Many university instructors still use the traditional lectu e method in disc ssing classroom dynamics and what to observe in classrooms. Ironically, they usually fail to recognize, or pay only lip service to, the presence of any ongoing dynamics in their own class rooms. Similarly, motivation to learn about classroom dynamics can be stifled when instructors demand that an extensive list of fundamental readings be consumed for successful course completion. While not denigrating the value of perusal and digestion of literature available on classroom behavior, books at best contain only sec ond hand information of someone else's experiences. Some experimental learning can occur when students are stirred by what they hear or read, but most of this will be isolated from personal experience and will tend to lack conviction (Friedman and Zinberg, 1964). Most university students today readily toss about such phrases as defense mechanisms, unconscious be havior/' depression, regression, and so on and may be able, if asked, to provide reasonable definitions. It is clear to the present authors, however, that most univer sity students, and professors for that matter, do not rec ognize that such phrases represent psychological phe nomena which really do occur, constantly, and in all human interaction. Few educators would argue that ability to recognize and understand human behavior, as it happens, would not be a valuable skill for teachers to develop. The study described herein reflects an attempt to breathe life into classroom learning by borrowing techniques which have been used in the training of psychotherapists. The present authors have been part of a research team investigating various methods of instruction. Various types of learning groups in a room equipped with a one-way mirror have been studied. Various tech niques have been employed to sharpen observational skills. To this point the development of competence in applying a Bales' Interaction Process Analysis (1950, 1970) has seemed most beneficial. After literally hundreds of hours of viewing groups in action, and subsequently analyzing their behavior as recorded on video tape, it became apparent that subtle changes in personality, attitudes, and understanding of human behavior may be more manifest in observers than participants. To investigate that hypothesis (and others related to it) a definitive experiment was de signed and offered in two sections of an experimental course for senior education students at the University of Alberta. Prior to course registration students were informed of the experimental nature of the course, the need to complete an extensive battery of psychological tests, and the expectations of the course directors (J. P. and W. M.) with regard to regular and punctual at tendance. Ninety-eight students enrolled for the course and others had to be turned away. During the experi ment, which lasted approximately three and one-half months, only four students withdrew, two because of graduation requirements. A pass grade in the course was given for meeting the expectations of attendance and completion of all tests. Students who were interested in receiving higher grades were required to submit a term paper which related to their group experience. Two thirds of the class wrote term papers. After completion of the pre-test measures, students in each section of the course were randomly assigned to various observers or participant treatments by the course instructor. The treatments consisted of 15 labora tory sessions 50 minutes in length. While full details of the experimental method are available elsewhere (Mc Leish and Park, 1972, 1973) a brief description of each treatment follows: