It is generally accepted that teaching quality makes a difference to student learning. What exactly is meant by teaching quality is, however, debatable, but there is growing consensus that it is characterised by instructional clarity, cognitive activation of students, adapted learning, student engagement and supportive classroom climate (Hayes, Mills, Christie and Lingard, 2006; Klette, Blikstad-Balas & Roe, 2017). Whilst the Nordic educational systems are generally described as homogeneous, studies where video and other classroom data have been collected about the practices of teachers and interactions in classrooms in Norway, Sweden and Finland (Klette et.al, 2017) have indicated certain differences across schools and subjects. In Iceland, classroom research have indicated that direct teaching and individual seatwork with low level of cognitive challenges and limited student participation is a significant feature of lower secondary schooling (Sigþórsson, 2008; Óskarsdóttir, 2014). Nevertheless, examples of more productive pedagogies and students’ participation have been revealed. (Jónsdóttir, & Sigþórsson, 2013; Svanbjörnsdóttir, Macdonald, & Frímannsson, 2016). While several large-scale studies of teaching quality, such as PISA, PEARLS and TIMSS, draw on survey and questionnaire data, few studies include extensive use of classroom data. The focus of the present paper is on the classroom data collection with video recordings in five Icelandic compulsory schools in 2019 aiming at analysing teaching quality across classrooms. The data will be used in a Nordic pool of classroom data aligned to the ongoing ‘Linking Instruction and Student Achievement' (LISA) Nordic study. This paper especially highlights challenges in designing classroom studies with regards to sampling criteria, procedures for recruiting schools and teachers for participation in video based data collection, and a viable analytical framework to analyse teaching quality. Not least we will focus on the strengths and weaknesses of video based classroom observations to analyse the quality of teaching and learning. We expect to come to similar conclusions about teaching practice and student learning as existing Icelandic research. However, as we have chosen different schools in diverse environments we also expect to see varied practice in terms of the four characteristics (instructional clarity, cognitive activation of students, adapted learning, student engagement and supportive classroom climate) of effective classroom practice and reveal examples that can serve as learning models for teacher education and professional development.

Hayes, D., Mills, M., Christie, P. og Lingard, B. (2006). Teachers and schooling making a difference: Productive pedagogies, assessment and performance. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin. Klette, K., Blikstad-Balas, M., & Roe, A. (2017). Linking Instruction and Student Achievement -Research design for a new generation of classroom studies. Acta Didactica Norge 11(3), 1–19. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5617/adno.4729 Retrieved from: https://www.kau.se/files/2018-02/4729-16297-1-PB.pdf Óskarsdóttir, G. G. (Ed). (2014). Starfshættir í grunnskólum við upphaf 21. aldar. Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan. Sigþórsson, R. (2008). Mat í þágu náms eða nám í þágu mats. Samræmd próf, kennsluhugmyndir kennara, kennsla og nám í náttúrufræði og íslensku í fjórum íslenskum grunnskólum. Reykjavík: Kennaraháskóli Íslands. Svanbjörnsdóttir, B., Macdonald, A., & Frímannsson, G. (2016). Teamwork in establishing a professional learning community in a new Icelandic school. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 60(1), 90–109, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2014.996595 Jónsdóttir, Þ. B., & Sigþórsson, R. (2013). Þátttaka og áhrif nemenda í skólastarfi. In R. Sigþórsson, R. Eggertsdóttir and G. H. Frímannsson (Eds.), Fagmennska í skólastarfi: Skrifað til heiðurs Trausta Þorsteinssyni (pp. 257–283). Reykjavík: Háskólinn á Akureyri & Háskólaútgáfan.