distinction between dissimilar cognitive styles of two individuals. Additionally,

dissimilarity of cognitive style can be determined between two innovative individuals or

two adaptive individuals. The calculated difference between two individuals' cognitive

style scores yields a cognitive style gap (Kirton) which determines the dissimilarity of

two approaches to problem solving. Cognitive style gap was calculated in this study by

subtracting faculty members' cognitive style score from each student's cognitive style

score.

A cognitive style gap larger than 20 points may contribute to inefficiencies in

communication (Kirton, 2003). Stress is a result of cognitive gap (Kirton) which may

present important implications to learning. The literature suggests that stress in the form









of anxiety may affect students' self-esteem and academic achievement (Pintrich &

Schunk, 2002). Fortunately, individuals can be motivated to operate outside of a

preferred cognitive style and bridge the cognitive gap found with another individual

(Kirton, 2003). Kirton uses the term coping behavior to describe bridging a cognitive

style gap and further elaborates that motivation initiates coping behavior.

It is necessary to note that Kirton's measure of cognitive style is distinct from

motivation. However, authors of other learning style instruments integrate aspects of

motivation and cognitive style into one measure of how individuals approach learning

(Apter, 2001; Dunn, 1984; Entwistle, 1978; Herrmann, 1989; Vermunt, 1992). The note

was not made to argue for or against motivational factors as a determinant of a preferred

style of learning. Rather the pure and distinct measure of learning style separated from

motivation allows for a more precise measure of motivation (Kirton, 2003), which in turn

permits the study of motivation as it relates to dissimilar learning styles and to learning.

The literature provides evidence that student motivation is necessary for learning

(Schunk, 1991) and student engagement (McKeachie, Pintrich, Lin & Smith, 1986)

making Kirton's measure of cognitive style particularly valuable.

Kirton's A-I theory provides a theoretical framework to incorporate the

interaction of dissimilar learning styles in the production of new products and ideas.

Adaption-Innovation theory was chosen for this study, because of its ability to separate

cognitive style from cognitive level while giving attention to motivation, stress, and

learning. Distinction between cognitive style and cognitive level may provide insight to

the literature which asserts a confused meshing of the two in explaining student

achievement. A reference point is also established to examine the relationships of









variables found in the educational classroom such as student engagement, motivation and

stress. The KAI has been determined as psychometrically reliable and valid (Kirton,

1999); as opposed to many other learning style assessments (Coffield et al., 2004; Curry,

1990). Given the above discussion of A-I theory, the researcher used Kirton (2003) to

operationalize learning style. Chapter 2 further elaborates on Kirton's A-I theory and

measure of cognitive style.

The Need for Student Engagement

Involvement in Learning (Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in

American Higher Education, 1984), a report proposing the reform of higher education,

stated a quality education was more dependent on student engagement and less on the

reputation and resources of the academic institution. Suddenly faculty members of

colleges and universities were asked to be accountable for undergraduate student

achievement. To assist faculty members with their new challenge, Chickering and

Gameson (1987) developed a set of engagement indicators known as the Seven Principles

of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. They include:

1. Encourages contact between students and faculty,
2. Develops reciprocity and cooperation among students,
3. Encourages active learning,
4. Gives prompt feedback,
5. Emphasizes time on task,
6. Communicates high expectations, and
7. Respects diverse talents and ways of learning. (p. 5)

The Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education are widely

accepted by the American Association of Higher Education (AAHE) as research based

process standards that can be applied and measured in undergraduate classrooms.

In a longitudinal, multi-institutional study, Astin (1993) used 82 student outcome

measures, 140 student characteristics, 190 environmental characteristics and 57 types of









student involvement and found that academic involvement, faculty involvement and

student peer group involvement were the largest indicators of enhancing student learning

and personal development of undergraduate students. Koljatic and Kuh (2001) conducted

a study to determine if cooperation among students, active learning, and faculty contact

with students has improved since 1983 and found the degree of student engagement in

these three areas has not improved. Furthermore, 20% of freshman and seniors in

colleges and universities across the nation were identified as disengaged (Kuh, 2003).

Even though the literature has addressed the need for student engagement, it seems that

faculty members' instructional techniques still do not encourage undergraduate students'

classroom engagement. In colleges of agriculture, Whittington (1998) found almost 80%

of faculty members' instructional discourse to be low at cognitive level. Is student

engagement explained by cognitive level, cognitive style, or both? Does cognitive style

gap between faculty members and students matter?

Problem Statement

Trends in undergraduate education are moving from teacher-centered classrooms

to student-centered classrooms for the improvement of student engagement (Acharya,

2002). From classroom teaching experiences, most faculty members concur that students

learn differently. This has increased the application of learning styles in the classroom as

faculty members struggle to develop instructional techniques to engage student learning.

Advocating the awareness of differing learning styles is commendable. However, further

implications for education practitioners are limited as studies examining instructional

discourse provided to students in similar learning styles have conflicting results (Smith,

Sekar & Townsend, 2002). Many learning styles measures are psychometrically weak

(Curry, 1990) and offer small explanation to the variance of student achievement









(Coffield et al., 2004). Simply stated, future research must be able to accurately

determine students' learning styles and provide theoretical and empirical evidence that

learning styles contribute to student learning.

The literature comprising the investigation of learning styles is vast with little

agreement or collaboration to find agreement among the respective theorists (Coffield et

al.). Little attention has been given to how dissimilar learning styles between students and

faculty members contribute to any measure of academic success (Coffield et al.).

Furthermore, the literature has been consistently unclear concerning the separation of

learning style from learning capability (Kirton, 2003). Research conducted to explain

student achievement by measures of inherent learning styles without controlling for other

variables, such as motivation, stress and intelligence, tend to support beliefs of academic

superiority (Hargreaves, 2005). However, if students learn best in their preferred learning

style and instructional discourse is only provided in that learning style, academic

superiority may be an outcome. Investigating how dissimilar learning styles contribute to

academic success is necessary. Also, the separation of learning style from learning level

is warranted to allow for the distinct relationship and accurate measure of other

classroom variables that facilitate student engagement in the classroom and promote

academic achievement. That is, if dissimilar learning style is not found to be a large

contributor to student engagement, perhaps learning level is a superseding variable.

Faculties of colleges of agriculture and life sciences have been reliant on scholars

in agricultural education to examine teaching and learning models that promote student

engagement. Nevertheless, studies conducted in agricultural education have made few

attempts to identify relationships among student characteristics, thinking skills and









motivations that increase student engagement (Rudd, Baker & Hoover, 2000). Kirton's

A-I theory provides a framework to examine how motivation may overcome the strain of

students and faculty members with dissimilar cognitive styles. Adaption-Innovation

theory has been applied as a model to problem solving in business management,

consumer marketing and aspects of change; however, little research has been done to

apply A-I theory to the context of undergraduate education. As A-I theory is not context

specific (Kirton, 1994), the theory should also apply in the undergraduate classroom.

Faculty members are increasingly faced with more accountability for increasing

student achievement. As student engagement is closely related to academic achievement

(Kuh, 2001), faculty members need to utilize instructional strategies and curricula to

increase student engagement to foster student learning. Research is needed to determine

if cognitive style contributes to the explanation of student engagement. Does the

cognitive style gap between students' preferred cognitive style and faculties' preferred

cognitive style impair student engagement? Are students able to overcome cognitive style

gap as the faculty member engages the learner? What are the implications of Kirton's A-I

theory as applied within the context of the undergraduate classroom?

Significance

The goal of many university faculties is to help students learn the content of the

course in order to prepare them for graduate school, professional school or a successful

career. The goals of many university students mirror the faculty members' goals.

Increasing student engagement in the classroom will facilitate the successful achievement

of these same goals. Often there are impediments that restrain student engagement.

Dissimilar cognitive style may be one impediment.









This study can improve undergraduate instruction in colleges of agriculture and

life sciences by providing evidence of the educational impact of dissimilar cognitive

style. Given this finding, faculty members can better develop programs and curricula to

increase student engagement by reducing cognitive gap caused by dissimilar styles.

Departments of agricultural education can help faculty members in colleges of agriculture

and life sciences better prepare for teaching students with dissimilar cognitive styles.

Also, university faculty can gain valuable knowledge concerning how learning style, not

learning level, dictates how students view problems.

This study contributed to the knowledge base of learning styles by providing data

concerning the relationships between dissimilar cognitive styles, student stress,

motivation and engagement in the undergraduate classroom. Furthermore, collaborative

research among learning style authors may be initiated to determine if they also can

contribute to improving student engagement.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to determine if significant relationships exist

between cognitive style gap, student stress, student motivation, student engagement and

selected demographic variables of undergraduate students at the University of Florida in

the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. The specific objectives of this study were

to:

1. Describe selected faculty and students according to their selected demographic
variables;
2. Determine the cognitive style, student stress, student motivation, and student
engagement of undergraduate students;
3. Determine the cognitive style gap between faculty and students and to explore its
relationship with student stress, student motivation, student engagement and
specific demographic variables of undergraduate students;
4. Explain undergraduate student stress and student motivation based on cognitive
style gap and selected student demographic variables;









5. Explain undergraduate student engagement based on cognitive style gap, student
stress, student motivation and selected student demographic variables.

Assumptions

Basic assumptions of this study were as follows:

* Student engagement is desired by faculty members in colleges of agriculture and
life sciences.

* Faculty members teach in their preferred cognitive style.

* Problem solving learning exists in the undergraduate classroom.

Limitations

Conclusions and implications derived from this study were subject to the

following limitations. Undergraduate courses are self-selected groups with students

having individual differences prior to data collection. It was anticipated that group

differences existed between classes with regard to mean scores and demographic

variables. Therefore, data were limited to this population of faculty members teaching

undergraduate courses in the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences at the University

of Florida. Applications of the results of this study to other college classrooms were

limited to the degree of similarity they have with courses used in this study.

The researcher worked with the conditions allowed by the faculty member to

collect data from their course. All instruments were administered in the same manner, but

some students completed instruments in class and other students completed instruments

outside of class. As the faculty member made choices regarding students' completion of

the instrument, method of completion was confounded with the faculty member and

therefore provided no way to conclude there was a method of completion effect on

instrument scores. Even if courses were compared, self-selected courses have preexisting

differences with no way to statistically determine causality of these differences.









Faculty members volunteered students in their courses to participate in this study.

Although extra-credit points were often given as an incentive to increase response rate,

some students still chose not to respond. In this study, non-responding students included

students who were administered instruments and chose not to respond, and students who

never attended class the day of instrument administration. This study is subject to non-

response error as there was no data collected on non-responders.

Instruments used in the study were self-reported which may affect the accuracy of

the data. The halo effect is a common problem among student self-reports as students

tend to inflate variables such as grades and effort. However, Pike (1999) found that the

halo effect was relatively constant across different student groups and schools giving

evidence that comparisons can be made without disadvantaging a group. However, a halo

effect on the KAI presents an unusable cognitive style score thus increasing mortality rate

of the instrument. Removing unusable scores from the data may have influenced findings

in this study, especially if unusable cognitive style score is related to anxiety (Kirton,

1999).

Other confounding variables that may affect this study include coping behavior

(Kirton, 2003) of the faculty, competence of the faculty, motivation of the faculty,

availability of teaching resources, class sizes, and classroom environment.

Definitions

The following definitions are used in this study.

Adaptive. A preference of cognitive style which produces fewer ideas within a narrower
perspective while tending to utilize given rules. Adaptive cognitive style contrasts with
an innovative cognitive style (Kirton, 2003).

Behavior. An individual's actions and reactions while operating in an environment
(Bandura, 1986). Many factors contribute to an individual's behavior, but one factor is
preferred cognitive style blended with coping behavior (Kirton, 2003).










Cognitive affect. The source of problem selection with a degree of priority placed on the
search for a solution by means of motivation (Eccles, 1983; Kirton, 2003; Schunk, 2000).

Cognitive climate. The mode preferred cognitive style held by a group of individuals
working together to solve problems (Kirton, 2003).

Cognitive effect. A part of cognitive function incorporating both cognitive style, which
influences behavior, and cognitive level which limits behavior by means of cognitive
process (Kirton, 2003).

Cognitive function. The controlling influence on behavior through the interaction of
three components: cognitive effect, cognitive affect and cognitive resource (Kirton,
2003).

Cognitive level. The aptitude, scope or expertise an individual has in solving a problem.
It can be expressed as intelligence or level of creativity, but is not correlated with
cognitive style (Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Romer, 1993; Guilford, 1975; Kirton, 2003).

Cognitive process. An operation through a theoretical structure of thinking which one
advances step by step through the stages assumed to be the operations of the brain.
Cognitive process is distinguished from cognitive level and cognitive style, but utilizes
both in problem solving (Kirton, 2003; Kolb. 1984; Wallas, 1926).

Cognitive resource. The storage of learned information (memory) manifested through
constructs of knowledge, experiences, and skills (Kirton, 2003).

Cognitive style. The consistent individual differences found in ways of organizing and
processing information and experience (Messick, 1984). This study uses cognitive style
synonymously with learning style (Claxton & Ralston, 1978). Cognitive style was
operationalized by the Kirton Adaption-Innovation (KAI) Inventory with constructs of
sufficiency of originality, efficiency, and rule/group conformity with tendencies to be
more adaptive or more innovative within these constructs (Kirton, 2003).

Cognitive style gap. A degree of separation between cognitive styles of two individuals
or between an individual solving a problem and the cognitive style required to solve a
specific problem. (Kirton, 2003). Operationalized by subtracting a faculty member's
cognitive style score from a student's cognitive style score.

Cognitive technique. A learned skill an individual may utilize to increase cognitive level
or avert from a preferred cognitive style (Kirton, 2003).

Coping behavior. A learned skill that is initiated with motivation and used to perform in
a cognitive style that is different from one's preferred cognitive style. Coping behavior
can only last for a duration and intensity (Kirton, 2003). Coping behavior in this study is
not to be confused with coping behavior as a reaction to stress which is defined as a









conscious effort to deal with an event to which an individual has not yet developed
automatic patterns of response (Shields, 2001).

Engagement. The extent that students invest their time and psychological energy in
empirically derived good educational practices. (Astin, 1996, Kuh, Hayek, Carini,
Ouimet, Gonyea & Kennedy, 2001). Engagement was operationalized with the use of the
National Survey for Student Engagement (NSSE) (2005) with constructs of academic
challenge, active learning, and student-faculty interaction.

Environment. The social context individuals interact with during the problem solving
process (Kirton, 2003). Within the classroom these variables include: personalization,
involvement, student cohesiveness, satisfaction, competition, task orientation, and rule
clarity (Fraser, 1998).

Faculty Member. An individual responsible for presenting instructional discourse,
providing problem sets for student completion and assigning the final course grade.

Innovative. A preference of cognitive style to produce a larger number of ideas with a
wider variety of perspectives to make a product different while tending to alter rules
when solving problems. Innovative cognitive style contrasts with adaptive cognitive
style. (Kirton, 2003).

Learning style. A consistent way an individual responds to, and uses stimuli in the
context of learning. (Claxton and Ralston, 1978). This study uses cognitive style
synonymously with cognitive style (Messick, 1984). Learning style was operationalized
by the Kirton Adaption-Innovation (KAI) Inventory with constructs of sufficiency of
originality, efficiency, and rule/group conformity with tendencies to be more adaptive or
more innovative within these constructs (Kirton, 2003).

Motivation. A process that includes both initiating and maintaining a goal-directed
activity (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Comprises of three different components:
expectancy-a student's belief about their ability to perform a task, value-a student's goal
and belief concerning the importance and interest of the task and affective-a student's
emotional reactions to the task (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Motivation was
operationalized with use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ)
with constructs of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, task value, control of
learning belief, self-efficacy for learning and test anxiety.

Problem. A desire or felt need for a solution, but not immediately knowing the mental
operations to arrive at the solution (Soden, 1994).

Products and ideas. A solution to a problem fitted to the degree of structure preferred by
the problem-solver. A more adaptive person will prefer more structure in the generation
of ideas recognizing boundaries of the relevant paradigm and a more innovative person
will prefer less structure in the generation of ideas disregarding the boundaries of the
relevant paradigm (Kirton, 2003).










Stress. The perception of a stimulus in the form of an event or condition and requires an
individual to adjust from normal life. Stressors can be positive or negative depending on
the individual's reaction to the experience (Gadzella, 1994; Romano, 1992). Stress was
operationalized with use of the Student-life Stress Inventory (SSI) with constructs of
frustrations, conflicts, pressures, changes and self-imposed stress.


Summary

In summary, learning styles theory has become popular as pragmatic educators

can easily see its existence in the classroom. However, many learning style instruments

have proven to be unreliable and invalid. There is little empirical evidence that dissimilar

learning styles contribute to understanding stress, motivation, and engagement; these are

common variables found in the undergraduate classroom. Kirton's theory of A-I provides

a framework to distinguish cognitive style from cognitive level to help understand the

influences of the aforementioned variables. As faculty members become more

accountable for student engagement and look for instructional methods to promote

learning, evidence is needed to determine the importance of learning styles in student

engagement. Kirton's definition of cognitive style and psychometrically sound instrument

to measure cognitive style may be of particular use.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The purpose of this study was to determine if significant relationships exist

between cognitive style gap, student stress, student motivation, student engagement and

selected demographic of undergraduate students in the College of Agriculture and Life

Sciences at the University of Florida. The specific objectives of this study were to: 1)

describe selected faculty and students according to their selected demographic variables;

2) determine the cognitive style, student stress, student motivation, and student

engagement of undergraduate students; 3) determine the cognitive style gap between

faculty and students and to explore its relationship with student stress, student motivation,

student engagement and specific demographic variables of undergraduate students; 4)

explain undergraduate student stress and student motivation based on cognitive style gap

and selected student demographic variables; and 5) explain undergraduate student

engagement based on cognitive style gap, student stress, student motivation and selected

student demographic variables.

This chapter summarizes pertinent literature concerned with learning styles,

stress, motivation and engagement. Special attention will be given to Kirton's cognitive

style (Kirton, 2003) as applied to the context of the undergraduate classroom, thus

providing the theoretical framework for the study. Also a discussion of empirical research

conducted to examine learning style, stress, motivation, and engagement, is presented to

determine relationships between these variables.









Within this chapter are the following major sections: theoretical framework,

learning and learning styles, learning and stress, learning and motivation, and learning

and engagement.

Theoretical Framework

Literature concerning learning styles includes a wide variety of published sources

consisting of empirical research found in refereed journals, pedagogical

recommendations found in teacher newsletters, and books advocating the use of a

specific learning style inventory (Coffield, Moseley, Hall & Ecclestone, 2004). Said

differently, the scope of learning styles research is based on instrument development,

adding to theory, classroom improvement, and commercial use. Kirton's A-I theory

(1976) is a theoretical response to the literature stating that all people can be creative in

problem solving in their own cognitive style, thus distinguishing between cognitive style

and cognitive level (Kirton, 1978). Kirton's A-I theory provided the theoretical

framework of this study.

The most detailed explanation of A-I theory is given by Kirton (2003) in

Adaption-Innovtion: In the context of diversity and change, with illustration of cognitive

function, behavior and environment in relation to idea formation (p. 37). Within the

theoretical model, cognitive style and cognitive level are components of cognitive effect.

Cognitive effect is defined as a part of cognitive function incorporating both cognitive

style and cognitive level, both of which are employed by the individual to complete the

cognitive process (Kirton). The strength of A-I theory is the separation and independent

measure of cognitive style from cognitive level. Cognitive style is defined by Kirton

(2003) as "a strategic, stable characteristic-the preferred way in which people respond to

and seek to bring about change" (p.43). Kirton's definition of cognitive style regarding









adaptiveness and innovativeness will be explained further in subsequent sections of this

chapter. Examples of cognitive level include measures of capacity or ability such as

intelligence. However in problem solving, both style and level are required to complete a

cognitive process. Cognitive processes can be described as the "steps of how I operate"

and "not measured, but validated to provide information of where we are" (p.38) in

solving a problem. Examples of cognitive process include Kolb's cycle of Experiential

Learning (de Ciantis & Kirton, 1996; Kolb, 1984) and the stages of problem solving

(Wallas, 1926). Each stage of a cognitive process can be completed at a high cognitive

level or low cognitive level and through the use of different cognitive styles. The

outcome of cognitive process is knowledge (learning) stored in cognitive resource

(Kirton, 2003). The cognitive process can also be accomplished with low motivation or

high motivation as determined by cognitive affect (p. 89). Cognitive affect is defined as

the motivation and value placed on the search for a solution to a problem (Kirton).

Ultimately, cognitive affect, cognitive resource and cognitive effect are three distinct and

uncorrelated components of cognitive function (Kirton) and employed by the individual

to solve problems.

This study examined cognitive style gap between the teacher and the student and

its relationship with stress, motivation and engagement. Other gaps exist between the

cognitive function of teacher and student including: cognitive gap of level-a difference of

intelligence, cognitive gap of affect-a difference of motivation or value and cognitive gap

of resource-a difference of knowledge or skill (Kirton, 2003). These cognitive gaps

influence the interaction between two individuals, but the separation of cognitive style









from cognitive level, cognitive affect and cognitive resource allows for a more precise

measure of dissimilar cognitive style and its relationship with classroom engagement.

In the effort of solving a problem, individual differences become apparent at the

realization of cognitive gaps. Nevertheless, if the motivation is great enough for teacher

and student, both will be engaged in the process of learning (Kirton, 2003). Ideas and

solutions may come from both student and teacher. Although students are responsible for

engaging in learning activities, the teacher facilitates learning and therefore accountable

for student engagement. Student engagement includes constructs of academic challenge,

active learning and student-faculty interaction (Kuh, 2001). Teacher engagement

facilitates student engagement and can be measured by the teacher's knowledge of the

learning process, intrinsic motivation for teaching, and self-efficacy toward teaching

(Knowles, 1999).

Kirton (2003) defines the environment as the social context in which individuals

interact during the problem solving process. An individual's interaction with the

environment manifests as people work together in the environment to solve problems and

react to the feedback provided by others (Kirton). In the undergraduate classroom,

students interact with fellow students and the faculty member through discussions,

activities, assignments and projects; all of which provide student feedback either by

fellow students or the faculty member. In a review of instruments measuring factors

influencing the undergraduate classroom environment, Fraser (1998) categorized seven

scales: personalization, involvement, student cohesiveness, satisfaction, competition, task

orientation, and rule clarity. However, Fraser further discussed that this list may not be









conclusive as little research has been conducted regarding the environment of

undergraduate classrooms.

Finally, student academic achievement results from the faculty member and

students engaged in the classroom environment for the purpose of learning. Academic

achievement can be measured regarding a specific assignment or a cumulative total

provided by the faculty member with values represented as either a percentile or a letter

grade. Figure 2-1 displays Kirton's A-I theory in the context of a teacher and student

engaging in idea formation.

For the individual, coping behavior is used when the rewards gained from solving

the problem are greater than the effort exerted to operate outside of an individual's

preferred style (Kirton, 2003). Said differently, cognitive style gap causes stress and

motivation is needed to overcome this stress and bridge the cognitive style gap between

two individuals. Researchers have investigated the relationship cognitive style gap has

with stress. McCarthy (1988) found that women managers' stress increased as the size of

the cognitive style gap increased. Furthermore, the threshold at which stress became

apparent was at a cognitive style gap of 20 points. Another study conducted by Kubes

and Spillerova (1992) had concurring results with a large cognitive style gap influencing

the construct aggravation within a working group. However, both of these studies were

conducted in the context of business. Little is known if A-I theory is appropriate for the

undergraduate classroom and if these relationships between dissimilar cognitive style and

student stress also apply.



































Environment
(Classroom)
Personalization
Involvement
Student Cohesiveness
Satisfaction
Competition
Task Orientation
Rule Clarity


:Student Cognitive Processes
STeacher Cognitive Processes
SStudent Motivation
:Teacher Motivation
SStudent Learning
Teacher Learning
= Cognitive Gap of Style
= Cognitive Gap of Level
= Cognitive Gap of Affect
= Cognitive Gap of Resource


Figure 2-1. Kirton's theoretical model of adaption and innovation applied to the undergraduate classroom (Kirton, 2003)


A


G4

V









Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can be driving forces for increasing

engagement in the problem solving process (Hennessey & Amabile, 1993). In the event

that a course is taught by a faculty member with a dissimilar cognitive style, a student

may be motivated to cope outside of a preferred cognitive style in effort to interact more

with the faculty member and improve student engagement (Kuh, 2001). Motivation is not

a result of cognitive gap, but is a driving force for using a cognitive style that is not the

individual's preferred style. Specifically, motivation is a factor of coping behavior

(Kirton, 2003); if motivation can be partially explained by cognitive style gap, then there

is evidence that students are coping. Motivation is a component of cognitive affect and

therefore independent of cognitive style, a component of cognitive effect.

Utilizing the framework provided by A-I theory, student engagement was

determined to be an outcome of problem solving and idea formation. Student engagement

was used instead of academic achievement in this study to provide a better measurement

of the interaction between faculty member and student.

Kirton (2003) asserts that adaptive and innovative individuals prefer different

amounts of structure while completing the problem solving process. Whereas more

adaptive individuals tend to solve problems favoring structure, more innovative

individuals tend to solve problems unbound by structure. Adaptive individuals tend to

have fewer ideas making the solution more efficient; innovative individuals prefer to

have a wide range of ideas with the knowledge that many of the ideas are improbable

(Kirton, 1994). The difference between two styles of problem solving is often evident by

the differences of perception and communication of the solution. That is, a gap between

two dissimilar cognitive styles tends to inhibit effective communication. This failure of









communication can often lead the two individuals to focus on the new problem of

ineffective communication and not the problem at hand which is completing course

projects and assignments (Kirton). If this occurs in the undergraduate classroom, students

may dwell on the inefficiencies of communication with the faculty member instructing

the course and may not be motivated enough to engage in learning. The constructs of

student engagement include level of academic challenge, active and collaborative

learning, and student interaction with the faculty member, (Kuh, Hayek, Carini, Ouimet,

Gonyea & Kennedy, 2001), all of which require communication between the faculty

member and the student to be achieved (Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). In summary, the

faculty member determines the amount of structure used in the course, but students may

prefer different amounts of structure and find themselves unmotivated to effectively

communicate with the faculty member, thus impacting the level of student engagement.

Kirton's (2003) A-I theory may contribute to the explanation of student

engagement by identifying the relationships between cognitive style gap, stress and

motivation. An increase in cognitive style gap between the student and the faculty

member causes stress through working together in solving problems or engaging in

learning. If the student is motivated, coping behavior is used to operate outside of a

preferred cognitive style and employ a cognitive style closer to that of the faculty

member (Kirton). As a result, student and faculty member are operating in the same

cognitive style which may increase student engagement. However, student motivation

supplied to coping behavior only last for a period of time and at a limited level (Kirton).

Consequently the student reverts back to a preferred cognitive style which may be

detrimental to student engagement. For the student to be successfully engaged the reward









for learning must be greater than the stress imposed by cognitive style gap from the

faculty member (Kirton). Figure 2-2 portrays the interaction of student stress and

motivation in explaining student engagement.

O_

0 C
o Student
r
0(> 0 Engagement
(Dmm
S10
Student Behavior


oa

09D



Teacher Behavior


30


50


70


I Qn


Figure 2-2. Interaction of cognitive style gap, stress, motivation and engagement (Kirton,
2003)


Other variables that influence student engagement include faculty member

behavior (Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005), class size (Ehrenberg, Brewer, Gamoran &

Willms, 2001), use of teaching methods (Marzano, Pickering & Pollock, 2001), gender,

ethnicity, full-time student status, organizational involvement and discipline of study

(Pike, 2004).

There were other confounding variables but were considered outside the

objectives of the study. They included teaching effectiveness, teacher engagement,

classroom environment and student's previous knowledge. Furthermore, it was









impossible to determine the variables outside of the classroom that inadvertently effect

student engagement. These included but were not limited to sickness, family crisis and

lack of time devoted to study.

Kirton (1994) offers the following anecdote to teachers and students in reference

to A-I theory:

We all teach children to be more adaptive: before answering the question, please
read it; be more methodical; present your work more neatly; nice essay, pity it is
not on the topic I set; and so on. The best teachers taught most of us a lot of
technique, but changed us (our preferred cognitive style) not at all. In the process
they found some of us adaptorss) more receptive to working more closely within
structure than others (innovators). Lesser teachers, especially when faced with the
less motivated innovators, got even less far. Of course, despite the groans in the
literature, not all teachers are or ever were, adaptors. The highly innovative ones
delighted most of us, whether we always understood them or not; some of us (the
higher adaptors) were just confused. As the saying goes, "You just can't win 'em
all'." The best teachers win more than most.

(p. xxiii).

The undergraduate classroom offers a new context for A-I theory as well as the

introduction of new variables. Although these variables were not discounted by A-I

theory, up to this point, they had not been fully explored.

Given the previous description of A-I theory, the researcher found two studies of

interest. First considering the undergraduate classroom, Puccio, Talbot and Joniak, (1993)

found that students' stress increased with the perceived adaptiveness of the course.

Specifically, the rule/group conformity construct of the KAI was most important in

determining the relationship between cognitive style and stress. It seems logical that an

innovative student would find an adaptive course stressful, but why would an adaptive

student find an adaptive course stressful? The researcher found the study conducted by

Puccio, Talbot and Joniak one of the few investigations regarding Kirton's A-I theory

applied to the undergraduate classroom.









In the second study, Barnhart (2002) set out to determine if increased cognitive

gap led to aviation flight instruction inefficiencies. No significant differences in

effectiveness were found between total cognitive style gap between students and flight

instructors, however significant effects were found by analyzing KAI construct gaps.

Specifically, a significant weak negative correlation of the efficiency cognitive style gap

and time spent preparing for the first solo flight (r=-.23, p<.05) and time spent preparing

for certification (r=-.26, p<.05). Furthermore, there was a weak negative correlation of

rule/group conformity style gap and time spent preparing for certification (r=-.29, p<.05)

(Barnhart). Although these correlations were considered low (Miller, 1998), one would

expect a positive correlation in this study. That is, cognitive style gap should increase

with the amount of time spent preparing for the first solo flight and certification.

Both studies previously mentioned found low negative correlations between

cognitive style gap and measures of stress and effort. Although these findings contradict

with the theoretical model of this study, it is important to recognize them as two of the

few published studies found by the researcher that applied A-I theory to the context of the

learning environment.

Learning and Learning Styles

To understand learning styles, it is not only necessary to define learning, but also

to provide learning theory to give evidence of different learning types, processes and

styles. Gagne (1965) proposed eight types of learning: 1) signal learning; 2) stimulus-

response learning; 3) chaining; 4) verbal-associate learning; 5) multiple discrimination; 6)

concept learning; 7) principle learning; and 8) problem solving (p. 33). The types of

learning are hierarchical as the latter is a prerequisite of the former for a type of learning

to take place (p. 60). Additionally, learning can be any one of these eight types which









delineates the learning process of a situation and giving reason for a learner to exhibit a

preferred style and a chosen level (Gange).

Research conducted in the domain of learning styles was categorized by Curry

(1987) into four dimensions which formed the "onion" model. Personality trait types of

learning styles were categorized at the core of the onion, as they were found the most

stable within a learner. The second layer of learning styles represents information

processing, while the third layer includes the social and situational interactions of the

learner. The most unstable category of learning styles includes the preference of

instructional methods, found on the outside layer of the "onion." Curry placed Kirton's

measure of learning style at the core of the onion. An individual's cognitive style defined

by Kirton (2003) does not change as a person ages, and is correlated with many measures

of personality (Kirton, 1999). Nor does it change as the individual solves any particular

type problem. However, in problem solving, an individual may cope outside of one's

cognitive style as the situation requires.

Shuell (1986; as cited in Schunk, 2000) defines learning as "an enduring change

in behavior, or in the capacity to behave in a given fashion, which results from practice or

other forms of experience" (p. 2). It is plausible that each of the eight types of learning

provided by Gagne (1965) is fitting with this definition. That is, each type of learning

may result from an experience and produce a behavioral change. Evidence of this may be

found by examining a type of learning process. Using stimulus-response learning as an

example, a student may be stimulated to increase focus during independent study time.

The discriminating stimulus is the allowance to use background music during

independent study time. This stimulus triggers a student response to either use or not use









background music. If the student uses background music to help focus during

independent study time, another stimulus (praise) is utilized to reinforce the behavior

(Skinner, 1953). Using problem solving learning as an example, a student is stimulated

by a felt need to solve a problem of completing all homework assignments before the end

of the night. The student knows he may use independent study time, but it is hard for him

to focus. He generates solutions to solve his problem of lack of focus by playing music in

the background and executes a plan of action (Wallas, 1926). For both types of learning,

the increase of these experiences (practice) results in a changed behavior (increasing

focus).

Given the definition of learning used in this study, it seems paradoxical that one

would have a preferred learning style that is evident by a stable and innate behavior not

altered by instruction (Kirton, 2003). However, learning styles are a preferred approach

to learning, or a perception of the learning environment to which the learner has a

preference. Claxton and Ralston (1978, p. 7) define learning style as "a consistent way an

individual responds to, and uses stimuli in the context of learning," which is similar to

Messick's (1984) definition of cognitive style. Furthermore, a person may cope outside of

a preferred learning style given a different situation, adequate motivation, and learned

techniques (Jones, Reichard & Mokharti, 2003; Kirton, 2003; Kolb, 1984).

Ford and Chen (2001) found that matching a student's learning style with a

faculty member's learning style improved student learning. However, Ford and Chen also

recognized that type of learning and other variables interact with the matching of similar

learning styles. Jensen (2000) connected scientific studies of the brain to teaching and

learning and wrote, "The whole notion of learning styles becomes irrelevant when we









consider how much variety the brain thrives on" (p.138). However, Jensen further wrote

that learners do have preferences of many learning styles and operate in those styles at

different levels. It is useful to understand aspects of a preferred style in order that

learning differences are realized.

This belief is concurrent with the most complete and thorough literature review

concerning learning styles to date (Coffield, Moseley, Hall & Ecclestone, 2004). In this

literature review, 71 learning styles were held up to criteria of psychometric properties,

theoretical backing and practical usage in the classroom. The authors agreed that even

though most learning style measures fall short of these criteria, each have strengths and

weaknesses. Realizing the complex nature of the brain, it is conceivable that more than

71 different learning styles do exist and further research will bring greater understanding

as to how these styles associate with learning. It is interesting to note that of the 71

learning styles reviewed by Coffield, Moseley, Hall and Ecclestone, only a number of

authors relied on related theories and concepts of learning and all used different

terminology, yet the term learning style and cognitive style encompass all measures of

preferred behaviors in learning. Coffield, Moseley, Hall and Ecclestone argue for more

collaborative research between learning style authors as findings may bring greater

understanding to the process of learning and student engagement.

It may be possible that a specific learning style is congruent with one of the eight

types of learning noted above by Gange (1965). For example, Kolb's (1984) measure of

learning style and process is harmonious with the learning of a principle. To learn a

principle a learner engages in a concrete experience, followed by self-reflection and

abstract conceptualization and ending with experimentation of that principle.









Furthermore, Kirton's (1976) measure of learning style is harmonious with learning from

problem solving. To learn from problem solving, a learner manipulates a principle and

interprets the meaning from the manipulation. For effective learning from a problem,

Pask (1976) claims the learner must use both holist and serialist cognitive styles.

Although Pask and Kirton measure cognitive style differently, they are much the same

when considering description and categorization (Cassidy, 2004). Both of these measures

of cognitive style are representative of problem solving style.

Other types of learning defined by Gange (1965) may be compatible with specific

learning styles. For example, the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) (Witkin,

Oltman, Raskin & Karp, 1971) measures whether an individual is either field independent

or field dependent by the individual's ability to identify embedded figures within

geometric shapes. The cognitive processes used to complete the GEFT gives some

evidence that field independence and field dependence is a style of concept learning

(Gange, 1965). Concept learning is defined as comparing and distinguishing properties of

similar items based on knowledge of those items (Gange). However, Witkin (1973) has

found that his measure of learning style does have implications for problem solving with

regards to the need for structure. Field dependent learners tend to prefer more structure in

learning while field independent learners prefer less structure. This corresponds to

Kirton's (2003) adaptive individuals who favor structure and innovative individuals who

prefer less structure in the effort of problem solving.

Learning Style and Learning Process

Most psychologists concur that learning occurs through a process or cycle.

Research of the brain has found five stages for effective learning (Jensen, 2000),

including preparation-background recall of information, acquisition-inputting









information, elaboration-experimentation and feedback, memory formation-encoding

through emotion and context, and functional integration-application of knowledge

(Jensen). It is easy to see these stages within other learning processes. Kolb (1984)

defines the process of learning a principle as a concrete experience with the principle to

be learned, followed by self-reflection and abstract conceptualization and ending with

active experimentation of that principle. Teaching and learning the problem solving

process includes the stages of problem identification, idea generation, idea evaluation and

implementation (Swartz & Perkins, 1990). Still, the process the student uses to gather

information dictates how the information is stored (Jensen, 2000; Piaget, 1970). That is, a

learner studying a principle will acquire knowledge of the principle, but not how to

manipulate the principle to solve a problem; knowledge to solve a problem must be

acquired from the process of problem solving learning.

Kirton (2003) argues that learning style is independent from the learning process,

a contradiction of Kolb's experiential learning theory and Kolb's measure of learning

style. Kirton empirically tested (de Ciantis & Kirton, 1996) his claim by conducting a

factor analysis on the Learning Style Questionnaire (Honey & Mumford, 1992), a

learning style measure congruent with principle learning. The Learning Style

Questionnaire was found as a more reliable version of Kolb's Learning Style Inventory.

Following factor analysis, comparisons were made with Kirton's Adaption-Innovation

Inventory to make the argument of independence between style and process. However, it

may not be sensible to compare a learning style of principle and a learning style of

problem solving as the two are of different learning processes. That is, a learning style of

problem solving may be independent of principle learning, but not independent of









problem solving learning. Furthermore, Kirton (2003) claims that adaptive learners have

preferences of inductive thinking methods leading to better problem representation, while

innovative learners tend to use deductive thinking methods to proliferate more ideas (p.

172). Again, both problem representation and idea generation are components of the

problem solving process. The process of learning and learning style may not be

completely independent as Kirton suggests. In addition to this, effective learning from

problem solving requires the learner to use cognitive techniques that correspond with

adaptiveness and innovativeness (Pask, 1976) while manipulating a principle to solve a

problem. If coping behavior is required for an individual to be more adaptive or

innovative, there is theoretical evidence that in problem solving learning stress is

inevitable and motivation is needed to complete the problem solving learning process.

Learning Style and Learning Level

Kirton (1994) further separates problem solving in terms of cognitive level and

cognitive style. Whereas cognitive style is fixed, innate and guides preferences of

structure for solving problems, cognitive level is the capability to solve problems at a

degree of complexity (Kirton). Examples of cognitive level include intelligence,

creativity, academic achievement, etc. Again, the separation of cognitive style from

cognitive level is the strength of A-I theory. The distinction and accurate measurement of

cognitive style allows for the precise measure of other variables such as student

intelligence, engagement, and motivation.

According to A-I theory, all people can creatively solve problems and have

original ideas (Goldsmith, 1994). However when solving problems, people who are more

adaptive tend to produce a smaller number of ideas with a narrower perspective that tend

to be more relevant, sound and useful while utilizing given rules. People who are more









innovative generate a larger number of original ideas of which many are different with

widely changing perspectives and tendencies to alter rules (Kirton, 1994). Both adaptive

and innovative people can adequately solve any problem, just within their own style.

Kirton's Cognitive Style

From the definitions of learning style (Claxton and Ralston, 1978) and cognitive

style (Messick, 1984) used in this study, Kirton's cognitive style was determined as a

style of learning. Additionally, Kirton's Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI) simply

measures style of problem solving and is not convoluted with factors of cognitive level,

cognitive affect or other types of learning (Gange, 1965). Three factors located on a

continuum of more adaptive to more innovative have been identified and determined as

preferential behaviors of an individual. Table 2-1 displays the factor traits of adaptors and

innovators.

Table 2-1. Factor Traits of Adaptors and Innovators
Construct Adaptor Innovator
Sufficiency Tendency to produce fewer ideas Tendency to produce more ideas
of originality aimed at being sound, useful and that are both relevant and
relevant to solving the problem. irrelevant to the problem with


Efficiency Preference for attention to detail
to further develop ideas while
narrowly focused on improving.


knowledge that some ideas are
inappropriate.

Preference for discontinuous
thought to modify the problem
with broad approaches to make
different.


Rules/Group Often applies group accepted Often challenges group accepted
conformity rules in idea formation to solve rules in idea formation to solve
problems. problems.

Note. Source: Kirton, 2003, p. 58-60.

The factor traits of A-I theory are "innate, fixed and reliably measured" (Kirton,

2003, p. 76). Each of the three factor traits lends to a perceived structure of the problem


t









at hand which determines the approach needed to solve the problem. The more adaptive

tend to work within the frame of structure. A more adaptive cognitive style rarely

challenges the boundaries of structure and solutions to the problem are focused with

detail to derive a better solution that improves efficiency. A more innovative cognitive

style breaks boundaries as if they never existed and solutions generated are often

unrelated in an effort to derive a different solution that transforms the structure itself

(Kirton). The perception of the structure from the framed problem determines the

response of the learner, providing for the use of a preferred cognitive style.

The Scale of Adaption and Innovation

A benefit of A-I theory and the KAI is the interval measure of difference between

two cognitive styles, providing a specific degree of separation between an individual's

cognitive style from another individual's cognitive style. This is opposed to a learning

style measured nominally and determined as categorically different; a model for many

learning style inventories. The KAI measures cognitive style by scoring adaptiveness and

innovativeness along a continuum (Kirton, 2003). Anchoring the more adaptive on the

left and the more innovative on the right of the continuum, an interval scale is created

amid a theoretical range of 32 to 160 (Kirton). However, the actual range is

approximately 45 to 145 with a mean of 95 (Kirton).

It is important to note that the terms adaptors and innovators are used only to

distinguish two differing cognitive styles, when in actuality, cognitive styles refer to

being more adaptive or more innovative in the context of a situation (Kirton). For

example, an individual may have a cognitive score of 125 distinguishing them as more

innovative, but this individual will be perceived as adaptive to an individual with a score

of 140.









Kirton (2003) suggests that a 10-point difference in score between two

individual's cognitive style, as measured by the KAI, develops a "noticeable difference"

when working together on a problem. The difference found between the two cognitive

styles is defined as cognitive style gap (Kirton). A 20-point cognitive style gap leads to

difficulties in mutual understanding and collaboration which may have a definitive effect

on communication when problem solving (Kirton). For an individual with this amount of

cognitive gap between one's preferred cognitive style and the style required to work with

a problem or another problem solver, coping behavior is needed and can exist in both

intensity and duration (Kirton). Coping behavior requires motivation (Walling, 1987) and

is psychologically expensive (Kirton, 2003).

When solving a problem, more adaptive individuals can use techniques such as

brainstorming which can be taught, however, they are not preferred and less likely to use

it in their natural environment. Innovative individuals, likewise can be taught to master

details and operate within rules, but would prefer the unstructured situation. Kirton

further suggests that practice of coping behavior does not make coping easier for that

person (Kirton, 2003, p. 255). This suggestion does limit the definition of learning used

in this study; however the suggestion is supported in the creativity literature. Few

researchers have been able to provide hard evidence that an individual can be taught to be

more innovative or more adaptive (Nickerson, 1999). Furthermore, there is evidence that

teaching an individual to use different problem solving techniques has little long term

effect (Nickerson). Cognitive style (Kirton, 2003) is fixed, innate, and determines an

individual's preference for structure within problem solving. There is no association with









cognitive style and nationality or age, however females tend to be five points more

adaptive then the general population mean (Kirton).

Summary of Learning and Learning Styles

Gange (1965) described eight different types of learning that are hierarchical in

nature. Of the eight types, learning from problem solving is the highest form of learning

with evidence of a problem solving process and problem solving style or cognitive style.

Kirton's measure of cognitive style is a preferred approach to solve problems and

independent from cognitive level (Goldsmith, 1994). However, both cognitive style and

cognitive level are utilized to complete the problem solving process. There is evidence

that other measures of learning style are specific to other types of learning defined by

Gange (1965) with evidence found in the learning process.

Coffield, Mosley, Hall and Ecclestone (2004) identified 71 different types of

cognitive styles with varying degrees of reliability and validity. Kirton's measure of

cognitive style was determined a reliable and valid measure of cognitive style (Kirton,

1999). Furthermore, the measure was found independent from measures of motivation

and capability (Kirton). Kirton's cognitive style determines if a person is more adaptive

or more innovative in one's preference to solve problems and is stable characteristics of

the individual. Along a continuum of adaption anchoring the left and innovation

anchoring the right an individual's cognitive style score is placed in a theoretical range of

32 to 160 (Kirton). Dissimilarity between the cognitive styles of two individuals is

determined by calculating the difference between two cognitive style scores. This

cognitive style gap indicates differences between preferred methods of solving problems

with stress as a consequence. Motivation may be utilized by the student to operate in a

different cognitive style than preferred and bridge cognitive gap (Kirton, 2003). A









cognitive gap larger than 20 points may inhibit communication (Kirton) between the

student and faculty member and may explain lack of student engagement.

Learning and Stress

College students may be influenced by stress positively or negatively (Sandler,

2000). That is, stress as a stimulus can provoke a negative or positive reaction to the

situation at hand. If a student has a positive reaction it is the fear of failure that motivates

this student to succeed, but a negative reaction will likely be detrimental to classroom

success. Given this variability of outcome from stress, little research has been conducted

with attention to stress associated specifically concerning the undergraduate classroom.

A word of caution is given regarding terminology and definition in discussing

stress. Coping behavior specific to the reaction to a stressor can be defined as a conscious

effort to deal with an event to which an individual has not yet developed automatic

patterns of response (Shields, 2001). In this document, reaction is used instead of the

word coping so that the reader does not confuse coping as a reaction to stress with coping

behavior defined by Kirton (2003).

A student's reaction to the stressor may determine if the stress is beneficial or

detrimental to the academic achievement of the student. In a study conducted to examine

this hypothesis, Aspinwall and Taylor (1992) surveyed 672 freshman undergraduates.

Their findings provide evidence that a positive mood, higher optimism and an active

reaction to stress orientation had positive effects on adjusting to new college experiences.

Furthermore, the reaction to stress construct avoidance had detrimental effects on the

adjustment to new college experiences. Hockey (1979) considered the role of stress in

aiding the selectivity of attention and response in performing a cognitive task. Hockey









elaborated that there may be an optimal level of stress for cognitive function although

determining this level is dependent on the components of the task.

Researchers have studied the detrimental effects of anxiety, a correlate of

academic stress (Misra and McKean, 2000). In countless studies, test anxiety has been

found to be detrimental to academic achievement and self-esteem (Pintrich & Schunk,

2002). Specifically, worry is a factor of anxiety that causes distractions resulting in time

lost being able to perform at the level the student is capable of achieving. Most of the

literature concerning anxiety focuses on this worry component and its influence on

students' attention and time on task in completing an assignment or test. Like stress,

anxiety is an affective component of Kirton's A-I theory.

Undergraduate students face many stress-causing experiences throughout the time

spent in completing a bachelor's degree. Among these experiences are moving away

from home, academics, finances and work and relationships (Pfeiffer, 2001). The

experiences themselves do not cause stress, but the student's perception and reaction

turns the experience into a stressor (Romano, 1992).

Studies have been conducted to determine the effects of specific interventions of

student stress, such as better time management. Again, none of the studies found by the

researcher dealt with techniques specifically used to improve academics or students'

relationships with faculty members.

Stress in the Classroom

The college environment is much different than the work environment, making

the study of college stress unique in the literature. Research of undergraduate student

stress has been conducted concerning the global stress of a college student as well as

academic stress restricted to the classroom. Academic stressors for undergraduate









students may include homework, unclear assignments, uncomfortable classrooms and

time pressure set by the faculty member (Ross, Niebling & Heckert, 1999). The most

common stressors of college students may be intrapersonal, including the change in

sleeping habits, change in eating habits and new responsibilities (p.317). However,

changes in the environment may also change types of stressors. That is, measuring stress

at different times during the year and at different times leading to the completion of a

degree may find different levels of stressors. Shields (2001) found that stress had

detrimental effects on grade point average during the fall semester, but not the winter

semester. Shields postulates that the effects of a stressor diminishes once students begin

to activate positive reactions to the stressor. Regarding academic stress, Ross, Niebling

and Heckert (1999) found that increased class workload and lower grades than

anticipated were the two most frequent reported stressors among undergraduate students.

Pfeiffer (2001) believes that these academic stressors can cause depression and low self-

confidence (p. 13).

In a study conducted to find the relationship between stressors, learning strategies

and test anxiety, Gadzella, Masten, and Stacks (1998) found that frustration was

negatively correlated (r=-.20, p<.05) with the learning strategy deep processing

(Schmeck, Ribich, Ramanaiah, 1977). That is, students do not become as frustrated when

they become more organized (Gadzella, Masten & Stacks, 1998). Surprisingly, this study

found no significant correlations with factors of stressors and test anxiety.

Using Gadzella's Student-Life Stress Inventory (SSI), Misra and McKean (2000)

found that practices of time management lowered college student stress levels. However,

the Misra and McKean study contradicted the previously mentioned study by Gadzella,









Masten and Stacks (1998) and found significant positive correlations (p<.05) among

constructs of stress and general anxiety among the population of full-time undergraduate

students. Correlations between stress and anxiety should be positive as they both have a

worry component (Misra and McKean, 2000).

Felsten and Wilcox (1992) conducted a study to find the impact of stress on 146

college male's academic performance. After analysis they found that stress was a

detrimental effect on male's grade point average.

Shields (2001) conducted a study to examine the effects of stress and reactions to

stress among persisting and non-persisting undergraduate students. A persister is defined

as a full-time student enrolled in fall and winter semesters, while a non-persisting student

is one that enrolls in the fall semester but not the subsequent winter semester. The group

of study consisted of 220 persisters and 110 non-persisters and findings found that

persisters had significantly higher levels of stress than nonpersistors with no gender

difference. Stress was positively associated with reactive efforts to stress, and age among

persistors, but not nonpersisters. This gives evidence that full-time status or traditional

students have developed reactive efforts to stressors, but non-traditional students do not

develop these same reactive efforts (Shields). Finally with the use of regression, stress,

age and number of credit hours taken in the semester each had significant explanation of

student reaction to stress (Shields). Recognizing that stress affects students in the

classroom, it is necessary to examine the demographic variables related to stress.

Demographic Variables Related to Stress

Gadzella and Guthrie (1993) found that women undergraduate students tend to

have significantly higher levels in experiencing stress of both pressure and change.

Considering age, self-imposed stress was found to be highest among younger students









(16 to 18 years-old) and lowest in older students (31 to 57 years old) (Gadzella &

Fullwood, 1992). Moreover, young women experienced more self-imposed stress and

pressure than any age and gender combination (Gadzella & Fullwood).

Measurement of Stress

In the task of measuring stress, two types of instruments were found in the

literature. The first type lists possible stressors relevant to the situation of the student and

provides the research with either a count of stressors, or an indexed stress score with

certain stressors weighted more than others. Although this measure of stress objectively

attributes stress to the specific stressor, it ignores the interaction of the student with the

environment (Cohen, Kamarck & Mermelsein, 1983). That is, students may attribute

stress to a stressor without considering available resources to react to the stress.

Furthermore, for this type of stress instrument to be accurate a list of all possible stressors

must be presented to the student.

The second type of stress instruments measure perceived stress with regards to the

stressor, situation and ability to react to the stressor. This type of measure broadly

accounts for all stressors and provides a behavioral construct. However, perceived stress

instruments are limited as they may inadvertently measure chronic stress, or other sources

of stress (Cohen et al.). Research concerning perception of stress has found evidence that

"students often misattribute stress to the appropriate stressor" (p. 387). Given this

limitation, the measure of perceived stress is congruent with the definition of stress used

in this study. Again, stress is not a corollary of a particular stressor, but a result of the

student's perception and reaction to an experience (Romano, 1992).

To meet the objectives of this study, stress was measured specific only to the

classroom environment to which the instrument was administered. Again, the classroom









environment for problem solving is described as the social context to which individuals

interact with during the problem solving process (Kirton, 2003). This gave reason to use

an instrument that measured stress as perceived by the student and experienced in the

environment.

The researcher found that Gadzella's Student Life Stress Inventory (SSI) a valid

and reliable measure (Gadzella & Baloglu, 2001) of an undergraduate's perceived

classroom stress that could be adopted for use in this study. The theoretical framework

for the SSI comes from Morris (1990) and treats stress as a student experience, not just

stressor variables affecting students (Gadzella & Masten, 2005). Five stressors were

identified as experiential to undergraduate students and used in the SSI including: 1)

frustration-delays and failures in reaching academic goals, social acceptance and

disappointing grades, 2) conflict-one's choices among desirable and undesirable

outcomes in goal setting, 3) pressure-assessing class competition, deadlines, and

overload of assignments, 4) changes-unpleasant experiences and disruptive schedule

changes and 5) self-imposed-desire to compete, be loved by all, procrastinate finishing

assignments and anxiety during tests (p. 4). Each stressor forms a construct with items

using a five point Likert scale with one signifying never and five signifying most of the

time. Each stressor construct can be used individually or cumulatively for determining

total stress of the student. Chapter 3 further discusses how the SSI was modified to meet

the needs of the objectives for this study.

Summary of Learning and Stress

Stress is defined as an individual's perception and reaction to an experience that

requires an adjustment from normal life (Romano, 1992). Undergraduate students have

many unique stressors including moving away from home, academics, finances, work and









new relationships (Pfeiffer, 2001). Common academic stressors include increased

workload in a course and lower than expected grades received in a course (Ross, Niebling

and Heckert, 1999). Although stress in the form of anxiety was found to be detrimental to

academic achievement, an optimistic attitude may allow students to positively react to

stress (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992). Evidence was also found that young women

undergraduate students tend to experience more stress than other undergraduate students

(Gadzella & Fullwood, 1992).

The measurement of stress can be categorized by instruments measuring a count

of stressors or a perceived experience which accounts for the reaction to a situation. Both

types of measurement have strengths and limitations (Cohen et al.). This study utilized

the SSI (Gadzella & Baloglu, 2001), a perceived measure of stress which is limited in

ability to determine source of stress but provides a measured level of stress in the form of

a behavioral construct (Gadzella & Baloglu). The measurement of stress as an experience

rather than a specific stressor was found to be more compatible with Kirton's A-I theory.

Learning and Motivation

Concerning Kirton's (2003) theoretical framework applied to the undergraduate

classroom, motivation is identified as part of cognitive affect. Motivation and its

influence on learning is a well-researched phenomena with many more questions still

unanswered. Research has found that learning is dependent on motivation, but

interestingly the achievement of learning goals increases motivation to learn more

(Schunk, 1991). Pace (1980) found that knowledge gained from a course was positively

correlated with the amount of effort students provided for learning. Theories of

motivation in education that are considered prominent at the time of this writing can be

grouped by expectancy-value theories, attribution theories, social cognitive theories, goal









theories, and intrinsic-extrinsic theories, (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Although, these

theories each have their strengths, this study used an expectancy-value theory for the

motivation theoretical framework (Eccles, 1983). Expectancy-value theory was found to

be compatible with Kirton's (2003) definition of the environment. For example, a student

may perceive himself as capable (expectancy) of solving a problem and receive some

kind of reward (value) from execution of the solution. However, the faculty member also

provides feedback on the student's effort and solution to which the student will react. If

the student's perceived ability and reward are great enough, the student will be able to

solve a problem despite cognitive style gap (Kirton, 2003). Furthermore, there is

evidence that expectancy beliefs are related to student engagement and value beliefs are

related to opportunities of future student engagement (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). The

following is a short description of the expectancy-value theory with empirical studies to

support its importance to learning.

Expectancy-Value Theory

Current expectancy-value models have been adapted from Atkinson's (1957)

expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation and now provide the clearest

explanation to students' motivation in the classroom (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002).

However, much is still to be learned about motivation as no motivation theory has been

universally accepted by educational psychologists. The premise of expectancy-value

theory is that the learner is motivated by two components: 1) their perceived ability and

effort expected to be needed in accomplishing a goal (expectancy) and 2) the amount of

value or reward the learner places on attaining the same goal (value). These two

components will be further broken down and discussed theoretically and empirically.









The expectancy component

In this study the expectancy component consists of control of learning beliefs and

self-efficacy. The belief is that a positive increase of an expectancy component will

promote learning. A student's belief of their control in learning, or locus of control, is a

main component of many expectancy-value theories. Students who believe they are in

control (internal) of the learning succeed over students who explain away their control

(external) of learning to other factors (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Research has found

some evidence that control of learning beliefs change from externally to internally while

attending college, with the greatest change found in students involved in honors programs

(Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Research conducted to understand control of learning

beliefs was prominent between the 1960's and 1970's. After this period of time authors

moved on to answer other questions concerning motivation. Still, control of learning

belief is an important part of many expectancy-value theories and the measurement of

motivation.

Self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) is accepting one has the capability to complete a

task or goal. Bandura (1994) states the four sources of self-efficacy include mastery of

challenging experiences, vicarious observation of a peer, verbal praise and reducing

stress. As it relates to social-cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), self-efficacy affects

behavior and environment, but is also an effect of behavior and environment.

Furthermore, there is evidence that self-efficacy may influence the student's choice of

which problem to solve (Schunk, 2000). Referring to expectancy-value motivation in the

context of student engagement, student self-efficacy may affect a student's choice to

solve a problem while expectations of the student and the teacher raise the value placed

on the solution.









Research has shown that higher levels of self-efficacy have a significant effect on

students' persistence in completing a challenging task, academic performance and self-

regulated learning (Zimmerman, 2000). Linnenbrink and Pintrich (2003) reviewed

several studies regarding self-efficacy and claim a student with high self-efficacy will be

more cognitively engaged through the use of higher order thinking skills and

metacognitive strategies. In other research, Abouserie's (1994) findings supported the

negative relationship between self-esteem and the variables of stress and anxiety. He

elaborated that the major cause of test anxiety is the possibility of being found

incompetent; a bash to a learner's self-efficacy.

The literature indicates there is a domain specific nature to students' self-efficacy.

For example, academic self-efficacy was found to account for 21% of the variance in

predicting students' course grades (Choi, 2005); however global self-efficacy was not

found to be a significant predictor of academic achievement (p. 202).

Many authors have examined self-efficacy, self-esteem, and locus of control and

implications these traits have on learning. Though each of these expectancy components

have their own attributes (Ajzen, 2002) they have many of the same core constructs and

may be more alike than different (Judge, Erez, Bono & Thoresen, 2002).

The value component

The value components of expectancy-value theory consists of intrinsic

motivation, extrinsic motivation and task value constructs, all of which assign reward on

attainment of a goal. The belief regarding the relationship between these value

components and learning is simply that an increase of value in completing a learning goal

leads to an increase in learning.









Intrinsic motivation is defined as accomplishing a task for no reward except for

internal feelings that result from completing a task (Deci, 1975). Extrinsic motivation is

accomplishing a task for the benefit gained from a separate outcome (Deci & Ryan,

1985). Although intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is separate and distinct there is some

evidence that the two operate on a continuum. For example, a young boy may be

extrinsically motivated to learn how to play the violin as his music teacher rewards

successful learning with grades, extra-credit points or time off from their regularly

scheduled practice. As time moves on, the boy starts to find enjoyment in playing the

violin and will play more just for the sake of playing. The boy moved from being

extrinsically motivated to intrinsically motivated. This was empirically tested by Ryan

and Connell (1989) and concluded that this continuum does exist by examining

relationships among different types of extrinsic motivation and change in specific

attitudes.

Generally in the literature extrinsic motivation has been considered detrimental to

learning and the level to which students solve problems. However, extrinsic motivation

can be beneficial to learning if used in the correct manner. For example in problem

solving, if a student is told how a solution will be evaluated and rewarded, extrinsic

motivation positively influences engagement in the problem solving process (Collins &

Amabile, 1999). Furthermore, an extrinsic reward offered to a student before beginning

the problem solving process may increase level of problem solving if there is no

contingency contract (Collins & Amabile). In another study, Hennessey and Zbikowski

(1993) attempted to educate students about the negative effects of extrinsic motivation.

The results found that after these students were extrinsically rewarded to solve a problem,









there was no negative influence from the extrinsic reward. More research is needed to

understand the positive influences of extrinsic motivation, especially if students are often

motivated extrinsically and gradually become more intrinsically motivated over time.

A review of the literature finds disagreement in the definition of task value

motivation and how it is utilized in different expectancy-value motivation models. Task

value motivation sometimes incorporates intrinsic and extrinsic interests and is

sometimes referred to as incentive motivation (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Other

researchers refer to task value as a level of importance placed on a task (Battle, 1965)

which is how task value is defined in this study. Considering the importance of task value

to learning, Feather (1988) found task value to be specific to a college student's academic

major. For example, a student with a high task value in math had higher perceptions of

their ability in math, as well as an increase of personal values concerning achievement in

math.

Affective motivation

Affective motivation is not a component of expectancy value theory, but is

becoming more common in recent models of motivation as researchers explore the role of

emotion in motivating students. It is included here because the measure of motivation

chosen by the researcher included an affective component identified as test anxiety.

Throughout the literature, there is evidence that test anxiety is detrimental to academic

achievement and learning (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia & McKeachie, 1991). The two main

components of test anxiety are worry and emotion. Some evidence suggests that emotions

cause worry making test anxiety a behavioral construct (Hembree, 1988). Treatment of

students' test anxiety is best provided by reducing worry and the emotionality associated

with the test. This has shown to increase academic performance (Hembree).









Demographic Variables Related to Motivation

Motivation is an unstable consequence of the situation perceived by the individual

and therefore considered contextual or situational (Paris & Turner, 1994). Motivation

continues to change as a learner assesses and reassesses their ability to accomplish the

task and the value of the reward upon accomplishing the task. Demographic variables

such as age, gender, ethnicity, etc. are always factored in the individual's assessment of

the situation and their capability of success in the situation. The environment of the

classroom does allow for all learners to be in the same situation, but the learner

continually constructs motivation (Paris & Turner) making motivation highly

individualized and difficult to generalize to specific demographics.

Measurement of Motivation

The wide variety of motivational theories has led to the development of many

instruments to measure motivation. To meet the objectives of this study and to remain

consistent with expectancy-value theory, the Motivated Strategies for Learning

Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia & McKeachie, 1991) was used to

determine motivation of each student specific to the class to which the instrument was

administered.

The MSLQ was designed specifically to measure undergraduate student

motivation for self-regulated learning. The three components of the instrument include an

expectancy component with items related to student beliefs of ability in performing a

task, a value component with items concerning goals and reasons for completing a task,

and an affective component which includes items regarding emotional reactions to the

task (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990).









The three components of the MSLQ can be further broken down into six scales of

motivation that can be used independently or cumulatively (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia,

McKeachie, 1991). The value component comprises three scales: intrinsic goal

orientation-participating in a task for reasons of challenge, curiosity or mastery, extrinsic

motivation-participating in a task for good grades, rewards or competition and task

value-an evaluation of the importance of the task (Pintrich et al.). The expectancy

component of the MSLQ has two scales which include control of learning beliefs-a belief

that results hinge on self and effort will provide positive results, and self-efficacy for

learning and performance-an appraisal and judgment of ability to complete a task

(Pintrich et al.). The affective component has one scale identified as test anxiety which

includes student performance and the resulting emotion (Pintrich et al.). It is important to

note that the MSLQ includes an affective component in measuring student motivation,

but there is no affective component in expectancy-value theory. Affective motivation, the

motivation scales that identify emotions, has increasingly been recognized in the

literature during the last 20 years and found to be incorporated into more cognitive

motivation models. More research is needed to understand how emotions play a part in

student motivation to learn.

In a study conducted to determine how the components of the MSLQ relate to

cognitive engagement of students, Pintrich and De Groot (1990) found that self-efficacy

and intrinsic orientation were both positively correlated with cognitive engagement and

academic performance. Test anxiety was not found to be correlated with cognitive

engagement, but did have a significant negative correlation with self-efficacy. The

affective scale of test anxiety was found to be either detrimental or show no relationship









with effort given to the task at hand (Pintrich & De Groot). Given that test anxiety is

composed of worry and resulting emotion, one can easily see the similarities between

stress and test anxiety. Furthermore, positive reactions to test anxiety may have the same

effect that they have on student stressors. Chapter 3 gives more detail as to how the

MSLQ was used to meet the objectives of this study.

Summary of Learning and Motivation

Expectancy value theories of motivation provide insight to how students are

motivated to achieve academic success (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). This theory of

motivation was established as compatible with Kirton's (2003) cognitive affect as it

relates to the environment in which individuals interact and react during the problem

solving process. The expectancy component of the motivation theory refers to a

perceived ability in accomplishing a learning goal while the value component refers to

the reward placed on accomplishing the same goal (Eccles, 1983). As a student

consistently assesses and reassesses the ability to accomplish this goal and the value

placed on achieving success, motivation becomes situational and individualized (Paris &

Turner, 1994).

Evidence supports the assertion that motivation is necessary for learning and

motivation increases after a learning goal is achieved (Schunk, 1991). Research has

indicated that student engagement was positively correlated with measures of self-

efficacy and intrinsic motivation (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Although extrinsic

motivation was considered in the literature as detrimental to learning and student

engagement, extrinsic motivation was found to positively influence engagement in the

problem solving process when used without a contingency contract (Collins & Amabile,









1999). More research is warranted to distinguish between the harmful and useful

practices of providing extrinsic motivation to facilitate student engagement.

This study measured student motivation with the MSLQ (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia

& McKeachie, 1991) which included the following motivation scales: control of learning,

self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, task value and test anxiety.

Although test anxiety was not part of expectancy-value theory, it was a scale found in the

MSLQ and was included in the study given that affective motivational theories have been

increasingly found in the literature.

Learning and Engagement

Astin (1984) developed a theory of student involvement to help guide future

research in the area of student development and learning in completing an undergraduate

degree. In his writing, Astin explained the tie between student engagement and

motivation as "sharing a common psychological construct" (p. 522). Realizing the

importance of motivation, he also discussed students' time as a resource. Astin's theory

states that student effort and time are two resources required for student engagement in

learning. That is, an increase in effort and time by the student to accomplish a learning

goal will increase student learning. Astin concludes that "students' time and effort are

limited and exhausted" (p. 523) on activities related to college and also life. Astin's

theory also identifies contributors to student engagement, which guided the development

of the National Survey for Student engagement (NSSE), the measure of student

engagement in this study.

The roles that faculty members play as advisors and teachers have incredible

influence on undergraduate students. Even in informal situations, faculty members can

become positive role models for students, influencing attitudes and values (Pascarella,









1980). The importance of the faculty member cannot be denied in contributing to student

engagement in the classroom and therefore facilitating academic success. The study of

student engagement involves identifying the practices used by faculty members to

increase learning and personal development and then surveying students to determine if

those practices are being used. The following is a review of the literature regarding how

the faculty member can influence learning.

The Influence of Faculty Members

Umbach and Wawrzynski (2005) conclude that "the single most important" factor

in student development and classroom engagement is the faculty member. Whittington

(1998) however, has found that faculty members in colleges of agriculture typically teach

with methods that only require lower level thinking skills of the students and is

detrimental to student classroom engagement. However, many colleges and universities

now provide resources to help faculty members improve their instructional discourse. A

replication of Whittington's study is needed to determine if faculty members still teach at

lower cognitive levels.

In a study conducted to examine the relationship between student-faculty

interaction and students' critical thinking skills, Smith's (1977) findings provide evidence

that there is a positive relationship. Specifically, increases in critical thinking ability were

positively correlated among variables of class participation with the faculty member as

well as participation with other students in the class (Smith).

Increasing student engagement is more than just keeping students busy in the

learning process. Schlechty (2002) claims that the amount of time a faculty member

dedicates to improving the quality of assignments is directly related to student

engagement. Many studies have been conducted examining different instructional









techniques, distance education methods of instructional delivery, and uses of technology

and their impact on student academic achievement and engagement while controlling for

learning style. Most of these studies conclude that students have different styles of

learning and that teachers should use a variety of teaching approaches to meet learning

style needs of all students. As most good teachers incorporate a variety of instructional

techniques already, the significance of learning style theory has found little practical

application in the classroom (Coffield, Moseley, Hall & Ecclestone, 2004).

The literature revealed similar conclusions comparing the problem solving

teaching approach to the content based approach. Dyer and Osborne (1996) examined the

use of the two teaching approaches in a quasi-experimental design studying secondary

students enrolled in agriculture. Using the Group Embedded Figures Test (Witkin,

Oltman, Raskin & Karp, 1971) to measure learning style, they found that controlling for

teaching approach, neither field independent or field dependent students had significantly

higher achievement scores. However, they also found that field independent learners had

higher problem solving scores on non-agriculturally based problems. Though their

findings were limited, they also concluded that different instructional strategies should be

used to facilitate the learning of all students (Witkin et al.).

Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) summarize teacher/teaching attributes that are

effective for student learning. They include: command of subject matter, enthusiasm of

subject, clear explanation of concepts, efficient structure of class time, use of examples

and analogies in presenting new concepts, avoiding vagueness, and having good rapport

with students (Pascarella and Terenzini).









Realizing the tie between motivation and student engagement, Paris and Turner

(1994) identified four teaching techniques to increase student motivation to learn, which

include: allowing students to choose a course of action, providing academic challenge,

giving students control of achieving the learning objective, and allowing students to

collaborate in the problem solving process.

Demographic variables related to engagement

Pascarella and Terenzini (1978) conducted a study to examine the academic

performance and social development of student-faculty informal interaction (N=528).

Concerning the relationship between gender, academic major, ethnicity and parents' level

of education, no significant correlations were found among measures of academic

performance, personal development and intellectual development. The study was

replicated in 1980 and conclusions were consistent (Terenzini and Pascarella, 1980).

However, there is evidence that student engagement may be related to student

demographics. For example, a female student may be more influenced by a woman

faculty member than by a male faculty member (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Pike

(2004) measured engagement with the NSSE and found that females exhibit a higher

level of academic challenge and students of different disciplines have different levels of

engagement. Pike did not find students' age a correlate of student engagement when

examining students over that age of 24. However, as students progress in attaining their

degree, student engagement increases (Kuh, 2001). That is, as students' classification

moves from freshman to senior, students tend to be more engaged in learning.

Measurement of Engagement

The operational framework of this study places student engagement as a product

or end result of the interaction between student and faculty member behavior. Many









studies of learning styles use final grade or academic achievement as the dependent

variable in order to demonstrate the practical contribution that a specific learning style

has in the classroom. However, as undergraduate classrooms become more student

centered (Acharya, 2002; Lunde, Baker, Buelow & Hayes, 1995; Study Group on the

Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education, 1984), there is greater need to

identify variables related to student engagement. Student engagement is often determined

with constructs of academic challenge, collaborative learning and student-faculty

interaction (Kuh, 2001). Each construct is dependent on the teaching practices of the

faculty member and requires communication between the faculty member and student

(Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005). If a dissimilar learning style between the faculty

member and the student inhibits communication during the process of learning, evidence

should be found in the variance of student engagement scores. That is, a large cognitive

style gap may explain why students do not show evidence of engagement in the

classroom.

Also, if a faculty member uses subjective evaluations (rubrics) of student projects

and assignments-which are commonly used to evaluate the solution to a problem-the

final course grade is also subjective and biased. That is, a faculty member may prefer

solutions to assigned problems that are congruent with their learning style. The researcher

found no evidence in the literature concerning instructors' evaluation biases based on

learning style, but that does not suggest that this may exist.

Finally, the use of academic achievement as a dependant variable, whether in the

form of a percentile or letter grade assigned by the faculty member, may subject the study

to measurement error. There is evidence that faculty members inflate students grades for









the purpose of receiving tenure and promotion (Germain & Scandura, 2005).

Furthermore, student engagement is highly correlated with grade point average and other

measures of academic achievement (Kuh, 2001). Given the previous discussion, the

researcher found student engagement a more objective and accurate measure of learning

and interaction between the student and faculty member.

A remarkable increase in the study of student engagement in the undergraduate

classroom came after the release of Involvement in Learning (Study Group on the

Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education, 1984), which called for the use

of teaching strategies that increase student learning in higher education. Since then,

researchers have sought to identify empirically based practices that impact learning and

develop effective measures to determine students' level of engagement. The National

Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) was designed to assess student engagement

among colleges across the nation. Scales of the NSSE form "benchmarks" in order that

colleges can compare the teaching practices of their faculty members to the teaching

practices of other faculty members across the nation (Kuh, Hayek, Carini, Ouimet,

Gonyea & Kennedy, 2001). The instrument was found to be stable and psychometrically

solid with evidence of validity and reliability (Kuh, 2001). Additionally, the NSSE has

been positively correlated with undergraduate student grade point average, critical

thinking, quality of learning and GRE scores (Kuh).

The NSSE was developed through an extensive literature review of classroom

activities and teaching practices that lead to valuable student outcomes (Kuh, Hayek,

Carini, Ouimet, Gonyea & Kennedy, 2001). Three of the five benchmarks measured by

the NSSE were specific to learning and engagement in a classroom. They include









academic challenge, active learning and student-faculty interaction. Two other

benchmarks measured engagement relevant to the college, including enriching

educational experiences and supportive campus environment. As the latter two

benchmarks were relevant to the college and not the classroom, they were not utilized in

this study. Said differently, they were not measuring engagement practices directly

attributed to the student and the faculty member.

The NSSE benchmarks of interest are described as follows: level of academic

challenge-time spent preparing for class, amount of reading and writing, and use of

higher order thinking skills; active learning-participating in class and working

collaboratively with other students inside and outside the classroom and student-faculty

interaction-talking with the faculty member, discussing ideas outside of class with the

faculty member, getting feedback from the faculty member, and conducting research with

the faculty member (Kuh, Hayek, Carini, Ouimet, Gonyea & Kennedy, 2001, p. 5). More

detail of the NSSE is provided in Chapter 3.

Summary of Learning and Engagement

Student's have a limited amount of time and effort to apply in accomplishing a

learning goal (Astin, 1984). However, faculty members may be the "single most

important" factor in engaging the student to learn. Although the student is responsible for

engaging in learning, the faculty member is accountable for facilitating student

engagement. The study of student engagement primarily entails identifying teaching

practices that increase student engagement and surveying students to determine if

teaching practices are being used.

Many researchers have examined the relationship learning styles have with

academic achievement. However, an emphasis on increasing student engagement (Lunde,









Baker, Buelow & Hayes, 1995) gave reason to examine if dissimilar learning styles

between faculty member and student can contribute to the literature regarding student

engagement. Furthermore, student engagement as measured by the NSSE may serve as a

more objective dependent variable than academic achievement. Student engagement is

closely tied to learning and academic achievement (Kuh, 2001).



Summary

Chapter 2 explains Kirton's Adaption-Innovation theory as applied to the

undergraduate classroom providing a theoretical framework for this study. The

framework was derived from Kirton's Adaption-Innovation theory which may provide

insight to how dissimilar cognitive styles explain student engagement. Other major

sections of this chapter included: Learning and Learning Styles, Learning and Stress,

Learning and Motivation, and Learning and Engagement.

This review of the literature found ties between problem solving learning and

Kirton's measure of cognitive style. Although Kirton's cognitive style has been applied

in many contexts including business and management of change, little research has been

conducted to examine if it is appropriate in explaining student engagement in the

undergraduate classroom.

There is a need for more research considering the variable stress as it relates to

learning and student engagement in the undergraduate classroom. Specifically, why do

more adaptive courses have higher levels of stress and how does this contribute to student

engagement? However, research has consistently found motivation to significantly

contribute to learning, yet few studies have examined both stress and motivation while

controlling for an instructor with a dissimilar learning style from that of students.






63


Student engagement in a course is largely dependent on teaching practices of the

faculty member. The amount of structure preferred by faculty members can be

determined by identifying their cognitive style. However, students may have different

cognitive styles than the faculty member and prefer either more or less structure in

learning from problem solving. As student engagement is closely tied to students'

academic success, it is critical to consider if dissimilar cognitive styles between students

and the faculty member can explain variance in student engagement.














CHAPTER 3
METHODS

Chapter 1 introduced the theory of learning styles, the appropriateness of Kirton's

Adaption-Innovation (A-I) theory for the classroom, and the need for increasing student

engagement in undergraduate classrooms. A point was also made that the literature

contains many types of learning styles with varying degrees of reliability and validity.

However, Kirton's (2003) measure of learning style is valid and reliable and distinct from

cognitive level. Finally, definitions of key terms, purpose of the study, and objectives of

the study were presented.

Chapter 2 presented the theoretical and conceptual frameworks of the study.

Included were the following topics with attention given to theory and empirical evidence:

a) learning and learning styles, b) learning and stress, c) learning and motivation, and d)

learning and student engagement. Theoretical evidence was provided that Kirton's (2003)

measure of learning style is compatible with problem solving learning (Gange, 1965) and

may provide insight to why some students lack classroom engagement.

This chapter provides information concerning the methodology of the study. More

specifically, details were given concerning the research design, target population,

instrumentation, data collection procedures, and data analysis procedures.

The purpose of this study was to determine if relationships exist between

cognitive style gap, student stress, student motivation, student engagement and selected

demographic variables of undergraduate students at the University of Florida in the

College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. The objectives of the study were to: 1)









Describe selected faculty and students according to their selected demographic variables;

2) Determine the cognitive style, student stress, student motivation, and student

engagement of undergraduate students; 3) Determine the cognitive style gap between

faculty and students and to explore its relationship with student stress, student motivation,

student engagement and specific demographic variables of undergraduate students; 4)

Explain undergraduate student stress and student motivation based on cognitive style gap

and selected student demographic variables and 5) Explain undergraduate student

engagement based on cognitive style gap, student stress, student motivation and selected

student demographic variables.

Research Design

The researcher used an ex post facto design one (Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh, 2002)

to accomplish the objectives of the study. This design allows for the control and measure

of the independent variable(s) to test hypotheses concerning variation in the dependent

variable(s). Cognitive style is inherent, stable, and measurable as an interval score along a

continuum allowing for the precise measure of dissimilarity between two individual's

cognitive styles. The literature gave little guidance concerning A-I theory's application to

the context of the undergraduate classroom concerning relationships with dependent

variables. Thus, this empirical design was deemed most appropriate.

For objective one, student demographic variables were measured with items in the

National Survey of Student Engagement 2005 (NSSE) (Kuh, Hayek, Carini, Ouimet,

Gonyea & Kennedy, 2001) and included: age, gender, major, college classification, full-

time status, and number of classes taken with similar content as the class. Lastly, students

were asked to give the number of problem sets that had taken more than an hour to

complete during a typical week. This question was not used in data analysis, but was used









to validate that problem solving does exist in the classes used in this study. Faculty

members were asked questions regarding age, gender, years of teaching experience, and

academic department. Faculty members also provided the researcher with syllabi and

additional information to describe the course. Finally, participating faculty members were

administered Kirton's Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI) (Kirton, 1999) to determine

their cognitive style. Descriptive statistics were used to report determined values.

For objective two, four instruments were administered to nine undergraduate

student classes to determine each student's cognitive style, stress, motivation and

engagement in their respective course. The KAI provided a measure of each student's

cognitive style. Level of student stress experienced in the classroom was determined

using the Student-life Stress Inventory (SSI) (Gadzella & Baloglu, 2001). The Motivated

Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia & McKeachie,

1991) was administered to measure student motivation in the classroom. The NSSE was

used to determine student engagement. Descriptive statistics were used to report

determined values.

For objective three, cognitive style gap was calculated by subtracting faculty

members' cognitive style scores from each student's cognitive style scores as measured

by the KAI. The same procedure was used to determine gaps within the constructs of

cognitive style. These calculated values were used to find correlations with constructs of

stress, motivation, engagement and selected student demographic variables. Objective

three was accomplished using bivariate correlation.

For objective four, dependent variables including student stress, student

motivation, and student engagement were each separately explained by the independent









variables including cognitive style construct gaps and student demographic variables.

Objective four was accomplished using backward stepwise multiple linear regression

For objective five, independent variables including cognitive style construct gaps,

student motivation, student stress and selected student demographic variables were used

to explain the dependent variable student engagement. Objective five was accomplished

using backward stepwise multiple linear regression.

Population

This study utilized nine purposefully chosen class groups in the College of

Agriculture and Life Sciences at the University of Florida. Since direction and degree of

cognitive style gap was dependent on the cognitive style of the faculty member, courses

were selected based on a faculty member's cognitive style: a) three faculty members with

similar adaptive cognitive style scores, b) three faculty members with similar cognitive

style score approximating 95, and c) three faculty members with similar innovative

cognitive style scores.

Researchers have found little evidence that class size influences undergraduate

student achievement (Williams, Cook, Quinn & Jensen, 1985). However, Cuseo (2004)

found the optimum class size for student engagement at approximately 15 students with

no evidence provided in the literature to support a linear or asymptotic relationship. The

literature supports small class sizes for the retention of knowledge, student participation,

and critical thinking (McKeachie, Chism, Menges, Svinicke & Weinstein, 1994), but

there is no agreement on what number of students constitutes a small class. Most studies

consider 50 or more students as a large class (Cuseo, 2004). A sample size of 46 is

needed to attain a power of .70 (a=.05, R2=.20) with the use of four independent

variables (Ary, Jacobs & Razavieh, 2002). The researcher found from previous









experience of administering the KAI to students at the University of Florida that

mortality rate approximates 40%, which is lower than Kirton's (1999) estimated 20%

mortality rate for this type of population. The researcher determined a cognitive style

score as unusable using guidelines provided by Kirton (1999). Given the high mortality

rate of the KAI, the researcher sought out classes with nearly 65 students. However the

researcher found that many courses in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at the

University of Florida were either below 50 students or approximated 100 students.

Therefore the researcher chose classes that approximated 100 students realizing the

limitations of large class sizes having less student engagement (McKeachie et al., 1994).

Finally, instructional techniques employed by the faculty members often promote

student centered classrooms providing for student engagement (McKeachie et al.). For

this reason, a review of prospective course syllabi and assignments was conducted by the

researcher to purposefully select courses conducive for student engagement. Specifically,

the researcher examined these documents for evidence that courses required students to

attend class in order to be successful in the course. The researcher was not concerned

with a percentage of the final grade requiring attendance, but examined if assignments

and projects provided reason for students to attend class. Furthermore, since the KAI is a

measure of problem solving style, courses selected for this study required the use of

problem solving assignments. A problem was defined in this study as a desire or felt need

for a solution, but not immediately knowing the mental operations to arrive at the

solution (Soden, 1994).









Instrumentation

Four instruments were utilized to collect the data and complete the objectives of

the study. The following is a description of the instrument and its constructs, as well as

assessments of validity, and reliability.

Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory

The Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI) was developed by Kirton

(1976) as a measure of cognitive style unrelated to cognitive ability and cognitive affect.

Appendix D provides example items concerning the KAI and contact information to

acquire permission to use the instrument. The KAI is a self-reported instrument

consisting of 33 items, with one item not relevant in determining cognitive style. In

distinguishing more adaptive individuals from more innovative individuals, items

delineate a theoretical total range of 32 (highly adaptive) to 160 (highly innovative)

(Kirton, 1999). However, the actual total range is approximately 45 to 145 with a general

population mean of 95 (Kirton). For possible ranges of cognitive style construct scores,

Kirton reported the following: sufficiency of originality (17 to 63), efficiency (7 to 33)

and rule/group conformity (14 to 56).

Individuals taking the KAI were asked "How easy or difficult do you find it to

present yourself, consistently, over a long period as:" followed by a list of personal

characteristics. Individuals then mark an "X" on a continuum of "Very Hard" and "Very

Easy". Construct scores were calculated by summing respective items and total scores

were calculated by summing construct scores.

The KAI measured the cognitive style of the students and faculty members

through the constructs of sufficiency of originality, efficiency, and rule/group conformity.

Cognitive style gap was then calculated using the difference of total and construct









cognitive style scores of the faculty member from the student. Reliability of the KAI was

determined with Cronbach's alpha coefficient (Kirton, 1999). Validity of the KAI was

established through correlations with personality assessments (criterion validity), lack of

correlations with assessments of cognitive level (criterion validity), and factor analysis

(construct validity) (Kirton). The researcher is a certified practitioner of the KAI. See

Table 3-1 for construct and reliability information concerning the KAI.

Table 3-1. Construct Reliability of Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory
Construct No. of items Mean SD a
Sufficience of originality 13 41 9 .83
Efficiency 7 19 6 .76
Rule/Group conformity 12 35 9 .83
Total KAI 32 95 18 .88
Note. Source: (Kirton, 1999).

Student-life Stress Inventory

The second instrument administered to students was the Student-life Stress

Inventory (SSI) developed by Gadzella (1994). Appendix E provides example items

concerning the SSI and contact information to acquire permission to use the instrument.

The SSI is a self-reported instrument designed for college students and comprised of two

parts: perceived stress (5 scales, 23 items) and reactions to stress (4 scales, 28 items).

Items were in the form of statements of which participants responded to five-point Likert

scales with numbers signifying responses of "never", "seldom", "occasionally", "often",

and "most of the time". Construct scores of stressors were calculated by summing the

items per each scale and include frustrations, conflicts, pressures, changes, and self-

imposed. The total stress score had a possible range from 23 to 115 and possible ranges

of constructs were frustration (7 to 35), conflicts (3 to 15), pressures (4 to 20), changes (3









to 15) and self-imposed (6 to 30). Total stress scores were calculated by summing

constructs scores.

The researcher determined constructs related to reactions to stress including

physiological, emotional, behavioral, and cognitive appraisal, unimportant for this study

as they measured physical and psychological responses to stress and not level of stress.

Therefore, these were removed from the instrument prior to data collection. Furthermore,

item number six was removed from the frustration construct as it was not related to stress

between the faculty member and the student. Stems of the items were altered to include

the words "in this course" to facilitate the measurement of stress specific to the course of

which the instrument was administered.

The SSI was used with permission. The SSI was assessed for reliability with

Cronbach's alpha coefficients and validity through confirmatory factor analysis

(construct validity) (Gadzella & Baloglu, 2001). See Table 3-2 for descriptive

information regarding constructs and reliability of the SSI.

Table 3-2. Construct Reliability of Student-life Stress Inventory
Construct No. of items Mean SD a
tTotal Stressors 23 70.09 11.53 .92
Frustrations 7 17.65 3.87 .70
tConflicts 3 8.43 1.91 .68
tPressures 4 14.08 2.83 .80
tChanges 3 8.03 2.39 .86
tSelf-imposed 6 21.82 3.78 .63
Total Reactions to Stressors 28 67.19 13.32 .75
Physiological 14 31.07 8.32 .86
Emotional 4 12.17 3.51 .82
Behavioral 8 11.47 4.32 .71
Cognitive appraisal 2 6.01 1.98 .82
Total SSI 51 137.28 20.98 .92
Note. Source: (Gadzella & Baloglu, 2001). t Signifies construct was used for this study.









Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire

The third instrument administered to students was the Motivated Strategies for

Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) developed by Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, and McKeachie

(1991). Appendix F provides example items concerning the MSLQ and contact

information to acquire permission to use the instrument. The MSLQ is a self-reported

instrument consisting of two components: motivation orientation (6 scales, 31 items) and

use of learning strategies (9 scales, 50 items). Students taking the questionnaire are asked

to rate themselves on seven point Likert scale items anchored by "not at all true of me"

and "very true of me". Constructs of the MSLQ motivation orientation included scales of

value components, expectancy components, and affective components. The total possible

range of the MSLQ motivational orientation was 6 to 42 with all construct scores ranging

from 1 to 7. Scores were calculated by summing items related to the construct and

dividing by the number of items.

Learning strategy scales of the MSLQ include cognitive and meta-cognitive

strategies, and resource management strategies. The researcher determined that the

learning strategy scales were unnecessary for this study and were removed from the

instrument prior to data collection. The learning strategy scales were a measure of

cognitive engagement (Pintrich et al.) which is highly correlated with student

engagement. Furthermore, the researcher found the items biased towards being more

adaptive in respect to A-I theory.

The MSLQ was specifically designed to be administered to college students

enrolled in a college course and to be flexible to the needs of the researcher. The 15

scales of the MSLQ can be used either cumulatively or individually. It was developed

over nine years with the developers assessing validity through factor analysis (construct









validity) and correlations with other instruments and final grade scores (criterion validity)

(Pintrich et al., 1991). Internal reliability was assessed by the developers with

Chronbach's alpha coefficients (Pintrich et al.). The MSLQ was used with permission.

See Table 3-3 for information describing the constructs and reliability of the MSLQ.

Table 3-3. Construct Reliability of Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
Construct No. of items Mean SD a
tTotal Motivation Scale 31 30.46 *
Value
Intrinsic goal motivation 4 5.05 1.41 .74
tExtrinsic goal motivation 4 5.03 1.23 .62
tTask value 6 5.54 1.25 .90
Expectancy
tControl of learning beliefs 4 5.74 0.98 .68
tSelf-efficacy for learning 8 5.47 1.14 .93
Affective
tTest anxiety 5 3.63 1.45 .80

Total Learning Strategies Scale 50 39.13 *
Cognitive and meta-cognitive strat.
Rehearsal 4 4.53 1.35 .69
Elaboration 6 4.91 1.08 .76
Organization 4 4.14 1.33 .64
Critical thinking 5 4.16 1.28 .80
Meta-cognitive self regulation 12 4.54 0.90 .79
Resource management strategies
Time and study environment 8 4.87 1.05 .76
Effort regulation 4 5.25 1.10 .69
Peer learning 3 2.89 1.53 .76
Help seeking 4 3.84 1.23 .52
Total MSLQ 81 69.59 *
Note. Source: (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia & McKeachie, 1991). t Signifies scale was used
for this study. Signifies value was not reported.

National Survey of Student Engagement

The fourth instrument administered to the students was the National Survey of

Student Engagement 2005 (NSSE) developed by the National Center for Higher

Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) (Kuh, 2001). Appendix G provides

example items concerning the NSSE and contact information to acquire permission to use









the instrument. The NSSE is a self-reported instrument consisting of 85 items measuring

the constructs of college activities, educational and personal growth, opinions about your

school, educational program characteristics and other measures of academic performance.

An additional 15 items were designated to determine student demographic information.

However, only 42 of the 85 construct items form "benchmarks of effective educational

practice" (Kuh, Hayek, Carini, Ouimet, Gonyea & Kennedy, 2001) from which academic

institutions calculate yearly progress towards increasing student engagement.

Benchmarks of the NSSE include academic challenge, active and collaborative learning,

student faculty interaction, enriching educational experiences, and supportive campus

environment.

Only three benchmarks were used as a measure of student engagement in this

study, including academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, and student

faculty interaction. The benchmarks of enriching educational experiences and supportive

campus environment were not applicable to this study as many items were relevant to the

campus and not the classroom. Stems of items were altered to include the words "in this

course" in order that students answer items specific only to the class the instrument was

administered. All items were four-point scale items except for one specific to the number

of hours spent on homework; it was a seven-point scale and changed to a four-point scale

to better determine the number of hours spent preparing specifically for the course used

in this study. Anchors of the scale typically resembled "very often", "often",

"sometimes", and "never", while other items were anchored with numbers representing

frequencies of completing a specific task.









Possible benchmark ranges included academic challenge (11 to 44), active and

collaborative learning (7 to 28) and student faculty interaction (6 to 24). Benchmark

scores were calculated by summing items related to each construct. In this study these

three benchmark scales were added to form a total possible engagement range of 24 to

96. However, since two NSSE benchmark scales were removed in this study, this total

score range does not correspond with the total range reported by the NSSE.

Validity of the NSSE was assessed by the NSSE design team through well-

defined items (face validity), research of the literature (content validity), factor analysis

(construct validity), and review of the collected data (concurrent validity) (Kuh, 2001).

Reliability was assessed utilizing Spearman's rho correlations between yearly tests (Kuh,

Hayek, Carini, Ouimet, Gonyea & Kennedy, 2001). The NSSE was used with permission.

See Table 3-4 for a description of constructs and reliability of the NSSE.

Table 3-4. Construct Reliability of National Survey of Student Engagement
Construct No. of items Mean SD Spearman's rho
tAcademic challenge 11 33.18 .77
tActive and collaborative learning 7 17.92 .76
tStudent-faculty interaction 6 12.64 .83
Enriching educational experiences 12 15.57 .89
Supportive campus environment 6 23.06 .85
Total NSSE 42 102.37 .83
Note. Source: (Kuh, Hayek, Carini, Ouimet, Gonyea & Kennedy, 2001). Values reported
regarding the senior population of college students. t Signifies scale was used for this
study. Signifies value was not reported.

Data Collection Procedures

The Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Florida conducted a

formal review of the research proposal for ethical soundness. The research proposal was

approved and assigned the IRB protocol number 2006-U-0078.









Before the administration of instruments to collect data, all participants received a

letter of informed consent which was also read by the researcher. The letter of informed

consent described the study, identified the researcher, addressed potential risks associated

in the participation of the study and approximate amount of time expected to complete

the instruments. Participants were informed of the voluntary nature of the study with the

opportunity to quit the study at any time with no consequences. Individuals who

volunteered to participate in the study signed the letter of informed consent as acceptance

of the terms and returned the letter of informed consent with the completed instruments

utilized in the study. Instruments were packaged together with corresponding codes to

administer all instruments at the same time and ensure each instrument corresponded with

the same student. Additionally, directions were given orally and in written form to

students to complete the SSI, MSLQ and NSSE in regards to the specific class the

students received the instrument and not to other classes enrolled in that semester. The

students were also informed that these directions did not apply to the KAI as it measures

their style of solving problems regardless of class.

Sixty-four faculty members in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at the

University of Florida were contacted during February 2006 to participate in this study.

Faculty members were identified by contacting individuals serving as undergraduate

coordinator of each department in the college. Undergraduate coordinators provided the

researcher with contact information of faculty members teaching courses that used

problem solving assignments and had enough students enrolled in the course to meet the

requirements of this study. Although many times the identified faculty members believed

their course did not match the requirements of the study, they often provided contact









information of another faculty member within the same department whose course better

matched the requirements of this study. In the end, 21 faculty members were willing to

participate in the study, but only 15 faculty members were administered the KAI as their

courses were deemed suitable by the researcher. From this group, nine faculty members

were chosen based on their cognitive style score. The selection of faculty members

provided a range along the adaptive-innovative continuum as three faculty members had

similar adaptive cognitive style scores, three faculty members had similar innovative

cognitive style scores and three faculty members had similar cognitive style scores

located in the middle of the adaptive-innovative continuum. Kirton (2003) states that total

cognitive style scores less than 10 points are considered the same, between 10 and 19

points are considered similar and scores of 20 points or more are considered different.

Each of the nine faculty members' courses was coded with a letter to maintain

confidentiality in data presentation. In order of adaptiveness to innovativeness faculty

members were coded beginning with the letter "A" and ending with the letter "I". The

grouping of classes by faculty member cognitive style resulted in an adaptive teacher

group (Classes A, B and C), a middle score teacher group (Classes D, E and F) and an

innovative teacher group (Classes G, H and I).

Student data were collected from each faculty members' class after midterm

examinations during the spring 2006 semester, specifically March 27 to April 12, 2006.

This time of administration was selected to ensure students had opportunity to interact

with faculty members in the classroom as the interaction of dissimilar cognitive styles

causes stress (Kirton, 2003). Students were administered the instruments during regularly

scheduled class times, however, it was the faculty member's choice if the instruments









were to be completed during class time. If not completed during class time, students

completed the instruments outside of class and brought them back during the next

scheduled class time. Specifically, students enrolled in Classes C, D, G and H were

allowed to complete the instruments during regularly scheduled class time while students

enrolled in Classes A, B, E, F and I took the questionnaires out of the classroom and

brought them back completed the next regularly scheduled class meeting time.

Faculty members were given the choice to allow students to complete instruments

during class time or outside of class time out of respect for the faculty members'

instructional time with students. The estimated time for students to complete all four

instruments was 40 minutes. Some faculty members were reluctant to give up this amount

of time and would not have participated if instruments were required to be completed

during class time. Authors of the instruments used in this study gave no indication that

students must complete the instruments in the classroom.

Also, it was the faculty member's choice to offer an incentive of extra-credit to

encourage student participation. This was done primarily to encourage students to come

to class on the day instruments were administered and to prompt return of the instruments

if students completed instruments outside of class. Only students enrolled in Class E were

not given extra-credit for participating in this study, which may have influenced response

rate.

A limitation of this study was the lack of control for method of administering

instruments. Method of instrument administration is confounded with the faculty member

giving no way to defend if either completion of instruments or use of extra-credit affected

students' scores concerning cognitive style, stress, motivation or engagement.









Furthermore, differences of scores between classes were expected and supported by

authors of the instruments. For example, Kirton (2003, p. 75) provides evidence that self-

selected courses may be more adaptive or innovative depending on the nature of the

course. If students in each course were disproportional regarding the number of young

women, there may be higher levels of stress (Gadzella and Guthrie, 1993). Authors of the

MSLQ (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, McKeachie, 1991) claim that "responses to the questions

might vary as a function of different courses" (p. 5). Finally, student engagement is an

outcome of teaching practices and may vary with individual differences found among

faculty members (Kuh, Hayek, Carini, Ouimet, Gonyea & Kennedy, 2001). Given the

above reasons, the data were not analyzed to examine the effect of different types of

instrument administration.

Data Analysis Procedures

Data were analyzed according to the following objectives and presented in

chapter 4 with respect to study objectives and classes.

Research Objective One

Research objective one was to describe selected faculty and students according to

their selected demographic variables. Student participants were asked demographic

questions found on the NSSE including age, gender, college classification, full-time

status, number of similar courses taken and major. Student participants were also asked

how many problem sets were assigned during a typical week that took more than an hour

to complete. Faculty participants were asked to respond to demographic items including

age, gender, and years of teaching experience. To achieve objective one, data were

entered into SPSS statistical software for Windows and analyzed using descriptive

statistics (frequencies and measures of central tendency).









Research Objective Two

Research objective two was to determine student cognitive style, student stress,

student motivation, and student engagement. Student participants were asked to respond

to the four self-reported instruments: the KAI, the SSI, the MSLQ and the NSSE. All

instruments were hand-scored by the researcher. To meet objective two, data were

entered into SPSS statistical software for Windows. The researcher used descriptive

statistics (frequencies and measures of central tendency) to analyze the data. For further

analysis, tests of significance were used to compare groups.

Research Objective Three

Research objective three was to determine the cognitive style gap between faculty

and students and explore relationships with undergraduate student stress, motivation,

engagement and selected student demographic variables. Cognitive style gap was found

by subtracting each faculty member's total cognitive style score from each of their

student's total cognitive style score. Specific constructs of cognitive style gap scores

were calculated in the same manner. Therefore, cognitive style gap described students in

terms of being more adaptive or more innovative in relation to their faculty member.

Utilizing SPSS statistical software, the researcher used Pearson's correlation coefficient

to determine the strength and direction of the relationship between cognitive style gap

with student stress, student motivation, student engagement and student demographic

variables identified in objective one.

Research Objective Four

Research objective four was to explain both undergraduate student stress and

student motivation based on cognitive style gap and student demographic variables

identified in objective one. Using SPSS statistical software, backward stepwise multiple









linear regression was used twice for each class to achieve objective four. Data were

analyzed first to determine relationships between constructs of cognitive style gap

(independent variable), student demographics (independent variable) and student stress

(dependent variable); and second, to determine relationships of the same independent

variables with student motivation (dependent variable). For further analysis, tests of

significance were used to compare groups.

Research Objective Five

Research objective five was to explain undergraduate student engagement based

on cognitive style gap, student stress, student motivation and selected student

demographic variables identified in objective one. Employing SPSS statistical software,

backward stepwise multiple linear regression was used to explain the dependent variable

student engagement based on independent variables including cognitive style gap, student

stress, student motivation and student demographic variables identified in objective one.

For further analysis, tests of significance were used to compare groups.

Summary

This chapter provided details of the methodology of this study with regards to

research design, population, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis. The study

utilized an ex post facto Design 1 methodology to study the relationships of Kirton's

cognitive gap with stress, motivation, engagement and selected student demographic

variables. The population consisted of undergraduate students enrolled in the College of

Agricultural and Life Sciences at the University of Florida. To ensure variance of

students' cognitive style gap, both in size and direction, faculty members were selected

based on their adaptiveness and innovativeness of cognitive style. From this group of









faculty members, nine courses were purposefully selected to meet the objectives of this

study.

Four instruments were utilized to collect data from the participants. They were the

following: Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI) (Kirton, 1976), National Survey

of Student Engagement 2005 (NSSE) with demographic questions (Kuh, 2001),

Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, and

McKeachie, 1991), and Student-life Stress Inventory (SSI) (Gadzella, 1994). All

instruments were assessed for validity and reliability prior to conducting the study. Post-

hoc reliabilities for this study were presented in chapter 4.

In chapter 4, data were analyzed per class and organized by objectives. This study

primarily used descriptive statistics, correlation statistics, and backward stepwise

multiple linear regression.