The objectives of study were: (1) To analyze the relationship of goals and teacher students’ compatibility to learning effectiveness and self - regulation. The hypothesis was: (1) Goals will enhance learning effectiveness - (a) Provisional and clear goals will provide greater learning effectiveness. (b) Difficult and mastery goals will provide greater learning effectiveness. (2) Goals will result in self-regulation – (a) Proximal and clear goals will provide greater perceived control on planning. (3) Difficult and mastery goals will provide greater perceived control on planning. (4) The goal related effects would be greater for compatible teacher-student group than incompatible teacher students groups. (5) Learning effectiveness is positively related to self-regulation.
Sample comprised of students of class IX-X and class XI-XII of Indore city. The students were divided into two groups namely teacher compatible and teacher incompatible.
Teacher Student Compatibility Questionnaire - TARGETT (Ames, 1992), Zimmerman’s self -regulatory strategies and a Spelling Test developed by researcher were used.Teacher Student Compatibility Questionnaire - TARGETT (Ames, 1992), Zimmerman’s self -regulatory strategies and a Spelling Test developed by researcher were used.
The present study was experimental in nature.
The data were analyzed with the help of t-test, ANOVA, Chi-square, and product-moment correlation statistical techniques.
The findings of study were: (1) The proximal clear, mastery, difficult goal dimensions showed greater learning effectiveness than the distal, diffuse, performance and easy goal dimensions when both classes were taken into consideration. (2) Specifically among the goal dimensions, the mastery goal dimension and difficult goal dimension showed greater learning effectiveness for classes IX and XI respectively. (3) In control group only mastery goal dimension was found to be significantly higher. (4) The specific goal dimensions did not have significant influence for math’s related self-regulation. But for the dimension of self-regulation difficult goals has shown significant differences than easy goals. (5) The math’s self-regulation showed negative correlation with the performance, whereas science self-regulation showed positive correlation with their performance. (6) The teacher compatible and incompatible groups did not have significant difference in performance but the learning effectiveness was significantly higher for the teacher incompatible group. (7) Science self-regulation showed significantly higher score for the teacher compatible than for teacher incompatible group. (8) Goals did not have significant differential effects for teacher-compatible and teacher-incompatible group.
Keyword(s): Relationship of Goals, Teacher Students’ Compatibility