JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

One of the most important components of the basic microteaching model in teacher education is the feedback obtained from supervisors, learners, peers and from technical aids such as audio and video recordings (Allen and Ryan, 1969). The feedback serves a dual purpose: first it provides the trainee with information regarding his behavior enabling him to design behavioral changes; and secondly, it facilitates the process of self-confrontation by triggering a cognitive dissonance which stimulates the psychological climate conducive to change (Festinger, 1957; Nielsen, 1962;Kagan et al., 1967;Geerstma andMackie, 1969 andOnder, 1970).The use of video recordings in microteaching training provides instant and accurate feedback of verbal and non-verbal classroom interaction. However, an intuitive subjective analysis of the video recording performed by a supervisor, peer or the student-teacher himself, faces the danger of being diffused and distorted by individual biases.The combined use of microteaching with systematic observation instruments for analyzing classroom interaction has been recommended by researchers and practitioners alike (Amidon and Rosenshine, 1968 andMinnis, 1968). Both Allen, who played a major role in the development of microteaching (Allen and Ryan, 1969), and Flanders, who developed one of the most common interaction analysis systems (Flanders, 1970), recommend the combination of their systems as an effective procedure in teacher education. The researcher and practitioner in this area are faced with the question of either using one of the existing instruments or constructing a new one.

No abstract

No abstract

Achievement tests are used for discrimination both among individuals and among classes. Item selection procedures which are recommended for constructing tests for individual differentiation may not be adequate for tests for discrimination among classes. It is suggested that the item intraclass correlation should be used as an index for item selection in tests designed for the measurement of class performance. An example is presented which shows that using the intraclass correlation for item selection yields different results than using item‐test correlation coefficients.