ABSTRACT

Twenty preservice special education teachers

participated in a study to examine the effects of
the combined technique of peer observation
with observation systems technology on the
teaching performance of teacher-trainees. The
subjects were divided into two groups: experi-
mental and control. Experimental group
trainees used well-defined observation systems
to collect teacher/pupil data for the provision of
feedback to peers, control trainees developed
their own systems of anecdotal report. Three
major types of data were collected and ana-
lyzed: () behavior/lesson management, (
a )
b
teacher-trainees’ instructional management
) teacher-trainees’ feedback strategies.
skills,
c
(
Results showed that the experimental group
maintained a higher level of pupil accuracy dur-
ing direct instruction, maintained a brisker pre-
sentation and correct rate, and tended to
prompt correct responses less often than the
control group. These findings and other obser-
vations are discussed
.

Traditionally, practicum and student teaching

supervision has involved the observation of
trainee performance and the provision of feed-
back to the teacher trainee relative to the dem-
onstration of targeted behavioral competen-
cies. According to this model, the supervisor’s
role is to define and communicate performance
expectations so trainees may achieve criterion
TEACHER
levels of teaching performance.
In practice, the effectiveness of field supervi-
sion has been restricted by several factors.
TRAINING
Often the frequency and regularity of field ob-
servations by program supervisors is dimin- IMPROVING TRAINEE
ished by large numbers of trainees &dquo;who are in
dispersed and/or remote locations&dquo; (Semmel &
PERFORMANCE THROUGH
Englert,1978, p. 28). Budgetary restrictions also PEER OBSERVATION AND
are adding to the number of trainees assigned
to supervisors, limiting the of visits OBSERVATION SYSTEM
and the amount of contact time the su-
pervisory personnel and preservice teacher-
TECHNOLOGY
trainees. Such limitations make it increasingly
unlikely that systematic training can be deliv- Carol SueEnglert
ered using traditional supervisory procedures
(Allilunas, 1972; Cumming, 1971; Merrill & George Sugai
Schuchman, 1973; Semmel & Englert, 1978).
One method for overcoming the negative ef-
fects of fewer and shorter observation opportuni- Carol Sue Englert and George Sugai are both Assis-
ties involves the use of peer observers equipped tant Processors at the University of Kantucky.

Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016

with efficient and precise observation systems.
Observation systems have been shown to have
strong advantages over other feedback sys-
tems for teacher observation and training.
Whereas the function of teacher observation is
the provision of feedback for the improvement
of teaching, observers’ comments are often per-
ceived by the trainee as being subjective and
biased (Semmel & Thiagarajan, 1973). However,
given feedback based upon objective observa-
tion instruments, teacher trainees can be pre-
sented factual information with which to evalu-
ate their performance and establish teaching
objectives. By involving teacher trainees them-
selves in the observation process, including the
measurement and charting of teacher-pupil be-
haviors, trainees can become increasingly ac-
countable for monitoring their achievement of
stated teacher or pupil objectives (Walker,
1978). When used in this manner, observation in-
struments could affect teacher trainees’ atti-
tudes toward the practicum and increase the
probability that new teaching behaviors and
skills will be acquired.
Given increasing restrictions on university
supervision, this investigation focused specifi-
cally on the applications of peer observation to
teacher training. Skoog (1980) has suggested
that structured feedback from peer observation
is an effective means of improving teaching per-
formance. Similarly, Ellis, Smith, and Abbott
(1979) have reported that peer observation posi-
tively affects inservice teachers’ attitudes
toward observation and their receptivity to su-
pervision. However, there have been few studies
examining applications of the combined tech-
nique of peer observation with observation sys-
tems technology at the preservice level. Exam-
ination of this question might suggest the
feasibility of different formats for structuring
the peer observation experience.
The present study examined the effective-
ness of peer observation in a practicum setting
under two observation and feedback condi-
tions : peer observation conducted with well-de-
fined observation systems, and peer observa-
tion conducted with less-defined observation
systems based on anecdotal reports. Given the
prior demonstrated effectiveness of observa-
tion systems, it was hypothesized that peer
observation with well-defined observation sys-
tems would result in greater trainee demonstra-
tion of behavior management and direct instruc-
tion behaviors.
8
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
METHOD
Subjects an Setting
This study involved 20 preservice special educa-
tion teachers from two sections of a 3-hour prac-
ticum course offered for special education ma-
jors in learning and behavior disorders. The
course was taken by special education stu-
dents the semester prior to student teaching, so
all students were in their 4th or 5th college year
and had finished a majority of their required
coursework. One section of 8 students was arbi-
trarily designated the control group; the other
group of 12 students was designated the experi-
mental group.
The study was conducted in the practicum
sites in which the special education trainees
were placed. These sites included 5 elementary
resource rooms for the educable mentally hand-
icapped, 13 elementary resource rooms for the
learning disabled, and 2 learning disabled re-
source rooms at the secondary level.
Independent Variables
While both groups completed similar peer ob-
servation tasks, the experimental group was
provided with two observation instruments con-
taining specific, well-defined observational cat-
egories. The first of these observation instru-
ments was based on an interval recording sys-
tem developed by Dollar (1980). This observation
system was designed to provide feedback to
teacher trainees on their behavior management
skills, particulary with respect to trainees’ abili-
ties to manage appropriate student behavior
through teacher praise and approval and inap-
propriate student behavior through teacher criti-
cism, disapproval, or planned ignoring.
As shown in Figure 1, peer observers using
the Dollar system coded the occurrence of two
categories of teacher behavior and two categor-
ies of pupil behavior. Each column of the obser-
vation system represented a single, 15-second
interval. Peer observers observed continuously
for 15 seconds, then recorded one teacher and
pupil behavior by slashing the respective code
letters of the observed behaviors: &dquo;a&dquo; for appro-
priate pupil behavior, &dquo;i&dquo; for inappropriate pupill
behavior, &dquo;A&dquo; for teacher approval, &dquo;D&dquo; for
teacher disapproval. To make the observation
system specific to each individual trainee’s
teaching situation and objectives, categories of
pupil appropriatelinappropriate and teacher ap-
provalldisapproval were targeted and defined
 FIGURE 1
Behavior rnanagerrrent observation form
by the trainees themselves before the observa-
tion. Peer observers then used these definitions
to collect data on the target behaviors of con-
cern to the teacher trainee.
The second observation instrument was mod-
ified from an existing observation system
(CASE) intended for inservice teacher evalua-
tion and supervision (Tawney, 1979). The CASE
observation system focused on teachers’ direct
instruction strategies, as measured by the pres-
ence or absence of the following teacher/pupil
behaviors (observational codes indicated in par-
entheses) : teacher’s attention signals (at),
pupil’s attending behavior (A), correct/incorrect
academic response from pupil (+ / -), teacher
reinforcement of correct academic response
(R), teacher correction or prompting of incorrect
academic response (C), and teacher telling of
correct answers following an incorrect re-
sponse (T). The recording sheet containing
these direct instruction categories is presented
in Figure 2.
As indicated on the Direct Instruction record-
ing form, each column of the form represented a
single learning trial involving the presentation
of a new stimulus, such as a new sight word,
math problem, or comprehension question. At
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
the start of each learning trial, peer observers
were instructed to code information related to
(a) whether the teacher trainee gave an atten-
tion signal, (b) whether the pupils attended to
the instructional stimulus, and (c) whether the
teacher’s question was followed by a correct/in-
correct student response. Subsequent teacher-
pupil interactions (e.g., prompts, reinforcement)
involving the same stimulus were coded in a
single learning trial. Peer observers coded
teacher/pupil behavior by slashing, circling, or
inserting the code letters for the respective ob-
servational categories. A learning trial ended
when the trainee presented information or ques-
tions related to a new stimulus or when the
teacher told pupils the correct answer following
an incorrect resconse.
In contrast tc the experimental group, peer
observers in the -ont:,-’ group not given
these well-defined observation systems for the
collection of teacher/pupil data. Instead, after
discussion of desirable teacher strategies and
methods for behaviors management and direct
instruction, con±=o&dquo; peer observers developed
their own systems of recording teacher/pupil
behavior during lessons focusing either on be-
havior management or direct instruction tech-
9
 FIGURE 2
Direct instruction observation form

10
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
niques. Typically, these systems evolved into
narrative records and anecdotal descriptions of
the key instructional and behavior management
behaviors displayed by the teacher trainee and
pupils. Thus, continuous and systematic obser-
vation methods were not used by the control
group of trainees.
Dependent Variables
To measure and record low inference teacher
and pupil behaviors which resuited from the use
of peer observation systems, the Direct irstruc-
tion Observation System (DIOS) (Englert &
Sugai, 1980) was developed. As shown in Figure
3, DIOS functioned as a narrative record that
provided information on dependent variables re-
lated to teachertrainees’ behavior management
and direct instruction behaviors, as well as
pupils’ academic and social behaviors.
The following types of data were collected for
teacher-trainees and pupils in the two study
groups.
Teacher Trainee Behaviors.
1. Presentation of trial. Rate at which teacher-
trainee presented new learning task or stimu-
lus. In DIOS, each new task or stimulus signaled
the next learning trial and was coded on a separ-
ate line.
2. Prompts following correct academic re-
sponse. Percentage of correct or partially cor-
rect academic responses followed by a teacher
prompt (e.g., &dquo;Tell me more&dquo;; &dquo;Give me a sen-
tence using that word correctly&dquo;).
3. Reinforcement of correct academic re-
sponses. Percentage of pupils’ correct aca-
demic responses followed by teacher reinforce-
ment (e.g., &dquo;Great job&dquo;; &dquo;Good answer&dquo;).
4. Specific reinforcement. Rate at which
teacher trainees praised specific academic or
social behaviors (e.g., &dquo;I really like the way you
corrected yourself&dquo;; &dquo;Thank you for raising your
hand&dquo;).
5. Prompt following an incorrect response. Per-
centage of incorrect student responses foliowed
by a teacher correction prompt (e.g., &dquo;That’s a
short ’a’ sound&dquo;; &dquo;Remember our rules for bor-
rowing ?&dquo;).
6. Tells answer. Percentage of incorrect aca-
demic responses followed by teacher telling the
correct answer (e.g., &dquo;That word is ’dog&dquo;’).
Behaviors.
Pupil
1. Correct academic response. Percentage of
correct pupil responses following a learning
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
trial or teacher prompt.
2. incorrect academic response. Percentage of
incorrect pupil responses following a learning
trial or teacher prompt.
3. Appropriatelinappropriate social behavior.
Rate at which pupils demonstrated social be-
haviors in compliance or noncompliance with
stated or understood classroom and/or lesson
rules (e.g., on-task, off-task behavior).
4. Lesson noise. Rate of occurrence of off-task
talk or transition activities which are not inap-
propriate, but clearly not related to the lesson
content (e.g., &dquo;When can we play the game?&dquo;).
Observers
Three observers trained to code DIOS us-
were
ing audiotapes and videotapes of classrooms
similar to those used in the study. Two of the ob-
servers had no knowledge of the trainees’ group
membership. Reliability measures were taken
at the start of the study. Mean reliability of the
observers was 93%, with a range from 89 to
95%. lnterobserver agreement scores greater
than 80% were judged to be acceptable.
Procedures
As stated previously, teacher traineesin the
study taken from two sections of a practi-
were
cum course in special education. These sec-
tions were offered at different times of the day
but were taught by the same instructor. Both ex-
perimental and control group subjects received
similar course content to fulfill the objectives of
the course. Content covered during the semes-
ter-long course included (a) behavior manage-
ment (i.e., use of rules, individual and group
contingency management, verbal/nonverbal
management techniques, and reinforcement
strategies), (b) planning instructional programs
(i.e., task analyses, lesson planning, and con-
cept analysis), (c) direct instruction (i.e., atten-
tion signals, model-lead-test formats, prompt-
ing and questioning techniques), and (d) evalua-
tion (i.e., daily measurement, record keeping,
and graphing student performance). In addition,
instructional emphasis in both classes was
placed on the importance of a brisk instruc-
tional pace, teacher reinforcement of correct
academic and social responses, the mainten-
ance of a high degree of pupil attention by mini-
mizing disruptions to the learning task, and the
correction of incorrect student responses
through teacher prompting.
Teacher trainees in both the experimental
and control groups were required to team up
with one of their peers in the same practicum
11
 FIGURE 3
Direct instruction observation system (DIOS)

12
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
section to complete five peer observations.
Each trainee served as observer for five lessons
and subject for five lessons. Although the expe-
rimental and control groups used different ob-
servation techniques, both groups focused on
the same target skill areas, including (a) two ob-
servations focusing on the peer’s behavior man-
agement techniques and (b) three observations
focusing on the peer’s direct instruction tech-
niques. Behavior management and direct in-
struction techniques were observed separately
for reasons associated with greater efficiency
in teacher training and peer observation. In par-
ticular, since all subjects were novice teachers,
they did not have the automaticity or knowledge
necessary to selectively attend to and recognize
all categories of behavior management and
direct instruction simultaneously. By narrowing
the observation categories to a subset of
teaching skills, it was expected that trainee ob-
servers could develop greater automaticity in
observing and generating the target behaviors
of concern.
After the completion of each peer observa-
tion, peer observers were directed to discuss
their observations and comments with the ob-
served peer. Feedback typically focused on spe-
cific behavior management, instructional, or
feedback strategies for teaching a particular
skill to the learner. In addition, at the completion
of the required number of observations for the
two targeted skill areas (i.e., two for behavior
management, three for direct instruction), peer
observers gave the observed teacher trainee
their written comments and observational data.
This information then was summarized in a brief
report written by the teacher trainee. The report
described their intructional methods and find-
ings obtained by the peer observers. To mini-
mize the likelihood of false reporting of trainee
performance, grades were not assigned on the
basis of these observations. Teacher trainees
were informed that the peer observations were
strictly for their own benefit and would not influ-
ence their course grade. To ensure that observa-
tion assignments were completed, a standard
point value was assigned to each report.
Experimental Group. The experimental group
completed two behavior management observa-
tions using the Dollar (1980) recording scheme.
Prior to its use, teacher trainees were instructed
in the use of behavior management strategies
to accelerate and decelerate target pupil behav-
iors. The observation scheme than was pre-
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
sented to trainees as a measurement tool by
which they could evaluate their own teaching ef-
fectiveness. It was explained that by targeting
their own acceleration and deceleration targets,
as well as their strategies for changing student
behavior, teacher trainees could get direct feed-
back from peer observers on their success in af-
fecting the target behaviors of concern. Teacher
success was measured in terms of changes in
levels of student behavior over time and in-
creases in the proportion of student responses
correctly responded to by the trainee (e.g., a fol-
lowed by A, i followed by D). Although it was
originally intended that teacher trainees would
target social behaviors, a majority of the
trainees pinpointed academic behaviors for
data collection, including pupil correct
responses (a), pupil incorrect responses (i),
teacher praise of correct responses (A), and
teacher prompts or correction of errors (D).
For the observation of direction instruction
behaviors, experimental trainees were in-
structed in the use of CASEthrough learning ac-
tivities that gave them experience coding video-
tapes and audiotapes of teacher trainees from
previous semesters. This provided experi-
mental trainees with direct experience in using
the observation system to code direct instruc-
tion behaviors. Teacher trainees were told to
use the observational data as a basis for deter-
mining their ability to maintain student atten-
tion, high student accuracy, and correct student
responding through appropriate feedback pro-
cedures involving reinforcement following cor-
rect responses and correction prompts follow-
ing incorrect student responses.
Only one modification was made in the writ-
ten report requirement for experimental teacher
trainees. Instead of writing a detailed report
describing their strategies and results, greater
emphasis was placed on the summarization of
datathrough graphing of teacher-pupil data. Us-
ing the graph, trainees were encouraged to com-
pare across the several days of observation to
determine whether they effectively had
changed either trainee or pupil behaviors.
Control Group. The control group received
similar instruction on the desired teacher and
pupil behaviors and on general instruction and
behavior management techniques. The same
management techniques and categories of in-
structional behaviors were discussed with both
groups. time, however, was spent in dis-
cussion of instructional techniques with control
13
group subjects and less time was spent on the
direct observation and coding of observational
categories.
Unlike the experimental group, specific per-
formance pinpoints and observation instru-
ments were not provided to control trainees.
Peer observers were required to develop their
own data-collection and information-sharing
procedures. Using the observational data and
feedback from their peer observers, trainees
were directed to evaluate their success in af-
fecting pupil behavior through the use of
behavior management or direct instruction
techniques.
RESULTS
Three major types of data were collected and
analyzed: (a) behavior/lesson management, (b)
instructional management skills, and (c) feed-
back strategies. These data were collected by
continuous event recording procedures using
DIOS (see Figure 1). Sincethe datayielded abso-
lute frequency counts which were quantified as
rates and percentage of occurrence, these data
were analyzed in a 2 (group) x 2 (trial) analysis
of variance for each of the respective teacher
and pupil categories of DIOS.
Behavior ~~~a~~ em~nt Skills
Two measures of trainees’ behavior manage-
ment skills were their ability to maintain low
TABLE 1
Means and standard deviations for DIOS
14
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
levels of inappropriate student behavior and
lesson noise (i.e., transition time). A two-factor
analysis of variance (ANOVA) for inappropriate
behavior and lesson noise, however, showed no
significant main effects or interactions. As
shown in Table 1, inappropriate behavior and
lesson noise generally occurred at low levels for
both groups, although experimental teacher
trainees maintained a slightly lower rate of
lesson noise during lessons.
instructional Manageroent Skills
The instructional skills of the two groups also
were examined in terms of trainees’ ability to
maintain a high degree of pupil accuracy during
direct instruction. The results of the ANOVA
showed that experimental teacher trainees
maintained a higher degree of pupil accuracy
than control trainees, F(1,36) = 3.92, p < .05,
with proportionately fewer pupil errors, F(1,36)
=
6.01, p < .05. Where experimental teacher
trainees maintained pupil accuracy at 81 °lo,
control teacher trainees maintained pupil ac-
curacy at only 73%. The occurrence of a statisti-
cally significant main effect for time, F(1,36) =
7.48, p < .01, showed that both groups of
teacher trainees demonstrated an increased
ability to maintain higher levels of pupil accur-
acy across time (T1 M = 76.9, T2M = 78.6).
An additional measure of trainees’ manage-
ment of pupil accuracy was analyzed; that is,
their provision of frequent, successful response
opportunities per minute (correct rate). The
ANOVA for correct rates revealed a significant
main effect for group, F(1,34) = 4.37, p < .05.
Experimental teacher trainees maintained a
higher correct rate than control teacher trainees
(3.3 compared to 2.3 per minute). Test for the sig-
nificance of time and the interaction of time and
group were not significant.
Feedback Strategies
A third aspect of group performance was teach-
ers’ feedback strategies (e.g., prompts, rein-
forcement, telling correct answer) following
either a correct or incorrect pupil response. The
results of the ANOVA showed that the groups
were differentiated by two feedback strategies.
For teacher feedback following correct re-
sponses, group differences were statistically
significant, F(1,36) = 5.17, p < .05. As shown
in Table 1, control teacher trainees tended to
prompt correct responses more often than ex-
perimental teacher trainees. Moreover, a main
effect for time, F(1,36) = 6.72, p < .05, indi-
cated that both groups tended to prompt correct
responses less often over time. Since no inter-
action was found, these findings suggested
that group differences remained relatively
stable across time, with both groups decreas-
ing their prompting at Time 2.
Analysis of teacher trainees’ feedback strat-
egies following incorrect pupil responses also
showed differential prompting patterns. While
both groups tended to prompt errors ratherthan
tell correct answers, a significant group by trial
interaction, F(1,36) = 5.17, p < .05, was found
for telling correct answers. Comparison of the
group means at Time 1 and 2 showed that,
where experimental trainees maintained a low
level of telling correct answers at both Time 1
and 2, control trainees initially demonstrated a
high level of telling correct answers at Time 1,
with a decreasing reliance upon this strategy
across time.
Two other analyses were conducted for
teacher trainees’ reinforcement of correct re-
sponses and prompts of errors. However, no sig-
nificant main effects or interactions were found
for either variable.
DISCUSSION
Peer observation is one technique to facilitate
supervision and teacher training. This study ex-
amined the effects of two peer observation
techniques on teacher trainee performance.
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
As expected, experimental teacher trainees
who were provided with specific teacher/pupil
data differed in several respects from control
teacher trainees. First, experimental teacher
trainees maintained a higher level of pupil ac-
curacy during direct instruction. Although both
groups established their own instructional objec-
tives and were involved in the direct instruction
of those objectives, only the trainees given spe-
cific data and feedback achieved higher aca-
demic accuracy. Thus, teacher trainees who
were provided with specific performance data
were better able to monitor and manage pupils’
achievement of stated academic outcomes.
The lower pupil performance levels of the
control trainees also suggested that novice
teachers may have had difficulty monitoring
student accuracy during direct instruction with-
out specific feedback. For the novice teachers,
the instructional act itself might have required a
great deal of attention, so that less attention
was available for monitoring student re-
sponses. However, given specific feedback and
data from peer observers, novice teachers were
better prepared to bridge the gap between the
instructional presentation and the monitoring
of its outcomes. In this way, specific feedback
allowed novice teachers to become increas-
ingly accountable for monitoring, managing,
and evaluating their own instructional effective-
ness.
A second finding was that experimental
teacher trainees maintained a brisker presenta-
tion and correct ratethan teachertrainees in the
control group. By doing so, experimental teach-
er trainees not only maintained higher pupil ac-
curacy, they also provided more practice and
rehearsal opportunities for student mastery of
concepts. In sum, they taught more in less time,
a competence considered essential to direct in-
struction methodology (Becker & Carnine,
1981).
Third,teacher trainees in the experimental
group differed in terms of their feedback strat-
egies for correct and incorrect student re-
sponses. Experimental teacher trainees tended
to prompt correct responses less often than
control teacher trainees at both trials and were
less likely to tell answers following incorrect re-
sponses. Since previous research has indicated
that both of these feedback techniques are cor-
related positively to student learning in low-
achieving populations (Brophy & Evertson,
1977; Medley, 1977), this finding favored the ex-
perimental teacher trainees.
15
 No significant differences were found be-
tween the behavior management skills of the
two groups. However, inappropriate student be-
havior occurred at low levels for both groups.
This finding supports previous research which
indicates that students demonstrate low levels
of off-task behavior and misbehavior during
direct instruction (Berliner & Rosenshine, 1977;
Rosenshine, 1980). In the present study, teacher
trainees who were involved in structured direct
instruction with a single student or a small
group of students maintained relatively high
rates of socially correct responding. Thus the
necessity to establish intervention programs
for inappropriate behavior was reduced; conse-
quently, differential patterns of student inap-
propriate behavior and teacher trainees’ man-
agement strategies did not emerge.
A question which must be addressed to ex-
plain these findings is &dquo;What factors accounted
for the differential instructional behaviors of the
two groups of trainees?&dquo; In response to this
question, it is important to note that peer obser-
vation alone cannot explain the differences be-
tween experimental and control trainees since
peer observers were used by both groups. Fur-
thermore, both groups were given simiiar obser-
vation assignments and feedback based on the
same categories of teacher/pupil behavior. This
procedure assured that differential patterns of
instruction would not result because of the
trainees’ perceived importance of categories
associated with the observation instruments
themselves.
The major differences between the two
groups, however, were the nature of the obser-
vation instruments and the type of data each
provided the teacher-trainee. During observa-
tion trials, the experimental teacher trainees
were given observation systems with categor-
ies of pupil social behaviors (i.e., appropriate/in-
appropriate) and of teacher trainee responses
(i.e., feedback strategies). Consequently, exper-
imental trainees specifically attended to,
modeled, and received performance data re-
lated to the behaviors designated by the cate-
gories of the observation instrument. The con-
trol group did not have these structured obser-
vation instruments, and instead developed data
collection systems that were narrative records
and anecdotal descriptions. Thus, it seems spe-
cific observation instruments used within a
peer observation framework increased the like-
lihood that certain desirable pupils behaviors
were observed and maintained, when compared
16
Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016
to trainees who were not provided with such in-
struments.
in summary, peer observation was found to
be a useful technique for extending the teacher-
training and supervision experience. With the
increasing restrictions on supervisory person-
nel, peer observation should be considered seri-
ously as a means of providing continuous feed-
back to teacher-trainees for the purposes of
trainee self-monitoring, self-recording, and self-
evaluation. The results of this study suggest
that observation systems provide the most use-
ful format for structuring the peer observation
experience. Moreover, interviews with the
teacher-trainees confirmed the value of peer ob-
servation. The trainees in the study found it an
extremely valuable technique and recommended
its continuation in subsequent semesters.
A determination that can not be made in this
study is the relative contribution that each of
the following variables had on the overall ef-
fects observed: (a) training in the categories of
the observation system, (b) participation in
coding peer behaviors using observational cate-
gories, and (c)the provision of specific feedback
relative to observation categories from peers.
Future investigations should focus on the
nature of the relationships and interactions
among these variables.
REFERENCES
Allilunas, L.J. Changes ahead for cooperating teach-
ers. Teacher Educator, 1972, 8
, 13-17.
Becker, W.C., & Carnine, D.W. Direct instruction: A be-
havior theory model for comprehensive educa-
tional intervention with the disadvantaged. In
S.W. Bijou & R. Ruiz (Eds.), Behavior modifica-
tion: Contributions to education
. Hillsdale, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1981.
Berliner, D.C., & Rosenshine, B.V. The acquisition of
knowledge in the classroom. In R.C. Anderson,
R.J. Spiro, & W.E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling
and the acquisition of knowledge
. Hillsdale, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977.
Brophy, J.E., & Evertson, C.M. Teacher behavior and
student learning in second and third grades. In
G.D. Borich (Ed.), The appraisal of teaching: Con-
cepts and process
. Reading, Mass.: Addison-
Wesley, 1977.
Cumming, J. Back to the sticks for student teaching.
Journal of Teacher Education
, 1971, , 294-302.
22
Dollar, S. Behavior management observation form.
Lexington: University of Kentucky, 1980.
Ellis, E.C., Smith, J.T., & Abbott, W.H. Peer observa- Semmel, M.E., & Englert, C.S. A decision-making ori-
tion: A means for supervisory acceptance. Edu- entation applied to student teaching supervi-
cational Leadership
, 1979, , 423-426.
36 sion. Teacher Education and Special Education
,
Englert. C.S. & Sugai, G.M. The direct instruction ob- 1978, 1(2), 28-36.
servation system: DIOS
. Lexington: University of Semmel, M.I., & Thiagarajan, J. Observation systems
Kentucky, 1981. and special education teachers. Focus on Ex-
Medley, D.M. Teacher competence and teacher effec- ceptional Children
, 1973, , 1-12.
5
tiveness : A review of process-product research. Skoog, G. Improving college teaching through peer
Washington, D.C.: American Association of Col- observation. Journal of ,
Teacher Education 1980,
leges for Teacher Education, 1977. , 23-25.
31
Merrill, E.C., & Schuchman, B.J. Professional student Tawney, J.W. C.A.S.E.: Comprehensive analysis of
teaching programs Danville, III.: Interstate special education
. Lexington: University of Ken-
Printers and Publishers, 1973. tucky, May, 1979.
Rosenshine, B. How time is spent in elementary class- Walker, J.A. The practicum supervision inches toward
rooms. In C. Denham & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time competence: Preliminary thoughts on a process.
to learn
. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Teacher Education and Special Education 1978,
Education, 1980. (2), 14-27.
1

17

Downloaded from tes.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 5, 2016