In this presentation, the empirical video data will be analyzed with the Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observation (PLATO) manual, a thoroughly validated protocol originally developed to observe key dimensions of effective language arts teaching (Grossman, Loeb, Cohen, & Wyckoff, 2013). The PLATO framework has been used across subjects and countries, often to say something about the overall quality of the instruction or to dig deeper into specific aspects of instruction (Cohen, 2018; Klette & Blikstad-Balas, 2018; Magnusson, Roe, & Blikstad‐Balas, 2019; Stovner & Klette, 2022). PLATO consists of 12 different elements (for example “purpose”, “classroom discourse”, “feedback” and “intellectual challenge”), and each of these is scored every 15 minutes by a certified coder on a scale from 1-4. For this presentation, the video provided for joint analyses will be analyzed through PLATO. We will first provide an overview of the total picture provided by PLATO by looking at all the elements, before going into a few selected elements that highlight particular aspects of the video. The phenomena and classroom practices that “stand out” by applying PLATO will be discussed. As all observation systems highlights some features at the expense of others (Bell, Dobbelaer, Klette, & Visscher, 2019; White, Luoto, Klette, & Blikstad-Balas, 2022), we will attempt to make any tensions between what is empirically visible in the video, and what is captured and measured by the manual, a starting point for further discussion. In particular, we will pay attention to the explicit teaching practices favored by PLATO, and the degree to which student perspectives are taken into account in the scoring. We will provide examples from the PLATO scoring where students are clearly taken into account, for example when measuring their opportunities to talk in the measurement of the “classroom discourse” element, and instances where it is more challenging to establish that student voices are a part of the assessment.

Bell, C. A., Dobbelaer, M. J., Klette, K., & Visscher, A. (2019). Qualities of classroom observation systems. School effectiveness and school improvement, 30(1), 3-29. Cohen, J. (2018). Practices that cross disciplines?: Revisiting explicit instruction in elementary mathematics and English language arts. Teaching and Teacher Education. Grossman, P., Loeb, S., Cohen, J., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). Measure for measure: The relationship between measures of instructional practice in middle school English language arts and teachers’ value-added scores. American Journal of Education, 119(3), 445-470. Klette, K., & Blikstad-Balas, M. (2018). Observation manuals as lenses to classroom teaching: Pitfalls and possibilities. European Educational Research Journal, 17(1), 129-146. Magnusson, C. G., Roe, A., & Blikstad‐Balas, M. (2019). To what extent and how are reading comprehension strategies part of language arts instruction? A study of lower secondary classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 54(2), 187-212. Stovner, R. B., & Klette, K. (2022). Teacher feedback on procedural skills, conceptual understanding, and mathematical practices: A video study in lower secondary mathematics classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 110, 103593. White, M., Luoto, J., Klette, K., & Blikstad-Balas, M. (2022). Bringing the conceptualization and measurement of teaching into alignment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 75, 101204.