Student Teachers’ Noticing of Teaching Quality in Video-Enhanced Campus Teaching

Abstract

This study explores how Danish student teachers notice teaching quality when engaging with video-enhanced campus teaching and the research-based observation manual PLATO. Despite the limited tradition of using systematic observation tools in Danish teacher education, this intervention study investigates how student teachers from three subject-didactical courses (Danish, English, and Mathematics) engage with the PLATO criteria during group discussions on classroom video clips. Teacher noticing is conceptualized as a set of interrelated competencies—observing, interpreting, deciding, and acting—across four phases of teaching practice. Through qualitative content analysis of the group discussions, this study reveals varying degrees of engagement with PLATO, ranging from strategic and superficial use to nuanced, criteria-based interpretations. While some student teachers struggle with the manual’s language and purpose, others demonstrate meaningful integration of PLATO with didactical theory. This study concludes that bridging the gap between international quality frameworks and national didactical traditions requires thoughtful integration and openness to diverse conceptualizations of teaching quality. The findings highlight the importance of how the work with video and teacher noticing is framed, modeled and scaffolded in teacher education to support student teachers’ acquisition of teacher noticing and the language of teaching quality.

1. Introduction and Research Question

Connecting theoretical and practical dimensions into campus teaching and integrating them into a coherent program of teacher education is an ongoing challenge (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2007). Especially, video-enhanced campus teaching has shown promising opportunities to learn teacher noticing in a practice-based way (Blikstad-Balas & Jenset, 2024). Both the relevance (Dindyal et al., 2021) and the development of teacher noticing and/or professional vision have been supported by a range of studies (Stahnke et al., 2016; Santagata et al., 2021; König et al., 2022; Weyers et al., 2023; Stahnke, 2025). Teacher noticing can be understood in many ways, ranging from “perceiving relevant features”, “sensitizing” concerning overlooked aspects, “becoming aware” of something, “seeing” and “understanding” or “sense-making of complex events”, or “accessing”, to “exploring and engaging in classroom events” within a socio-cultural framing (Stahnke, 2025). Thus, video-enhanced teacher noticing can be used for many purposes (Gaudin & Chaliès, 2015) and is not necessarily connected to specific and predefined criteria regarding teaching quality. While some studies plead for open and inquiry-based approaches to noticing (Tengberg & Wejrum, 2021; van Es & Sherin, 2021), other studies suggest a more or less targeted approach using some kinds of lenses, prompts or scaffolds (Baecher & Kung, 2011; Sagasta & Pedrosa, 2019; Blikstad-Balas et al., 2024). Focused attention intended to raise the level of detailed noticing can be achieved by questionnaires, multimedia tools, introductory texts, structure viewing guides, video-based annotation tools, visualization tools, or observation manuals (Blikstad-Balas et al., 2024). Lately, it has been shown that especially systematic observation, decomposing teaching and the use of observation manuals can lead to targeted noticing and new teaching practices in field work (Brataas & Jenset, 2023). Nevertheless, the use of observation manuals as a tool to focus on research-based criteria regarding teaching quality in video-enhanced learning to notice designs still needs further investigations (Blikstad-Balas et al., 2024).

To address this, this article reports insights into how student teachers learn to notice teaching quality when working with video-enhanced noticing together with quality criteria derived from observation manuals. Observation manuals, in contrast to open investigations, have the advantage of nuanced descriptions of defined and tested quality criteria (Bell et al., 2018; Praetorius & Charalambous, 2018). We investigate how student teachers observe and reason about teaching quality on the basis of video-represented authentic classroom teaching through the lens of research-based quality criteria derived from a salient and validated observation manual. Our two research questions are as follows:

What characterizes student teachers’ noticing of teaching quality when exposed to research-based quality criteria during video-enhanced campus teaching?

What can be learned about the didactical designs of video-enhanced learning to notice quality using research-based quality criteria in teacher education?

Concerning the first research question, it is important to underline that—despite the renewed call for a common or shared language of teaching quality (McDonald et al., 2013)—the use of quality criteria derived from the international field of research on teaching quality, effective teaching and observation manuals is very limited in Danish teacher education. Although Danish teacher education is committed to research-based teaching due to the Teacher Education Act (Undervisningsministeriet, 2015), studies of the programs’ literature lists indicate very little use of research texts and that the predominantly used textbooks refer very little to newer national or international empirical research (Thygesen & Schrøder, 2020). Hence, we assume that in general, student teachers do not meet quality criteria derived from internationally recognized and validated observation manuals during teacher education. As there is no tradition for studies based on observation manuals in Denmark, where the criteria regarding teaching quality could be derived from, we choose to apply an observation manual developed within the Anglo-Saxon curriculum tradition. This represents a challenge to Danish teacher education, where the knowledge base is predominantly inspired by the North-West European Didaktik tradition, where value-based reasoning related to the concept of Bildung is at the core of the content (J. Rasmussen, 2022). Considering that teaching and teacher education are fundamentally culturally situated (Stigler & Hiebert, 2009), and that the two traditions conceptualize teaching in different ways (Gundem & Hopmann, 1998; S. Hopmann, 2015), we assume that the application of a predominantly Anglo-Saxon language of teaching quality within the Didaktik tradition may inherit some challenges to the call for a common language of quality. From this wider perspective, this study is embedded in the ongoing dialogue between these two traditions (Krogh et al., 2021).

Regarding the second research question, we acknowledge that the work with video-enhanced learning in teacher education is dependent on how teacher educators “wrap each video in a pedagogical approach”, considering the purpose and aims, the selection of appropriate video clips, the scaffolding of the knowledge base, and the facilitation of processes of reasoning (Jenset & Blikstad-Balas, 2024). All these aspects are part of what we call the didactical design of the learning to notice course or module. The designs of interventions are still a source of challenges to the research field (Bruns, 2025), as many published articles do not sufficiently unpack the designs of their interventions (Santagata et al., 2021). A group of teacher educators developed five didactical designs for learning to notice quality using video from authentic classroom teaching and quality criteria from an observation manual. Our interest lies in understanding how student teachers use such a manual and identify teaching quality using it to gain insights that can help to further develop didactical designs for the learning of teacher noticing with observation manuals. The overall purpose of this study using video and observation manuals is to find ways to advance practice- and research-based campus teaching in teacher education.

2. Theoretical Considerations

2.1. The Construct of Teacher Noticing

The research field around teacher noticing and/or professional vision already holds a large number of studies over more than 20 years and remains popular and growing (Dindyal et al., 2021; Santagata et al., 2021; König et al., 2022; Stahnke, 2025). The constructs of teacher noticing and professional vision are often used interchangeably and are seen as an important part of the professional competences of student teachers and the professional development of in-service teachers. Reviews and mappings divide the field into several different approaches. There is broad consensus about the socio-cultural perspective, drawing on Goodwin (1994), and the discipline-specific perspective, drawing on Mason (2002). Stahnke suggests further separating a perspective of ecological psychology following Gibson (1986/2015), underlining that perception is both active and situated, and broadening the so-called cognitive perspective, comprising various approaches, including conscious and unconscious processes of teacher noticing (Stahnke, 2025).

As the field was still new to our development group and the development of designs for learning to notice had to fit into the syllabus of the teacher education program, our approach turned out to be eclectic, drawing on a range of inspirations. At the beginning, we drew on the learning to notice for teachers of van Es and Sherin (2002), stressing the questions of what is noteworthy in a particular situation and how to connect what is observed to broader principles. Also, we adapted Seidel and Stürmer’s idea of professional vision and evidence-based teaching effectiveness with two components: noticing important events, drawing on the student teachers’ pedagogical knowledge, and reasoning as an indicator of integrated professional knowledge, comprising three aspects: description, explanation, and prediction (Seidel & Stürmer, 2014). In addition, we consulted competence-based approaches, distinguishing between the three interrelated skills of attending to pupils’ learning, interpreting them and deciding on how to respond (Jacobs et al., 2010). The more generic version within this approach distinguishes between perception (instead of noticing) of events, interpretation of them and decision-making as anticipating or proposing alternative teacher actions (König et al., 2014). These different skills are seen in a continuum of competences (Blömeke et al., 2015) and work as mediators between cognitive and affective dispositions on the one hand and teaching performance on the other. We followed the idea to perceive processes or teacher tasks as competences that can be distinguished, and that these competences are dependent and framed by (student) teachers’ beliefs, experiences, and knowledge.

Further, we consulted Scheiner (Scheiner, 2021), arguing for a much broader view on teacher noticing by referring to the cultural–historical, embodied-ecological and socio-material studies. Although this study does not investigate such conditions and intentions (e.g., social justice) for teacher noticing, they informed our discussions of both the intervention designs and the data analysis. We understand teacher noticing as a social aspect of teachers’ practice (Erickson et al., 1986) and basically as socially organized ways of seeing and understanding events (Goodwin, 1994). Basically, the notion of noticing implies the question of what teachers do not attend to (Erickson, 2011; Miller, 2011). Also, noticing in the classroom is socially framed as noticing is reciprocal and dialogical (Dominguez, 2019; Dindyal et al., 2021). Further, inquiry-based teacher noticing may include shaping that aims at creating access to new relevant observations (van Es & Sherin, 2021). Inquiry-based noticing can be conceptualized into two dimensions: (student) teachers’ epistemological stance toward the observation of pupils and (student) teachers’ dialogical stance toward each other in collaborative noticing groups (Nelson et al., 2012). In this study, we focus on the latter understanding.

Finally, teacher noticing has developed into a complex construct where studies focus on very specific aspects of the phenomenon and use different methods (Amador et al., 2021). It is necessary for researchers to describe their conceptualization of noticing as clearly as possible (Dindyal et al., 2021), but Sherin draws attention to the fact that the search for new aspects of theoretical constructs can push it too far and thus become diluted and lose its attractive power (M. G. Sherin, 2017). Our own eclectic approach is caught between the idea of distinct noticing competences and a broad phenomenologically grounded idea of professional vision (Mason, 2002). The future question is whether to broaden the construct of teacher noticing to comprise all the central teaching competencies or to reserve the construct for a limited understanding.

2.2. A Framework for Teacher Noticing Compatible with Teacher Education

For our purpose, despite Scheiner’s critique of intuitive models of teacher noticing (Scheiner, 2021), we developed a broad, comprehensive and eclectic construct of teacher noticing (Fernández & Choy, 2019) that allows for an explorative developmental approach and is compatible with the competence language in Danish teacher education. Although the term teacher noticing might be associated with a narrow understanding, we use it as the overall construct comprising four sub-competencies differentiated into teacher tasks. We developed the following tentative framework, sketching out an overall view on teacher noticing (

Table 1. Framework for a broad conceptualization of teacher noticing.

Competencies	Salient Aspects of the Competencies Depending on the Teacher Task
Teacher Noticing	Pre-Paration	Paration	Post-Paration	Re-Pre-Paration
Observing (enhanced by representations)	by anticipating	in situ observing	by remembering (reminding) or by representation	by imagining (alternatives)
Interpreting	by predicting/considering different possibilities	in situ interpreting	by reflecting and analyzing	by re-thinking (alternatives)
Deciding	by judging and justifying	in situ judging and deciding	by re-judging and re-justifying	by risk-taking
Acting	by designing (planning)	teaching and shaping	by evaluating	by adjusting the design or re-designing alternatives

).

Firstly, we are inspired by Mason’s phases for noticing or awareness using the Latin term paratio (to obtain for one’s use) (Mason, 2002, 2009). Thus, we divide teacher noticing into the four distinct phases of pre-paration, paration, and post-paration (that again leads to new pre-paration) as the main tasks related to teaching practices. Secondly, we divide the construct of teacher noticing into the competencies or faculties of observing, interpreting, deciding, and acting.

Observing in our understanding is then a sensibility to attend professionally relevant events (incidents, things, interactions) with weight on either anticipating (predicting) things to come, in situ noticing, including overlooking not-noteworthy things, and/or retrospective remembering (reminding), eventually by means of the representation of the practice. Such culturally embedded cognitive capacities to observe and imagine courses of action in scenarios need to be theoretically and empirically underpinned. Inspiration can be derived from “Einbildungskraft” (Kant), imagination (Husserl), schemata (Peterson & Comeaux, 1987) and/or script theory (Schank, 1999).

We prefer interpreting as an overall term for defining the ability of contextual and reflective analysis and sense-making of the observed or imagined. Important here is that no decisions are yet made, but different scenarios are under scrutiny. Depending on the phase, it is about predicting/considering, reflecting, and analyzing a range of possible scenarios of actions as well as giving reasons for them from different positions and perspectives while holding an open mind. Deciding is another kind of act as it involves choosing one solution out of maybe several imagined and interpreted possibilities (in principle, in a contingent world). Deciding is based on professional judgment and closely connected to giving reasons or justifications for the decision. Acting as a teacher practice, normally understood just as the real teaching, is here divided into a preparation practice, a teaching practice, an evaluating practice, and a redesigning practice.

Thirdly, we add the fourth phase of re-pre-paration to underline the circularity of these tasks without applying a fixed course of action. Furthermore, the task of re-pre-paration can either be seen as a consecutive process of improving teaching by small adjustments for optimizing (e.g., allowing more opportunities for pupils to talk) or lead to more fundamental changes of the whole teaching session based on groundbreaking insights or imaginations during interpretation practices as re-thinking (e.g., changing the instructional approach to an inquiry-based approach). Considering teaching also as an experimental enterprise, where it is unpredictable whether a teacher’s action leads to the intended result, trying something new requires risk-taking (Anthony et al., 2015).

Fourthly, all these competencies throughout the phases are bidirectional, connected to and dependent on dispositions derived from the (student) teachers’ experiences, beliefs, and knowledge (B. Sherin & Star, 2011; Santagata & Yeh, 2016). The quality of noticing, interpreting, deciding and acting is framed and shaped by these dispositions. It is obvious that there is no clear division between the phases and the four competencies and their salient aspects. The framework is a conceptual result of the project and serves as an overall grid for orientation to integrate teacher noticing into professional development and teacher education.

2.3. Video-Enhanced Noticing

Videos of teaching are widely accepted to be a powerful tool for sensitizing teachers in terms of professional development and student teachers during teacher education, and ultimately, for raising the quality of teaching (Gaudin & Chaliès, 2015; Blikstad-Balas & Jenset, 2024). Among all kinds of practice representations in teacher education, video material is asserted to allow student teachers access to a high degree of authenticity and to enable linking theoretical parts of teacher education with classroom practice (Gaudin & Chaliès, 2015). Using videos in teacher education makes shared experience of teaching practice in a controlled environment possible, allows for noticing details that are seldom noticed during paration (Gaudin & Chaliès, 2015; Santagata et al., 2021), and supports student teachers’ development of teacher competencies (Blomberg et al., 2014; Blikstad-Balas et al., 2024).

But videos in themselves are not a curriculum. Rather, they are a “medium which can be developed into a resource and used in specific ways to enhance learning” (Gaudin & Chaliès, 2015). Further, we consider classroom videos not just as a medium but also as semantic learning materials (similar to a newspaper article or a novel) (Graf et al., 2012; Hansen & Gissel, 2017), making content (classroom teaching) available by means of a framing technology that can be used for many purposes and learning objectives. Thus, the use of videos must be clarified based on technological and content affordances (Gibson, 1986/2015). Both the potentials and limitations of the most salient technological affordances, such as pausing, fast and slow-motion viewing, repetitive viewing, individual and collective viewing, the framing and quality of the recording, the length of the clip, and the keyhole effects, must be considered (Santagata & Guarino, 2011; Gaudin & Chaliès, 2015). The content-related affordances will vary from video clip to video clip and will change over time. The content is on the one hand considered decisive for the affordances that are made available to the student teachers and on the other hand considered to be contingent since the content and perspectives in semantic learning materials change over time (Hansen, 2012). Content is related to what an individual or social practice recognizes as content. Thus, it is not necessarily obvious what makes the clip a rich (Kang & van Es, 2019; Jenset et al., 2024), valuable (Sonmez & Hakverdi-Can, 2012; Blomberg et al., 2014), or ideal “tool” (Barron & Engle, 2007; Estapa & Amador, 2016) for engaging students in noticing activities.

Thus, selecting suitable video clips is not an easy enterprise (Gaudin & Chaliès, 2015; Blikstad-Balas & Jenset, 2024). Besides the questions of the technological and content affordances of the video clip, it is vital to clarify the purpose and aims, the observational focus and knowledge base, the scaffolding and facilitation of processes, reasoning and evaluation, and last but not least, the ethical guidelines for video watching (Jenset et al., 2024). Blikstad-Balas and Jenset underline the importance of the alignment of all the didactical decisions around the use of video and the integration of learning to notice courses into teacher education programs (Blikstad-Balas & Jenset, 2024).

2.4. Noticing Teaching Quality

The notion of quality in teaching is very much disputed but is often distinguished into two not logically dependent aspects: good teaching with a focus on the worthiness of the teachers’ task and successful teaching with a focus on pupils’ learning of the intended outcomes (Fenstermacher & Richardson, 2005). In his qualitative, comparative analyses of different ways of construing and investigating teaching quality, Elf (2021) calls for caution against the risk of fragmentation and lack of context in research on teaching quality and advocates for a multidimensional framework for teaching quality regarding both ontological and epistemological assumptions.

In contrast, using high standards for teaching, an approach that the United States has been leading, is now a growing currency around the world (Darling-Hammond, 2017). It has been shown that models of effective teaching in professional development improve pupils’ achievement (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017), and teacher noticing mediates between teachers’ dispositions in the form of their knowledge and beliefs and the teaching quality in their classroom (Blömeke et al., 2022). It has been shown repeatedly that the quality of teachers’ teaching, rather than the class size, classroom climate, and teachers’ years of experience and formal training, is the most important factor in students’ achievement (Hattie, 2009; Baumert et al., 2010; Nilsen & Gustafsson, 2016).

There are a large number of different systems for observing and/or measuring teaching quality, differing in approach, purpose, theoretical underpinnings, instructional aspects, operationalization, and evidence (Praetorius & Charalambous, 2018). Despite extensive efforts to refine the protocols and procedures, reliability and validity issues are still heavily questioned (Gitomer et al., 2021), and the field recognizes differences in outcome measurements across countries, cohorts, subject domains, and types of outcomes (Senden et al., 2021). Nevertheless, there are attempts to agree on shared criteria regarding teaching quality across observation manuals (McDonald et al., 2013; Praetorius & Charalambous, 2018; Blikstad-Balas et al., 2021).

Learning to notice approaches do not necessarily imply the use of predefined criteria regarding teaching quality. Nevertheless, there are promising experiences of using observation manuals with evidence-based criteria concerning teaching quality together with learning to notice courses as the manuals provide a framework for nuanced observation (Blikstad-Balas et al., 2024; Neil Prilop et al., 2024). Since Danish student teachers rarely meet such quality criteria, it was our intention to test how to use observation manuals together with learning to notice courses. As this study was part of the Nordic Centre of Excellence QUINT (Quality In Nordic Teaching), where the Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observation (PLATO) (Grossman, 2019) was part of the research method and object, we decided to use it as our focus of attention for noticing. PLATO was developed to facilitate value-added, effective instruction in language arts teaching (Grossman et al., 2013) and has grown into a salient research-based observation manual (Blikstad-Balas et al., 2021). Teaching quality is specified by 12 elements (4 of the 12 comprise two sub-elements each) addressing teachers’ instruction. Each element is graduated into four levels and must be scored separately and due to the level of evidence that can be observed during a 15 min cycle. While PLATO was developed for the research purpose of rating teaching, we wanted to use it for the educational purpose of sensitizing student teachers in terms of teaching quality. For that reason, we made a culturally adapted and shorter translation of the PLATO manual in Danish, including the level-based definitions of the elements. For readers who are not familiar with the PLATO manual, we display a short version in

Table 2. PLATO elements (our representation).

PLATO-Element	Focus	Abbreviation
Purpose	Coherence of the lesson around internal communicated learning goals and situated learning goal in a broader context	PUR
Intellectual Challenge	Intellectual rigor of the activities and assignments in which pupils engage	IC
Representation of Content	Teachers’ ability and accuracy in representing content (ROC1, quality of explanations; ROC2, conceptual richness)	ROC
Connection to Prior Knowledge	The extent to which new material is connected to pupils’ prior academic knowledge	CPK
Strategy Use and Instruction	Teacher’s ability to teach strategies and skills	SUI
Modeling and Use of Models	The degree to which a teacher visibly enacts strategies, skills, and processes targeted at guiding pupils’ work	MOD
Classroom Discourse	Teachers’ uptake (CD1), and pupils’ opportunities to talk (CD2) with the teacher and among peers	CD
Feedback	The quality of feedback provided in response to pupils’ work	FEED
Text-based Instruction	Use of authentic texts in instruction (TBI1) Production of texts (TBI2)	TBI
Accommodation for Language Learning	Supportive material for language learning (ALL1) Use of academic language (ALL2)	ALL
Behavior Management	The degree to which behavior management facilitates academic work	BM
Time Management	How well paced and efficient tasks and transitions are in the classroom	TM

.

3. Methodological Considerations

3.1. The Development Work and Intervention

In Denmark, teacher education is situated at university colleges, has a duration of four years (240 ECTS), and issues professional bachelor’s degrees (Elstad, 2020). At the time of this study, student teachers had 30 ECTS field work, 60–80 ECTS courses in general education, pedagogy and didactics, 120–140 ECTS for their three subject didactical courses, and 10–20 ECTS for their bachelor’s project (since 2024, a reform of Danish teacher education is being implemented).

A development group consisting of teacher educators and the authors designed five generic Learning To Notice Quality modules (LTNQ) to advance practice- and research-based campus teaching. The development task was to integrate video-enhanced learning to notice ideas with the focus on teaching quality into the existing subject didactical courses, considering progression over two years. The main inspiration came from similar development work within the QUINT center. As described in the theoretical section, the LTNQ modules are based on the idea of video clubs for student teachers (van Es & Sherin, 2002, 2008, 2021), Seidel and Stürmer’s (Seidel & Stürmer, 2014) three phases of describe, explain and predict, and the PLATO manual.

The LTNQ module designs are described in detail, including the goals for the modules, the individual, group and plenum activities in sequential order, the content (didactical theory and PLATO), and the use of video clips (H. F. Rasmussen et al., 2023). In LTNQ1, no PLATO elements were introduced and student teachers were invited to primarily describe and explain in a very open manner. In LTNQ2, the focus was on describing and explaining mainly using the PLATO elements PUR, CPK, BM, and TM, as they fitted into the syllabus. In LTNQ3, the PLATO elements PUR, ROC and CPK were connected to the subject didactical focus of the course, and in LTNQ4, PLATO use was optional.

In LTNQ5, where our data stems from, the purpose was “to provide experiences for student teachers in decision-making on teacher actions based on interpretations of complex situations” (H. F. Rasmussen et al., 2023). The presented clips for the modules stem from subject didactical relevant videos and were not selected due to considerations of their exemplarity when it comes to ambitious (van Es et al., 2017), high-quality teaching (Jenset et al., 2024) or variation of teaching quality (Alsawaie & Alghazo, 2010). Rather, they were selected with the intention of presenting everyday teaching with unknown teachers as ‘authentic middle range’ clips allowing students to watch complex situations. The length of the video clips was as follows: L1-DA 8 min, L2-ENG 19 min, MA 11 min. The student teacher groups had to choose a 1–2 min clip they thought was critical for pupils’ academic learning. The noticing process was scaffolded stepwise to identify and justify a relevant situation, brainstorm for alternative teacher actions, compare and justify them in relation to what can be observed in the clip, describe the clip, interpret with concepts the differences, predict the possible outcomes, explain the group’s reasoning to another group, and the final plenum discussion in the course. The groups were invited to remember what they had learned over the last two years and choose which didactical concepts and PLATO elements they wanted to use for noticing (H. F. Rasmussen et al., 2023).

Noticing with student teachers in teacher education looks slightly different than teacher noticing in schools (Table 1). In LTNQ5, the student teachers observe a video representation of a teaching situation without knowing the enacting teachers’ intentions, the pupils in the video or the wider context of the situation. Also, the student teachers are asked to re-prepare the teaching situation by re-imagining, re-thinking, risk-taking and re-designing without knowing the real constraints of the situation. In that sense, the student teachers’ noticing is an artificial version of the authentic teacher noticing in schools.

The involved teacher educators in L1-Danish, L2-English, and mathematics integrated the generic modules into their subject didactical courses over the period of two years. The development group evaluated and adjusted the LTNQ modules consecutively, and the executive teacher educators were engaged in coordinating with each other. As the teacher educators were part of the development group, we may assume fairly high fidelity in carrying out the module designs with the student teachers. These five modules can be seen as an intervention in teacher education.

3.2. Collecting and Selecting Data from LTNQ5

To characterize and understand student teachers’ noticing of teaching quality, we decided to focus on data from the last and most elaborated LTNQ5 module with the length of four lessons. As the central activity was group work, audio-recordings of the student teacher group discussions form the primary data source. Altogether, we have ten recordings: four in L1-DA, three in L2-ENG, and three in MA. The recordings range from 45 to 90 min of group discussion. The recordings were transcribed verbatim (McMullin, 2023) by instructed research assistants. The most prevalent emotional reactions were included, and non-relevant utterances for the given assignment omitted.

The secondary data consist of the teacher educators’ plans and materials (handouts, video clips, pptx presentations) and the expert ratings of the used video clips. The PLATO ratings of the clips in L1-DA and MA stem from aggregated double ratings carried out by certified raters from the QUINT center. The L2-ENG video clips were rated by one certified PLATO rater.

3.3. Coding Procedure

The transcribed group discussions were then subjected to a coding procedure to identify relevant parts for analyzing the student teachers’ noticing of teaching quality. The dataset was coded in NVivo in two rounds. In the first round, the data was tagged with the broad code “use of concepts” when student teachers used terms or concepts that could have a professional or theoretical content. Such terms could be “motivation”, “dialogic teaching”, or “group work” and comprise utterances with very loose understanding of the chosen concepts’ academic meaning. The first round of coding was conducted by an instructed research assistant to basically separate relevant from non-relevant statements during the group discussions. The purpose of the first round was to develop an explorative picture of the noticing in the groups.

After this coarse-grained coding, a second coding round identified the noticing through a PLATO lens. We coded utterances for both explicit and implicit use of PLATO elements. For example, utterances on observed things like “[the teacher] doesn’t explain it to the pupils” were coded as implicit use of Representation of Content (ROC) as it is about the quality of explanations and conceptual richness. For example, utterances on non-visible things like “I would have made sure that pupil groups are more on task” were codes as implicit use of Time Management (TM). Our coding of implicit use was based on the original PLATO 5.0 protocol and the adopted Danish version. To ensure the higher reliability of the coding of the implicit use of PLATO (analytic coding with higher inference), the second round was double-coded by the instructed research assistant and the first author. In the qualitative analysis, the results of both coders were included to ensure the most nuanced interpretation and allow for a third final judgment.

The final dataset was created by extracting a data file for each subject (L1-DA, L2-ENG, MA) based on the following codes: use of concepts, implicit and explicit use of PLATO elements. Multiple coding of utterances and discussion units was common. These three files, including all the coding stripes, were used for further qualitative content analysis.

3.4. First Analytical Strategy

It is well-known that noticing in teacher education is very much dependent on the course design that is clarifying the purpose, the assignment and the content affordances of the video clip. Apart from contextualizing the student teachers’ group discussions within this course design context, we identified which video clips the student teacher groups were exposed to. In L2-ENG, the teacher educator presented three clips to the student teachers, and in L1-DA and MA, only two clips were shown. In

Table 3. PLATO ratings of the video material and selected clips and foci.

	LTNQ5–MA		LTNQ5–L1-DA		LTNQ5–L2-ENG
	Clip 1	Clip 2	Clip 1	Clip 2	Clip 1	Clip 2	Clip 3
Nr of groups	3		4		3
PUR	2	2	2		2	2	2
IC	2	2	3		2	3	3
ROC	2	1	4		3	2	2
CPK	2	1	2		2	3	2
SUI	1	1	1		1	1	1
MOD	1	2	2		1	1	1
CD	2	2	3		3	3	3
FEED	2	2	3		2	3	3
BM	4	4	4		4	4	4
TM	4	4	4		3	4	4

, we display the PLATO expert ratings for each presented clip (level 1 to 4). In the next step, we identified which one–two-minute clip the groups selected for further noticing. All the groups had chosen the first displayed clip. The groups’ selection of short clips and foci represents both the departure and the foreground of the meaning-producing discussions. The ratings of the selected video clips constitute the background for the analytic work as they indicate expert-rated quality affordances.

3.5. Second Analytical Strategy

Perceiving, attending, and observing as isolated human activities are difficult to identify. Observing is connected to intentions, expectations, and dispositions. Basically, we observe the world guided by meaning-making processes, and we always observe more than we tell. In line with naturalistic semantics, we take thoughts and utterances as the immediate phenomena of semantics (Devitt, 1994). Semantics refers to condensed and generalized forms of meaning that make themselves available for subsequent utterances and communication (Andersen, 2014). While thoughts are not so immediate to observation, utterances are our access to the student teachers’ noticing. According to Devitt, utterances are sincere expressions of beliefs, and “we shall ascribe the same meanings to their beliefs as we do to their utterances” (Devitt, 1994, p. 551).

Guided by the research question of characterizing student teachers’ noticing, and based on our analytical focus on verbal utterances as indicative of student teachers’ noticing, we conducted qualitative content analysis of their group discussions (Cohen et al., 2018). In this study, student teachers’ verbal utterances can concern what is observed, what is interpreted and how, and what decisions are proposed and how they are justified from an artificial retro- and re-pre-paration perspective (cf. Table 1). All the coded utterances in the data files of the three subjects were semantically condensed to limit redundance and identify core dialogues for the groups’ meaning-making process. This was performed groupwise and with attention to the groups’ chosen clip and focus. Primarily, we looked at the core dialogues where the student teachers used PLATO elements according to the assignment. Further, we included statements about PLATO that express the student teachers’ meta-reflections toward the manual. The aim of the analysis was to identify the many ways in which student teachers observe, understand and interpret with elements of PLATO; in other words, how they notice teaching together with their video observations. In that way, it was possible to identify patterns across the groups and relate them to the LTNQ5 design.

4. Findings of Student Teachers’ Noticing Teaching Quality

We present our findings groupwise for each subject didactical course separately. Our aim was not to analyze the groups as groups but rather to identify different ways of dealing with PLATO.

4.1. Groups 1 to 4 in L1-Danish

We analyzed the discussions of four groups about a videoclip, where the teacher introduces tasks about intertextuality to seventh-grade pupils. While Group 1 rewatches video clip 1, they choose to focus on the teachers’ plenary introduction of disciplinary concepts. The group agrees that this could be performed in other—and in their opinion better—ways. They show most curiosity around “the teacher’s communication and the pupils’ participation” as they observe that most of the pupils are passive during the teacher’s introduction. They revisit the assignment of LTNQ5 and discover that they must use selected PLATO elements.

ST1

Shouldn’t we just choose the code we want to focus on?

ST2

Yeah.

ST3

Ok, yeah. But it must be one that makes sense in relation to our case.

ST1

Yeah, exactly.

ST2

What does it actually say?

ST1

Isn’t there something on “Groups” or something like that?

ST2

Demonstration (…) Feedback. And well what is this, Behavior management? Well…

ST2

Maybe. Time Management?

ST3

I don’t think any of them are spot on.

ST1

No, that’s right. (DA, Group 1)

In this first excerpt, the PLATO elements that the student teachers quickly touch on do not make sense to them. Considering that it would be possible to use all the elements for noticing of the selected clip, they do not explain what they mean by not “any of them are spot on”. Although they must have seen PLATO in prior modules, to begin with, the group does not show any sign of recognition of PLATO. It seems to be difficult for them to connect the manual’s descriptions with the teaching in the video clip.

But the group approaches the task with the PLATO elements exploratorily and slowly. They read aloud from the manual and the strategy seems to move the group forward. The following excerpt is taken from the part of their discussion that leads them to their decision to use Connection to Prior Knowledge (CPK)

ST1

Maybe we could use that one? [refers to CPK], It should be in relation to her mentioning that example?

ST2

Yes, let’s do that. Let’s take Connection to Prior Knowledge.

ST3

I mean, she does that, too. Doesn’t she? A little bit? She connects to the pupils’ prior knowledge. (…) Well but, then we must rate it, right?

ST1

Yeah.

ST3

She does that pretty well, doesn’t she?

ST1

No, because that’s where we talked about whether she could elaborate on that example or make sure everyone understood. (DA, Group 1)

Without specified arguments, the group agrees quickly and ends up rating CPK on level 2 like the expert rating. There is a little disagreement in the group (“she does pretty well”—“no”) but it does not lead members of the group to challenge each other’s arguments.

When they advance and must rate their own alternative actions, they suddenly become strategic. They discuss the following: “How can we suggest better actions or at least an action that we can assign a better rating than the one in the clip?”. Later in the discussion, they discover CD and rate it 2 while the expert rating assigns level 3. The group’s justifications are “because she is talking much” and “then we give our own alternative a 4”, because “we want to focus on pupil involvement” to give the pupils the opportunity to “further explain and clarify and specify” as well as organize “turn taking by raising hands”.

Although the student teachers have skimmed parts of the PLATO manual, they are not likely to use the explicit arguments provided there. The student teachers use arguments like “[could] make sure everybody understood”, pupil involvement, turn taking and pupils’ opportunities to explain. The student teachers use some criteria that could be derived from PLATO, but at the same time, they seem seduced strategically to rate the video lower to be able to rate their own alternative suggestion higher. The group seems to be preoccupied with the pupils’ perspective and the underlying social belief of including all pupils. Overall, although they at least try, it is obvious that the student teachers have difficulties with applying PLATO for noticing nuances of teaching quality.

Group 2 extensively discuss the teacher’s actions in the clip using many concepts they acquired during their teacher education. Several times, they dwell on the teachers’ communication of the subject-specific learning objectives for the lesson, judge it to be flawed, and discuss meaningful alternatives. The student teachers suggest that the teacher should write “the description of the assignment” and “the objectives” on the blackboard, and they consider concrete suggestions for how the objectives can be formulated in the best possible way. Then, they reach the part of LTNQ5 where they are asked to include PLATO elements in their discussion. They skim the manual.

ST4

What about the PLATO codes? Which ones do we have?

ST5

We can choose purpose. Lack of purpose actually.

• […]

ST5

That thing with lack of purpose. Specification, that is the PLATO code Purpose. We can call it level one or two. I don’t know what you want to call it?

ST4

Could we just call it “No purpose”? (DA, Group 2)

Group 2 immediately selects the PUR element and agrees on very low evidence to rate it level 2, as did the experts. On the one hand, the student teachers’ judgment appears to be intuitive as there are no further justifications. On the other hand, they have discussed the quality and the clarity of the subject-specific learning objectives previously in an elaborate way. One student teacher elaborates on PUR:

ST5

We can say that it is purpose, when she [the teacher] asks the pupils to read the purpose [in the textbook]. There is no evaluation of that, right? An evaluation of what they [pupils] have done. They do not return to the purpose. I mean she [the teacher] does not say; “Well, let’s talk about whether you’ve achieved anything” or relate the assignment to the purpose. The purpose is just presented to them, and that’s it (DA, Group 2)

Then, the group would like the teacher to be more explicit about the goal that the pupils at the end must be able to explain the four types of intertextualities as learning objectives. The group observes three criteria from PUR: explicit declaration of PUR, clear aims and returning to PUR during the lesson. PUR is a complex element in PLATO. The group overlooks that the element PUR also includes the criteria explaining the meaning of the objectives and considering the coherence between goals, activities and monitoring the learning progress. It seems that the group equals PUR with learning objectives. This may be due to the Danish translation of purpose into the term ‘goal’. Altogether, we see an example of noticing, where the group gets closer to but does not grasp the full potential of the elaborate PLATO element.

Further, the group skims the definitions of CD, SUI, ROC, and FEED in the manual and agrees that neither of them are relevant to use for the video clip. The group’s discussion and the student teachers’ turn taking takes place at high speed and seems to allow little space for thoughtful interpretation of the PLATO elements.

Group 3 is also concerned with how the teacher presents the four types of intertextualities to the pupils. They worry about the high pace of the teacher’s presentation and are preoccupied with the possible connections between the learning objectives and the presentation of content. Their inclusion of the PLATO manual takes off in indignation at the teacher’s (lack of) attempts to involve the pupils in the classroom conversation. They read about CD2 and the four levels in the manual and find it hard to decide, oscillating between level 2 and 4:

ST6

But I think it is difficult, because I think you can both give it a two but also a four. Because I think if it should have been a four, I think maybe she should have made it with, “Can we just remember the four types? Just talk to the person next to you”. Then you have more opportunity to just have it rehearsed with your partner. Like that, I [as pupil] can also say something. (DA, Group 3)

Then, one student teacher discovers that “remembering the four types” can be related to Connection to Prior Knowledge (CPK). They read the definition and decide to rate CPK as level 2, equal to the expert rating. Group 3 then turns to CD again while reading aloud the level definitions and uses them for justification for several turns. Finally, they oscillate between one and two and end up rating CD as level 2 (expert rating: 3). Mainly, they overlook CD1 (uptake) in their rating. Again, they turn back to CPK:

ST7

[reading from the manual] “Either the teachers evoke or refer to the students’ background knowledge and prior knowledge several times in connection with a topic. Or the teacher or the students explicitly refer to previous lessons and promote the students’ background knowledge and prior knowledge of the topic or one or more easy-to-understand examples.” But I’ll just see if there’s anything about the other levels.

ST8

But of course, she [the teacher] does. She says several times that it was something we talked about. “Do you remember any of that?” and stuff like that.

ST7

[reading from the manual] “The link is created between prior knowledge and new professional concepts in an assignment and is clearly and explicitly and specifically linked to a material”. After all, this is what they talked about last time. But concrete examples have more significance for linking to prior knowledge about the four types [of intertextualities] and engage their [the pupils’] understanding. (DA, Group 3)

Here, the student teachers connect the criteria from PLATO with their observations. They assess that the teacher only briefly refers to prior lessons (level 2), while the criteria “concrete examples” and the “link to the new task” (level 4) are missing.

When discussing their own alternative teaching, they would like to achieve level 4 for CD2 by suggesting partner work as a socially safer space for talking, because they think it might be too difficult for some of the pupils to raise their hands and participate in plenary sessions.

Group 4: The subject didactical discussion that precedes Group 4’s work on PLATO is strikingly nuanced. When they talk about their alternative teaching strategies, they suggest giving the pupils an example of intertextuality, by using the sculpture Boy (Ron Mueck at ARoS, Denmark) as a model text rather than as a text for the task. They observed (video clip) that only one pupil nodded when the teacher asked whether any of the pupils knew about Boy. Assuming that many pupils do not know the sculpture, they would like to demonstrate step by step how to analyze intertextuality by thinking aloud in the class. Especially in this age group, they suggest the class should visit the art museum. At least they would like the teacher to demonstrate the hugeness of the sculpture, “measure it out”, “visualize” the context of Boy, make it “sensual” and more “authentic” for the pupils to get them “engaged” and to demonstrate “how fun it is” to search for intertextuality. Further, they connect this to the goals and the purpose of the lessons. They conclude that the observed teaching does not touch on “why are we doing this” and the deeper layer of the role of “cultural understanding” since qua non intertextuality would not be possible.

This example shows that the student teachers may very well be noticing deep things about teaching quality without using PLATO but rather the subject didactical theory they learned during the course. And at the same time, they implicitly use aspects of PLATO elements like MOD, PUR, and CPK, but without considering a connection. Further, the used language of multimodality highlights aspects of teaching quality that are not clearly captured in PLATO but demonstrate high-quality reasoning.

Although the student teachers initially comment on the manual by saying, “Hold on tight, that’s some decent and extensive material”, they end up discussing almost all the PLATO elements. Group 4 moves quickly through most of the elements and somewhat superficially rates them. The group dwells a while on MOD:

ST9

Actually, there’s this one [reads out]: ”uses a model task” and “examples to help pupils”.

ST10

She could have just used the textbook as an example.

ST9

Yeah.

ST11

Which one of them will it be, i.e., which category [which level]? [reads out] “The teacher does not incorporate visible strategies and skills.”

ST10

No, she doesn’t. If an example or model is present, it is not explained or used for instruction in the current task.

ST11

We can certainly say that.

ST10

She [the teacher] doesn’t have a model text. She just sends them [the pupils] immediately off to work. (DA, Group 4)

The group observes a range of criteria concerning MOD. They assess that the teacher does not use a “model text”, support the understanding of the hugeness of the sculpture, or connect to the task at hand, but does just refer to the textbook. The student teachers end up reading all the levels of MOD and rate it as level 1 (expert rating: 2).

In conclusion, the four groups deal with PLATO quite differently. Especially, Groups 1 and 2 have difficulties applying PLATO. They are quick when it comes to reaching agreement on which element they find relevant and what level it should be rated at. The harmony, agreement and speed do not seem very productive. When it comes to the possibilities encountered in the design, to reach more nuanced observations and descriptions of the video clip, by using the four levels as a scaffold for the group discussions, both Group 1 and Group 2 miss out. Instead, their engagement with the PLATO elements stands out as rather distanced, strategic and instrumental. Groups 3 and 4 show more elaborate discussions of teaching quality, both through criteria from PLATO and also criteria from subject didactical theory. They consult the manual more or less extensively and use criteria from PLATO as justification for their assessment integrated into their group discussion. They are neither strictly systematic nor consider the whole range of criteria from the element description.

4.2. Groups 5 to 7 in L2-English

We analyzed the discussions of three groups about a video clip where the teacher assigns a fill-in grammar task on punctuation to eighth-grade pupils. All three groups in L2-ENG choose to focus on the teachers’ introduction to the task (clip 1, Table 3). Group 5 quickly goes through the assignment and very briefly discusses what eighth graders should know about grammar and what possible difficulties they may face. Further, they touch on subject didactical questions like lesson goals in grammar, scaffolding, and differentiation. When it comes to the PLATO assignment, the student teachers are engaged:

ST12

And then we got the PLATO codes where we have chosen four of the codes from the PowerPoint where we talked about the purpose [PUR] where we gave her three points [level]. Then we talked about the connection to prior academic knowledge [CPK] where we gave her two points.

ST13

Then we also chose Feedback [FEED] where we only gave her one point and accommodation for language learning [ALL] where we gave her two points.

ST14

And we gave her three points on purpose [PUR] because she did write the purpose on the board, and she also did mention it in the end, right? So, we would have liked to see some more, but we give her three points because she did mention it and she did write it up and kind of reminded the students about, like the purpose of the class or the lesson plan. And in the beginning of the lesson, she also said that they had prior knowledge [CPK] to punctuation, right? They’ve worked with it before. She quickly mentioned it, and that’s why we gave her two points. Feedback [FEED] we gave her one point because there’s no feedback whatsoever, or at least we didn’t notice that.

ST15

And then finally, accommodation for language learning [ALL]; like, she obviously wants them to learn more about grammar to help them get better at their written English. But we would have liked to see, like, more of the four skills to help them practice all of their different forms of using English and not just only written English. So therefore, we only gave her two points. (ENG, Group 5)

The group rates PUR and CPK the same as the expert rating. FEED is one level lower than the expert rating, and we have no expert rating of ALL. The student teachers rate PUR rather highly considering their limited justifications based on two concrete observations aimed at explicit communication. First, that the teacher writes the agenda of the lesson on the board, and second, that the teacher mentions it at the end of the lesson. They do not consult the PLATO manual, which further distinguishes between purpose and goals and includes arguments such as coherence of the lesson, alignment of activities, or monitoring development progress. The group’s argument for the CPK rating (“she quickly mentioned it”) matches what the manual describes as level 2 (“may refer briefly or superficially to prior lessons”). When it comes to FEED, Group 5 do not identify signs of FEED at all, although the expert rating is level 2 (“vague, repetitive, perfunctory”).

Group 5 seems preoccupied with rating the teacher rather than the teaching and using terms like “points” instead of levels of evidence. Like in Groups 1 and 2, the apparent harmony in the group hinders elaborate discussion about teaching quality.

Group 6 begins with re-watching the video and discusses alternative teacher actions. The group is preoccupied with a lot of unstructured questions like using Danish in English classes, the level of English for eighth graders, and differentiation. At the core, they criticize the use of an instrumental punctuation exercise when it could have been combined with the second part of the lesson dealing with intercultural understanding. In this way, the grammar exercise could become more meaningful for the pupils. Then the group begins the PLATO assignment:

ST16

So, then we have the PLATO codes. I am not really sure about them. So, we are to score them on a four-point scale. Is that correct? We do have Time Management [TM] [in the clip]. You agree with that right?

ST17

Yeah.

ST16

We can give that, like one or two? Let’s give it two. And then Intellectual Challenge [IC], what do you think about that?

ST17

I think it’s an eighth grade, so Intellectual Challenge is probably a three [level] maybe. Maybe a four. Because yeah, grammar is hard for newcomers to understand. At least punctuation. We still have troubles with that. (ENG, Group 6)

Group 6 goes through the elements quickly and does not provide criteria, so the rating seems to be based on more intuitive judgments. The group continues in the same way with rating Accommodation for Language Learning (ALL). Then, the student teachers look very briefly at Connection to Prior Knowledge (CPK) and Text-Based Instruction (TBI) and conclude that they either do not know or are not sure. Such a “tour de force” with the PLATO rating is very similar to how Group 5 deals with it.

Group 7 does not include PLATO in their discussion.

In conclusion, the two groups in L2-ENG understand the assignment as a rating task, especially rating the teacher, giving her points. While Group 5 partially provides some criteria with reference to PLATO, Group 6 hardly reads the manual but seem to apply the elements based on an intuitive understanding. Both groups are using PLATO rather instrumentally. We may doubt that the student teachers achieved a more nuanced and criteria-based understanding of teaching quality.

But all three groups are preoccupied with other teacher’s actions and didactical issues. The groups criticize that the teacher “relies very heavily” on the online textbook (“Let’s do it”) and the handout without making clear links and giving the pupils the opportunity to follow the pace and contribute to the dialogue in the class. Further, they discuss whether the teacher and the pupils should either talk the target language L2-ENG or mother tongue L1-DA when dealing with difficult grammar matters like punctuation so all the pupils can follow the explanations. Furthermore, the student teachers’ discussion dwells on issues like social forms (peer and group work instead of whole class), scaffolding (giving the pupils different roles and functions), level differentiation of teaching, and visualizing agendas and goals on the blackboard for giving weaker pupils a chance to follow. Another prominent question in the three groups is what they call “contextualized grammar teaching”. They would like the teacher to assign tasks where the grammatical aspects would be part of the thematic content; in this case, the thematic teaching about the geographical regions of England, UK, Great Britain, and the Commonwealth. They claim that the teacher could have easily used the sentence in the texts or videos, or even the pupils’ own statements as exercises for punctuation. Such applied exercises could be performed in pupil groups and followed up by targeted feedback and ultimately be more meaningful for the pupils. The student teachers’ ideas are very relevant to teaching quality. But rather than PLATO elements, they use the terminology from the subject didactical course in L2-ENG.

4.3. Groups 8 to 10 in Mathematics

We analyzed the discussions of three groups about a video clip where the teacher resumes an ongoing task in statistics. The pupils in seventh grade had to collect data and now shall manage and visualize the data with diagrams. All three groups in MA choose to focus on the teachers’ introduction to the task (clip 1, Table 3). Group 8 skim and select some of the elements and start out with meta-comments on the PLATO manual:

ST18

PLATO codes.

ST19

Yeah, I just found it [the manual]. (…) For example, there is one called Connection to Prior Knowledge [CPK], and Representation of Content [ROC]…

ST18

I think that Representation of Content seems very…

ST19

Well, there is also one called Purpose [PUR] and Classroom Discourse [CD] and Feedback [FEED]. I think I would choose one of them.

ST20

[We also have] Time Management [TM].

ST18

Yes, but here we only have 2 min.

ST19

Let me read it aloud [from the overall description]: The element “focuses on the amount of time pupils are engaged in academically focused activities. It looks at the teachers’ efficient organization of classroom routines and materials to ensure that little class time is lost and instructional time is maximized. Periods of downtime may occur for lack of procedures in routines”.

ST18

Okay, well, we can’t really use that in this situation.

ST19

He [the teacher] would score high on that one, because he gives them [the pupils] plenty of time to work on it [the task], but there is no time to introduce.

ST20

But that’s why it’s a bit misleading sometimes with those PLATO codes.

ST19

Yeah, that’s just how it is. (MA, Group 8)

As the student teachers search for elements, they identify the overall description of TM but dismiss it because they only watch for two minutes and see no problem with the time on task in the observed situation. This is a reasonable judgment as PLATO deals with 15 min observational sequences, but at the same time, the level descriptions would have provided an opportunity to discuss more accurately whether the transition from class to group work was smooth enough. Further, they refer to the teacher educator “Yes, but we have been told ourselves that those PLATO codes are a bit like that …”. It looks like they have discussed PLATO in class and shared some criticism that may turn the student teachers skeptical. Despite their skepticism, they collectively check a range of elements, reading from the manual and discussing the relevance. Their reservation seems to fade. While the student teachers dismiss TM, MOD, and FEED, they rate PUR as level 2 like the experts, and ROC and CPK as level 1 (expert rating: 2). For example, after having read the description of ROC level 1, they discuss the following:

ST20

He doesn’t come up with concepts.

ST19

He does not deal with content, actually.

ST18

He lacks concepts.

ST19

You could say that his purpose is not to teach them anything new. To teach them a new concept. So you can understand that there aren’t many concepts in it. You could say that the concepts he chooses to use are so super misplaced that they don’t live up to the fact that they are sharp on what is required. (MA, Group 8)

The group reads the level-specific descriptions and begins to use some aspects of the PLATO elements. Further, the excerpt shows that the student teachers seek to understand why a situation looks like it looks. They somehow “excuse” the teacher as the intention behind the situation was not to introduce new concepts. Although PLATO ratings are criteria-based, they would like to apply ratings relative to what could be expected or intended. They seem to be unfamiliar with applying protocol-based observations. Further, statements like “I will give him a one” or “he still scores low” show that Group 8 also confound rating the teaching with rating the teacher.

The group discussion benefits from their eagerness to dive into several of the PLATO elements, and as the next excerpt indicates, they apply them to their alternative suggestions for teacher actions that may last five minutes.

ST19

We must point out, or predict, what we are capable of. We can’t claim that we will go for a four [rating] for all of them [the elements], when we only have five minutes. So, we must be like, what is it we really want?

ST18

Yeah, what is realistic [to do]?

ST21

Yes, that’s also about the differences [between the elements]. You know, it’s important that the price we actually pay for it [the alternative action] is that the introduction takes longer. So of course, we can’t achieve more than he can in two minutes. That’s why he has to spend a little more time on it.

• […]

ST19

Yes. I could probably imagine and would probably also be able to do the [level] three. (…) What we can do with the PLATO codes is to signal what we believe is realistic and how we will prioritize it. (MA, Group 8)

Two things are interesting here. First, the student teachers want to be “realistic” and feel they need to “prioritize” the elements considering the time they have. They express that they will not be able to achieve higher levels for all the elements in the short time they have. And second, the excerpt indicates that the student teachers consider their own abilities in achieving levels, rather than which teacher strategy could be productive. Also, in the prospective use of PLATO, the student teachers apply the elements relatively to time and abilities. They want to be fair while rating their own planned and imagined alternatives.

Several times, the group reads aloud from the level descriptions of the manual and the student teachers challenge each other’s interpretations. For example, the student teachers read aloud level 3 and 4 for ROC and assess that their own suggestion for teacher actions must be on these levels. They argue that the biggest difference between levels 3 and 4 is the use of examples as they intend to use examples to make sure the pupils will not be in doubt about what to do. Finally, student teacher 20 concludes, against the student teacher who claims to be more realistic, the following:

ST20

I actually don’t think it’s that difficult to achieve a four here. […] Because we have chosen to clarify the objectives and the requirements. We have chosen that they [the pupils] should see an example, and we have chosen to make it more visible to them. […] All the criteria are on level 4. They are not on level 3. (MA, Group 8)

By reading the levels of the PLATO elements and challenging each other, Group 8 engages in criteria-based interpretation. Although they are engaged in being precise, they still overlook some aspects. First, the main difference between levels 3 and 4 is not giving examples but highlighting “the nuances of concepts” and “providing counterexamples to help pupils distinguish among different features of related ideas”. Second, student teacher 20 mentions objectives and requirements that are rather more a matter of PUR and IC than ROC.

Group 9 also starts out by discussing which PLATO elements are relevant and which they want to focus on. They consider PUR, ROC, CPK, TM, and MOD, but they end up rating ROC and CD as level 2, like the experts, and after intensive discussion between 1 and 2, they end up with 2 for MOD, in contrast to the expert rating of 1. Group 9 is the only group that actually reads about the levels and what they mean: level one shows almost no, two limited signs of the element, three shows signs of the element with some deficiencies, and four shows consistent and convincing signs. Then, the students continuously read the levels described in the manual when discussing the possible ratings, as shown here for ROC:

ST22

He explained to the students about h(x), it’s frequency and stuff. And then he explains the formula for it and what they will use it for. But the pupils still asked afterwards, so what was h(x)? So, if he hasn’t come through, that’s just the way it is. We are successful, he got something out of it, he said afterwards, okay.

ST23

But then representation of content must be on level 2, too. Because for level 1 it says the teacher addresses misunderstandings, no it says “provides incorrect explanations” [from the manual], but he gives correct explanations, they are just not particularly good. What do you say?

ST22

What do we think about the next one? “Conceptual richness of instructional explanations” [ROC2]. Is content transferred “focusing on rules, procedures …” [level 2]. That’s it. No, wait, “a balance of focus on rules, procedures and labels” [as well as attention to conceptual or deeper understanding, level 3].

ST23

If we take the overall description, then the two [ROC1 and 2] belong together.

ST22

Yes exactly. We are right that it gives [level] two. I will assess that. What do you say?

ST23

But it is also pretty difficult. (MA, Group 9)

It is obvious that Group 9 continuously refers to the observation of the teacher and the pupils in the video clip, uses quotes from the level description from PLATO, and shows an exploratory approach by self-correcting, asking and challenging each other. What we see throughout all the discussions about the PLATO elements is a fruitful dynamic of sensitizing concerning teaching quality in the group. Here, about CD:

ST25

Then I ask if he is a one [level]. “Automatic teacher response that simply acknowledge or echo the pupils’ contributions”.

ST22

No, because it would just be like … okay good, yes great, yes thanks, instead of going in and explaining it.

ST24

So I think he’s still coming up with something, but again, there are just short explanations.

ST23

Yes, it also says here that the “teacher accepts answers without asking for clarification or elaboration” [level 1], and I think he does that. And I think he asks for that [clarification]. (MA, Group 9)

Group 9 oscillates between levels 1 and 2 and they end up agreeing on level 2. The student teachers use arguments from the manual and listen to each other. The group members show a productive disagreement.

When Group 9 discusses PLATO in relation to their alternative teaching strategies, they somehow accept them as a sign of quality. Even this very engaged group seems to have some challenges in understanding how an observation protocol works. For example, when Group 9 prepares a new alternative introduction, they agree that “modeling (MOD) will raise automatically when they do a better presentation”. In this case, the student teachers overlook the differences between the elements and the nuances that could be derived from the manual. Finally, one skeptical student says “Even though I criticize PLATO-codes, because I think this approach is superficial, it is still something where you would like to score higher in this scenario. It is still better having a higher score.” Group 9 seems not only to accept the PLATO elements as teaching quality but also shows signs of applying them in a productive way. Nevertheless, their criticism seems to be superficial too as they just judge but do not provide arguments for the limits of PLATO.

Group 10 sometimes reads from the manual to be accurate and sometimes argues without it. Also, the student teachers remind each other what can be seen in the video clip to provide arguments. They rate PUR, CKP and CD as level 2, in line with the expert rating. For IC, they decide on 2 to 3, while the expert rating is level 2. They do not want to rate ROC as they feel that would be unfair. Like Group 9, Group 10 thinks that it does not make sense to do an extensive presentation of the content as they assume the teacher has taught the lesson before. It seems, they assure each other, “all the pupils knew what to do”. But then they refer to an observation where the teacher said “Do you remember that you counted frequencies last time? Today we continue with that”. However, this observation does not refer to ROC, but rather to CPK. And several of their statements should rather be considered as Feedback (FEED). This is an example of how the students have difficulties differentiating between the elements. Furthermore, some student teachers rate the teacher and even talk as if the teacher in the video had an intention to achieve high-level teaching for Intellectual Challenge (IC):

ST26

At least he’s trying to push it up to level three or four.

ST27

But I don’t think he will reach level four.

ST28

No, not at all. (MA, Group 10)

Another insecurity on how to rate using PLATO expressed by the student teachers appears when they continue discussing whether the rating depends on what the whole class experiences or whether it counts when only one pupil receives high level help from the teacher. Finally, Group 10 acknowledges the teacher’s intentions concerning inquiry-based teaching and problematizing CPK:

ST26

You don’t need that, because the pupils have to rely heavily on themselves, and one of the goals is that the pupils are primarily self-driven. So they shouldn’t be particularly teacher-led.

ST27

They need to use each other.

ST26

They investigate things. They work with it. They are the ones who are responsible for it. So I’m also afraid that if you went higher up in this PLATO code, I actually have doubts about how much the students will get out of it in relation to the goal he set, because then they might not be able to discover themselves.

ST27

Having to work and think on your own.

ST26

That’s to investigate it. And they’re really welcome to make mistakes. I think that’s the setup.

ST27

Yes, yes, because like when he comes down to her [a pupil] again, well, a mistake happens.

ST26

No, that’s her over on the other side. But it’s true enough. Someone makes a mistake, but then he just tells her: “just try to look it through what you did”.

ST27

That’s also a way to learn.

This interesting excerpt shows two things. A little thing is that the students are happy with the teacher saying try once more. This episode would not count as CPK, but as a feedback situation on level 1. The pupil did not receive help. Although one supports learning from mistakes, constructive or procedural feedback may not be unnecessary. The other and more interesting thing is the fact that the student teachers touch on a basic limitation of PLATO as it foregrounds teachers’ actions and frames teaching as a classical classroom situation. Noticing teaching that is organized as inquiry- and/or project-based with PLATO is very challenging or not possible. The PLATO elements are not fine-grained enough when pupils’ own actions become more relevant for learning. Finally, the student teachers discover an important conclusion while working with PLATO by commenting on their rating of CD at level 2: “Even though it is a low number, it is not because it [the teaching] is bad”.

In conclusion, the groups in MA in general seem to engage in PLATO observations and criteria-based rating rather than to evaluate or judge intuitively. For Group 8, it takes some time to discover the observational possibilities of PLATO and they want to apply some of the elements relatively to both intentions, abilities, and time. Although the group is hesitant to apply PLATO, their engagement leads to a productive process, discovering criteria-based nuances. In both Groups 9 and 10, the student teachers’ disagreements lead to increasingly precise and criteria-based interpretations. They read the level descriptions from the manual and thus integrate them into their focused discussions. Despite their focused approach, they sometimes misinterpret some aspects and do not include all the criteria of the element definitions. While Group 9 seems to express a superficial critique of PLATO, Group 10 discovers real limitations of the PLATO manual concerning observation of inquiry-based and project-based teaching. All in all, the groups in MA seem to accept PLATO as relevant and useful quality criteria.

4.4. Conclusions on Student Teachers’ Noticing

In the previous sections, we report results from the discussions of ten student teacher groups using PLATO for the noticing of teaching quality. Our aim with the analysis was to characterize the many ways in which student teachers observe through, understand and interpret with PLATO elements working with video representations of teaching. In this section, we summarize the most prevalent patterns of the student teachers’ noticing across the groups.

First, the ten groups deal with PLATO quite differently. The groups face different challenges, react differently, and discover different aspects of this criteria-based approach to noticing. There are substantial differences between the groups in MA on one side and DA and ENG on the other side. The groups in MA engage with many PLATO elements and in a more nuanced way. It seems that it is easier for student teachers in mathematics to dive into element descriptions. While the groups in ENG engage to a limited degree with PLATO-based interpretation, some of the groups in DA discover the potential of the PLATO approach during their process.

Based on our data, it is not possible to provide a systematic account of which PLATO elements the groups include and which they overlook. This is mainly due to what the different videos in the three subjects afford and the steps of the LTNQ5 design. Some groups just go through the PLATO manual step by step to find out which one they may focus on. These groups have the tendency to rush through and focus mainly on the act of rating. Other groups select the PLATO elements more targeted to their selected critical situation and engage in more nuanced criteria-based discussions.

Concerning the how of noticing, we identify a clear difference between high- and low-quality discussions when students deal with the PLATO elements. It is obvious that when the students consult the PLATO manual and read—individually or aloud—the level descriptions, their noticing becomes more accurate and often leads to more precise and specific criteria-based observations and vice versa. In contrast, when student teachers interpret the PLATO elements without consulting the manual, they sometimes adhere to their intuitive understanding of the element. When intuitive interpretations of PLATO occur, the student teachers may by chance hit some aspects of the element in focus, but at the same time, they provide arguments that could be related to other PLATO elements. It happens that the groups have difficulties recognizing which of their arguments belongs to which PLATO element.

Further, the noticing does not gain quality when the students agree too quickly on their judgments in the groups. In cases where the groups apply intuitive judgment, show an instrumental approach like let’s finish the assignment, follow procedures like voting, or make deals based on group dynamic like “give and take”, the reasoning diffuses or ends. On the contrary, when the students disagree or challenge each other, their noticing is likely to become more accurate, especially when the groups engage in criteria-based argumentation derived from the element descriptions and at the same time adhere to evidence from the video.

The aim of using PLATO was to nuance the student teachers’ noticing. Without being asked specifically to rate the teaching with PLATO in LTNQ5, many groups show the tendency to do so. Comparing the groups’ ratings with the expert ratings reveals no specific pattern of why the groups either match the expert ratings or not. Sometimes they hit upon the same rating without criteria-based judgment and sometimes they engage in nuanced argumentation with reference to the manual but rate differently than the experts. In other words, the student teachers’ ratings seem not to be dependent on the depth of their reasoning.

To make it clear, the purpose of using PLATO was not rating but using the evidence levels of the PLATO elements as a lens for nuanced noticing. Nevertheless, apart from the groups that show a deliberate and nuanced way of using PLATO, many groups seem to stick to the task of rating. Several groups even understand the rating as a matter of giving points to the teacher as something belonging to the observed teacher rather than rating the teaching as observed teacher actions. Also, they do so when they rate their own alternative actions. Some student teachers express that they will not be able to reach level 4 as a matter of abilities, rather than as a matter of appropriate teacher actions.

Often, the groups engage in relative PLATO noticing or rating. They want to give “fair” ratings, either relative to the context, to the teacher’s intention, or the time available. Even though rating is not the purpose, PLATO represents a criteria-based way of noticing. A criteria-based way of noticing disregards relative judging but only recognizes observable evidence of a given criteria. The student teachers’ difficulties with criteria-based judgment are also apparent when groups confound or mix criteria belonging to different PLATO elements. Some groups even express insecurity with connecting PLATO elements to the observed teaching and have difficulties in recognizing the usability of PLATO elements. They mention that the elements are not “spot on” or they do not make sense. Apart from a few groups, most of the student teachers show some kind of difficulty with the task of criteria-based noticing. They seem not to be familiar with such an approach to noticing.

The difficulties of applying PLATO are even more obvious when the student teachers compare the observed teaching with their alternative teacher actions. First, the student teachers are fumbling with how to deal with that but end up rating their own imagined alternative teacher actions. Again, some groups engage in relative rating dependent on time and abilities, and other groups engage in strategic considerations regarding their ratings. It seems that most of the student teacher groups do not use the evidence levels of PLATO to discuss and qualify their own alternative teacher actions but reduce the task of noticing to a task of rating.

Additionally, several groups express latent skepticism or criticism toward PLATO. They think that the PLATO approach is instrumental or superficial, although they seem not to have an in-depth understanding of the manual and its procedures. Further, there are indications that PLATO has been discussed in class and teacher educators may share some of the criticisms. One of the groups expresses a relevant criticism toward PLATO while discovering the substantial limitations of the manual in relation to inquiry and project-based learning.

Finally, our analysis shows that besides the PLATO elements, the groups use a terminology derived from theory or models that stem from subject and/or general didactics and probably were part of the courses of teacher education. Although we did not specifically analyze the student teachers’ use of this terminology in this study, it seems they are more familiar with it. Two examples demonstrate especially that the groups engage in interpretations of the observed teaching with high relevance to teaching quality. One example is the discussion in L1-DA where the student teachers argue for another way of visualizing the sculpture Boy. Although the PLATO elements MOD and CKP would be highly relevant here, they adhere primarily to their didactical terminology. Similar is the case of the groups in ENG, where they suggest a functional approach to learning punctuation. The groups identify a range of criteria concerning teaching quality but do not apply the PLATO elements for that. In general, the student teachers do not see connections between their didactical language and the PLATO language, and they do not consciously combine the two. Overall, it seems that student teachers are familiar with their knowledge of didactical theory and conceive PLATO as an alien language.

5. Discussion and Conclusions on Learning to Notice

Related to research question two, we discuss in this final section possible conclusions for campus teaching with a video-enhanced learning to notice quality approach using research-based criteria from observation manuals. Our analysis of the group discussions from LTNQ5 shows that student teachers succeed in different ways of applying PLATO for noticing purposes. Although there are probably many reasons for this variation, some of the ways in which the student teachers deal with PLATO for noticing may relate to the LTNQ5 module design in general and the introduction of the PLATO manual in particular. The assignment asked the groups to select a short video clip and identify a critical situation concerning the pupils’ academic learning and come up with alternative (better) teacher actions. The student teachers were asked to describe, interpret and predict both the actions of the teacher in the clip and their own suggestions of teacher actions. They should apply didactical theory and use quality criteria from PLATO.

Firstly, it is obvious that most of the student teachers are not familiar with criteria-based observations. They do not seem to have experienced the use of systematic observation manuals, do not clearly know how to use one, and seem not to see the meaning of using one. Revisiting the LTNQ5 and the previous module designs, it becomes clear that the student teachers have not been introduced properly to that kind of observational approach. They have neither been presented with a modeling of how to use PLATO for the noticing task in LTNQ5 nor explicitly been introduced to the professionally meaningful purpose of criteria-based observing in general. Ironically, the PLATO elements Modeling (MOD) and Purpose (PUR), criteria the student teachers themselves should apply in their noticing task, seem not to have been part of the campus teaching during LTNQ5 and all the other LTNQ modules. We can conclude for future LTNQ designs the following: When criteria-based observation manuals are used for noticing, it seems indispensable to model the task thoroughly for the student teachers and demonstrate the why and how of criteria-based teacher noticing, sine qua non the student teachers are left alone finding the professional meaning of it.

Secondly, the student teachers struggle with the use of PLATO in relation to their own imagined alternative teacher actions. This finding seems also to reflect the design of LTNQ5 in two regards. When student teachers are to focus on and develop alternative teacher actions prior to serious evidence-based observation, their noticing seems to lose depth. The proper advantage of learning to notice, namely avoiding pure evaluative judgment and avoiding jumping to alternatives without interpreting and predicting possible consequences of different teacher actions, is missed. The other issue concerns the question of how criteria-based observation manuals can be used in predictive ways. It is obvious that the student teachers also struggle with this task here, reducing noticing to rating. As observation manuals are made for evidence-based observation, it is an open question whether and how it makes sense to use them for purely imagined teaching. The not yet performed teacher actions stay imagined with high interpretative inference between the group members. We conclude that if observation manuals are used in teacher education for predictive purposes, teacher educators should at least be able to demonstrate the meaning, purpose and practice of using them. Another solution could be to develop the learning to notice approach to also include learning to practice. Instead of staying with the imagined and planned teacher actions, they could be performed by student teachers through role playing or micro teaching after being observed by means of observation manuals.

Thirdly, regarding the two languages, it is obvious that the student teachers do not see the connections between their didactical language within the Didaktik tradition and the PLATO language of quality developed within the Anglo-Saxon tradition. They use them as parallel languages. Here again, the student teachers are not to blame, but the LTNQ5 design has introduced the two languages in separate ways and does not demonstrate possible connections and complementary use of the two languages. We can conclude that if noticing courses intend to use (two) fundamental different lenses for noticing, the teacher educators have the task to demonstrate why the different lenses are necessary and how they work together.

Fourthly, some dialogues indicate both student teachers and teacher educators seem to agree on a skeptical stand toward PLATO as an expression of teaching quality. It seems that PLATO was introduced to the student teachers with some reservation. Already the discussions in the development group with the teacher educators, where PLATO was introduced as a language of teaching quality that deserves to be tried out, support the assumption that the involved teacher educators conceived PLATO as an alien language too. While the notion of noticing and the idea of video watching was welcomed as a new potential for practice-based campus teaching, the PLATO language as a research-based language of teaching quality met with critique. Thus, we may conclude that the project did not succeed in convincing the teacher educators of the meaningfulness of the quality language in PLATO in the first place.

Finally, there is no doubt that in this study PLATO represents a foreign language for Danish student teachers’ noticing and for teacher educators. In contrast, the student teachers are more familiar with the didactical language they were presented with during their teacher education. Although this was not a systematic focus in this study, it seems that the student teachers interpret many important aspects of teaching quality using their didactical language and professional beliefs. Rather than student achievement, they are preoccupied with questions of fairness, social inclusion, forms of classroom organization, etc. Whether and how the applied didactical language in Danish teacher education meets the criteria of good and effective teaching, and how the Didaktik language and the PLATO language in the Anglo-Saxon tradition may overlap or complement each other, is a question for further scrutiny.

Although research-based observation manuals are of relevance for noticing in teacher education, it cannot just be a question of implementing an alien language. It seems to not be easy to form a bridge between a language of quality derived from the Anglo-Saxon curriculum tradition and the Northern European Didaktik tradition in Danish teacher education (Gundem & Hopmann, 1998; S. T. Hopmann et al., 2012; Krogh et al., 2021).