FOUR GROUPS OF 15 STUDENT TEACHERS EACH WERE USED TO TEST THE HYPOTHESIS THAT (A) THOSE TAUGHT INTERACTION ANALYSIS WOULD BE MORE INDIRECT (ACCEPTING OF PUPIL FEELINGS AND IDEAS, ENCOURAGING, QUESTIONING) AT THE END OF STUDENT TEACHING THAN THOSE TAUGHT LEARNING THEORY, AND (B) AMONG THOSE TAUGHT INTERACTION ANALYSIS, THOSE SUPERVISED BY INTERACTION ANALYSIS TRAINED COOPERATING TEACHERS WOULD BE MORE INDIRECT THAN THOSE SUPERVISED BY LEARNING THEORY TRAINED COOPERATING TEACHERS. CRITERION MEASURES CONSISTED OF--THE DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY EDUCATION TEST (PRE- AND POSTTESTS), RATINGS OF COLLEGE SUPERVISORS, RATINGS BY IMPARTIAL OBSERVERS AND INTERACTION ANALYSIS TRAINED OBSERVERS, THE STUDENT PERCEPTION OF TEACHER INFLUENCE SCALE, THE TEACHING SITUATION REACTION TEST (PRE- AND POSTTESTS), AND THE ROKEACH DOGMATISM SCALE. INCOMPLETE DATA SUGGESTS THAT STUDENT TEACHERS TRAINED IN INTERACTION ANALYSIS--TALKED LESS IN THE CLASSROOM, WERE MORE INDIRECT IN USE OF MOTIVATING AND CONTROLLING BEHAVIORS, WERE MORE INDIRECT IN OVERALL INTERACTION PATTERNS, USED MORE EXTENDED, INDIRECT (AND LESS EXTENDED DIRECT) INFLUENCE, USED MORE EXTENDED ACCEPTANCE OF STUDENT IDEAS. STUDENT TEACHERS WHOSE COOPERATING TEACHERS LEARNED INTERACTION ANALYSIS USED LEAST EXTENDED DIRECT INFLUENCE. PAPER REPRINTED FROM RATHS, JAMES AND LEEPER, ROBERT R. (EDS.), "THE SUPERVISOR--AGENT FOR CHANGE IN TEACHING," ASCD PUBLICATION, WASH., D.C. (AF)