Objective In this paper we report from the use of a subject specific coding manual - the Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observation (PLATO) - targeted to measure feature of teaching quality in lower secondary classrooms. In the present paper we discuss how observation manuals could serve multiple functions when trying to understand classroom teaching and learning. Theoretical framework PLATO (Grossman et al., 2010) is tailored to assess instruction; encompassing12 elements of instruction highlighted in existing literature on adolescent literacyIt is a systematic and validated protocol (Cohen & Grossman, 2016) that resonates well with key aspects of instructional quality (Kane & Staiger, 2012, Klieme et al., 2009; Nilsen & Gustavsson, 2016) as summarized in the research literature (e.g. instructional clarity, cognitive demand, discourse features and supportive climate). As such, protocols provide (i) a common technical vocabulary for describing instruction, (ii) decompose qualities of teaching into targeted components, and (iii) allows us to compare quality of instruction across classrooms. Methods and Data sources We report on video observations from 47 Norwegian language arts 8th grade classrooms, four lessons in each class, amounting to 196 lessons. The video recordings were coded using the PLATO protocol. Each recorded lesson was divided into events of 15 minutes (n= 528). All events were scored for all 12 elements, using a four-point scale where scores 1-2 are towards the low end and 3-4 are at the high end, and with sufficient interrater reliability agreement. This approach enables systematic measurement and comparisons of instructional quality across the observed classrooms. Results We will present key patterns identified across these classrooms. The observed teachers score consistently high on the elements Behavioral Management and Time Management, mediocre towards low on the elements Intellectual Challenge, Classroom Discourse and, Representation of Content, and systematically low on Strategy Instruction, Modelling and Feedback. Low score on the latter – Feedback – is especially interesting since “Assessement for Learning” has been a part of targeted reform efforts in Norway for the last decade. These findings nurture multiple conclusions and interpretations: PLATO provides reliable and qualified information about instructional practices in Norwegian LA classrooms; it gives an overview of specific patterns and strengths; work as a ‘diagnostic tool’ for more systematic analyses on targeted instructional elements (e.g. Feedback, Strategy Instruction, Classroom Discourse). As such, coding manuals serve multiple functions – for empirical validation of instructional practices, as a diagnostic tool, and as a language for analyzing teaching quality.

Cohen, J., & Grossman, P. (2016). Respecting complexity in measures of teaching: Keeping students and schools in focus. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 308-317. Grossman, P., Loeb, S., Cohen, J., Hammerness, K., Wyckoff, J., Boyd, D., & Lankford, H. (2010). Measure for measure: The relationship between measures of instructional practice in middle school English language arts and teachers’ value-added scores. NBER Working Paper No. 16015 Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2012). Gathering Feedback for Teaching: Combining High-Quality Observations with Student Surveys and Achievement Gains. Research Paper. MET Project. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Klieme, E., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2009). The Pythagoras Study: Investigating effects of teaching and learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms. I T. Janik & T. Seidel (eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (137–160). New York: Waxmann Publicing Co. Nilsen, T., & Gustafsson, J.-E. (red.). (2016). Teacher quality, instructional quality and studentoutcome. Relationships across countries, cohorts and time. (Vol. 2). Springer.