The philosophy of teacher evaluation has changed over the past decade. Today more teacher evaluations are leaning toward the accomplishment of specific objectives established collectively by the teacher and evaluator. Beginning teachers find difficulty in identifying areas for improvement since they lack the teaching experience, base needed' to establish future performance objectives. The student teacher learning situation is similar to the beginning teacher. This study attempted to utilize the results of student ratings as a means for developing student-teacher behavioral objectives. The design process of this study divided the student teacher population into a control and experimental groups. The treatment process administered to the experimental group contained two “elements. The first element was a forced choice rating scale called the Student Teacher Diagnostic Questionnaire. This evaluation form completed by the students during the fourth week of student teaching determined the students assessment of the student teacher and his learning environment. The second element consisted of three "Peer Group Counseling Sessions" and provided the form for discussing thé student diagnostic ratings and establishing objectives for positive student teacher change. The diagnostic evaluation instrument provide ratings in four diagnostic categories: (1) personal traits, (2) professional competence, (3) student-teacher relationships and (4) classroom management. The final assessment of student teacher behavioral change in the experimental group was accomplished through the administration of the Student Teacher Rating Scale to both the control and experimental groups. This two part evaluation instrument administered during the twelfth week also provided the data to determine the overall student teachers characteristics associated with the four diagnostic categories. The statistical analysis of the data used a Pearson Product Correlational, t tests, and a one way analysis of variance for repeated measures. The findings revealed that no significant difference (at the .05 level or lower) existed between control and experimental groups total students ratings. Diagnostic category differences were significant at the .01 level for both groups on the final rating scale. The Newman-Keuls Process was incorporated to determine these differences. The category differences in the total mean scores on the Student Teacher Rating Scale were fewer for the experimental group than control group. This decrease in category differences was attributed to the student feedback and group counseling process. The students raters ranked the category of personal traits Significantly lower for all student teachers on both evaluation instruments. Category differences also occurred in the university supervisors ratings. Classroom management was ranked consistently higher than the other three categories. Cooperating teacher results indicated no significant category differences. There were no significant differences (at the .05 level or lower) found in the student ratings of teachers with high college grades and those with lower college grades. Also, there was no significant differences in middle and senior high student ratings of student teachers. University supervisors, cooperating teachers, and students all showed a slight positive correlation in rating student teachers. Only the cooperating teachers and students reached a significant level of .01. The two part Student Teacher Rating Scale revealed no significant difference between the forced choice section and the Likert scale section. / Ph. D.