||Critical Thinking|The teacher builds students’ critical thinking skills by encouraging<br>them to actively analyze content.|
|---|---|---|
|Socioemotional<br>Skills|Autonomy|The teacher provides students with opportunities to make choices and<br>take on meaningful roles in the classroom. Students make use of<br>these opportunities by volunteering to take on roles and expressing<br>their ideas and opinions throughout the lesson.|
||Perseverance|The teacher promotes students’ efforts toward the goal of mastering<br>new skills or concepts, instead of focusing solely on results,<br>intelligence, or natural abilities. In addition, the teacher has a positive<br>attitude toward challenges, framing failure and frustrations as useful<br>parts of the learning process. The teacher also encourages students to<br>set short-and/or long-term goals|
||Social and<br>Collaborative Skills|The teacher encourages students’ collaboration with one another and<br>promotes students’ interpersonal skills. Students respond to the<br>teacher’s efforts by collaborating with one another in the classroom,<br>creating an environment free from physical or emotional hostility.|
|Source: Molina e|t al. (2019).||

# **_Structure of classroom observations in the ETOS_**

As described above, the ETOS was designed in a way that the properties of the various instruments can be studied. Since one of the goals was to investigate the “internal” properties of each instrument, we chose for some classrooms to have two enumerators with the same instrument. Another goal was to compare across instruments, so we chose for some classrooms to have two enumerators with a different instrument. In Round 1, Grade 4 classrooms were assigned to either having two SDI enumerators (27 schools), two Stallings enumerators (27 schools), or one SDI and one Stallings enumerator (46 schools).<sup>17</sup> In addition, some classrooms were assigned to having a video camera (65 schools). In each of these schools, the two enumerators were subsequently supposed to observe an additional classroom by themselves—targeting a Grade 3 and a Grade 5 classroom. The result was a set of Grade 3 classrooms observed using SDI only (46 schools), Stallings only (45 schools), and SDI and Stallings (2 schools); and a set of Grade 5 classrooms observed using SDI only (41 schools), Stallings only (52 schools), and SDI and Stallings (2 schools).<sup>18</sup> Grade 3 and 5 observations did not include video cameras.

In Round 2, the process was simpler. All Grade 4 classrooms were supposed to be observed using SDI and Stallings, along with a video camera. The resulting sample includes classrooms that did indeed follow that model (84 schools). However, due to technical and coordination issues in the field, videos were not done in some classrooms (9 schools). Last, some schools were not reached and there is no Round 2 SDI,

> 17 As implemented, in the data we also find one school with two SDI and one Stallings observations, and two schools with one SDI and two Stallings observations.

> 18 These SDI and Stallings Grade 3 and Grade 5 classrooms were not by design, but occurred in the context of fieldlevel decisions.  It is not clear why these were done, but the most likely reason is that there was no Grade 3 or 5 classroom that could be observed by the second enumerator, so they simply joined to carry out one classroom observation.

13