This article was downloaded by: [Erciyes University]

On: 09 January 2015, At: 02:51

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Research &

Method in Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cwse20

Perspectives on using video recordings

in conversation analytical studies on
learning in interaction
a a b
Fredrik Rusk , Michaela Pörn , Fritjof Sahlström & Anna Slotte-
a
Lüttge
a
Faculty of Education, Åbo Akademi University, Vaasa, Finland
b
Institute of Behavioural Sciences, University of Helsinki,
Helsinki, Finland
Published online: 06 May 2014.
Click for updates

To cite this article: Fredrik Rusk, Michaela Pörn, Fritjof Sahlström & Anna Slotte-Lüttge
(2015) Perspectives on using video recordings in conversation analytical studies on learning
in interaction, International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 38:1, 39-55, DOI:
10.1080/1743727X.2014.903918

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2014.903918

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Erciyes University] at 02:51 09 January 2015
 International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 2015
Vol. 38, No. 1, 39–55, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2014.903918

Perspectives on using video recordings in conversation analytical

studies on learning in interaction
∗
Fredrik Ruska , Michaela Pörna, Fritjof Sahlströmb and Anna Slotte-Lüttgea
a
Faculty of Education, Åbo Akademi University, Vaasa, Finland; bInstitute of Behavioural
Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
(Received 4 April 2013; accepted 8 December 2013)
Downloaded by [Erciyes University] at 02:51 09 January 2015

Video is currently used in many studies to document the interaction in conversation

analytical (CA) studies on learning. The discussion on the method used in these
studies has primarily focused on the analysis or the data construction, whereas
the relation between data construction and analysis is rarely brought to attention.
The aim of this article is to discuss different approaches to data construction that
CA studies in and on learning utilize, and how these approaches facilitate
different analysis and understandings of learning and cognition from emic,
participants’, points of view. Three, partly overlapping, thematic approaches can
be discerned: (1) setting-centred, (2) participant-centred and (3) content-centred.
The underlying interest of the study seems to influence the data construction,
which in turn affects what kind of analysis that can be done. There is a
considerable variation in which aspects data sets focus on, where an emphasis in
data construction on setting, participant or content also seems to project the
subsequent analytic emphasis. This relation between data construction and
analysis is important to be aware of and to address.
Keywords: conversation analysis; learning; data construction; social interaction

Introduction
The understanding of learning has undergone substantial changes in the last decade,
with a development towards a more social and interactional perspective. There has
been a shift of focus from a view on learning as acquisition to a view on learning as
participation (Sfard 2008). Learning and a socially shared cognition are thus considered
as situated in social situations and contexts where participants are engaged in mutual
social actions (e.g. Enfield and Levinson 2006; Hall, Hellermann, and Pekarek
Doehler 2011; Lave 1993; Lave and Wenger 1991; Lee 2010; Melander 2012; Melan-
der and Sahlström 2010; Sahlström 2011).
There is currently a growing number of studies in the learning sciences arguing that
conversation analysis (CA) has an understanding of the organization of social inter-
action, that can help to better understand learning and cognition as social phenomena
(Gardner 2012; Hall, Hellermann, and Pekarek Doehler 2011; Lee 2010; Melander
2009, 2012; Mondada and Doehler 2004; Sahlström 2011; Slotte-Lüttge, Pörn, and
Sahlström 2012). In the CA approach, there is a strong framework for detailed micro-
analysis from participants’ points of views, where learning is approached from an emic
∗
Corresponding author. Email: fredrik.rusk@abo.fi

# 2014 Taylor & Francis

 40 F. Rusk et al.

point of view (e.g. Kasper 2009; Lee 2010; Melander 2012; Melander and Sahlström
2010).
The data used in CA studies are video and audio recordings of naturally occurring
activities. The discussion on the method used in these studies has primarily focused
either on the analysis and its effects, or on the data construction during fieldwork
(see Mondada 2012 for an overview). These discussions are on topics, such as the
observer’s paradox (e.g. Jordan and Henderson 1995), ethics (e.g. Aarsand and Fors-
berg 2010), camera work (e.g. Mondada 2006), audio vs. video (e.g. ten Have 2006)
and transcription conventions (e.g. Atkinson and Heritage 1984; Jefferson 2004).
However, the relation between data construction and analysis is rarely brought to
attention.
The aim of this article is to discuss different approaches to data construction that CA
studies in and on learning utilize, and to discuss their relation to the analysis carried out
in the studies. Further, the article examines how these approaches facilitate different
Downloaded by [Erciyes University] at 02:51 09 January 2015

aspects in the analysis of learning and cognition in social interaction from emic
points of view.

A CA perspective on social interaction

CA has not historically been used in studies on learning, development or cognition
in social interaction (Gardner 2012). The primary interest of pure or traditional CA
studies lies in the organization of the embodiment of human sociality (Schegloff
1996). From a CA perspective, a radical participant’s perspective, the organizations
of talk-in-interaction are not automatic running processes; they are the
ongoing sense-making practices of participants’ social interaction. How
the participants understand the situations then and there and how they orient to
the situation is in the centre of the analysis, which in turn is based on systematically
established empirical findings situated in naturally occurring settings (Schegloff
1996, 2007).
The idea of recordings of naturally occurring activities derives from CA’s ‘natura-
listic stance, which motivates the use of actual recordings of naturally occurring inter-
actions’ (Mondada 2012, 32). CA aims to study the actual living order of activities
organized in human interaction and, consequently, to do so it needs recordings of
natural activities. The entire chain of the data collection (e.g. recordings, selection, tran-
scription) is part of the analysis, i.e. the researcher constructs the data when making
choices in each stage of the data collection, therefore the use of the term ‘data
construction’.
CA studies strive for an emic perspective on both data construction and analysis.
This means that the main part of the analysis includes aspects that participants make
relevant and categories, actions and activities that participants construct in their
interaction then and there. Pure CA considers talk as better examined regarding
action and what talk is doing (Schegloff 2007). Talk and gestures are considered
actions; they do something in the interaction ‘in the first instance’ (Schegloff
1996, 165). Every contribution (e.g. turn, utterance) to the interaction is situated
in the context, shaped by the context and renews the context (Seedhouse 2004).
The precedent turn/action makes a next turn/action relevant (e.g. greeting–greeting,
question–answer).
A short example (Transcript 1) will be used to exemplify how CA analyses talk-in-
interaction as actions. The example is of a so-called repair-sequence1 (see e.g. Schegloff
 International Journal of Research & Method in Education 41

2007) from a Finnish as a second language classroom. The situation stems from a larger
collection of video recordings (about 16 hours) at a second language immersion pro-
gramme for seven-year-old children where the target language is Finnish. The children’s
mother tongue is Swedish. The data were recorded with one video camera and focused
the entire group of seven children in a pursuit to capture the interaction between the
teacher and the children. The teacher is bilingual and knows both Finnish and
Swedish, but the teacher’s main language of instruction is Finnish.
The children are drawing and the teacher tells the children to remember to write
their name on the paper (line 1). One second later, which is a noticeable length of a
pause in interaction, Mikael initiates a self-initiated repair (line 4). In his turn on
line 4 he indicates a problem of understanding regarding what the teacher said in
the precedent turn (line 1). In the repair-initiation Mikael provides his understand-
ing of what the teacher said and asks for confirmation of his understanding. The
teacher confirms Mikael’s understanding (line 5) and adds that they should write
Downloaded by [Erciyes University] at 02:51 09 January 2015

their own name. Repeats like the one uttered by the teacher on line 5 are often
used as sequence-closings to mark that the sequence now has come to a possible
completion.
Transcript 1. 8_oma_nimi_041108_30.50 –31.05

The interaction is not just a phenomenon happening alongside some other primary
phenomenon. The interaction is the primary phenomenon, which has a structure and a
shape. The analysis is inductive and the focus of the analysis is on what the participants
do then and there at that particular time and in that particular situation. The analysis is
therefore grounded in how the participants understand the actions in the interaction and
not by deconstructing ready-made classes or categories (e.g. Schegloff 2007). The
series of turns can be tracked for what participants may be doing through them,
which responses may be relevant or possible and where the sequence is going, i.e.
what outcomes do the participants pursue.

A CA perspective on learning
There is a growing body of CA studies on learning, which argue that CA’s understand-
ing of participation and social organization can help one to better understand learning in
interaction.2 Some of these studies argue for a link between learning and social inter-
action in teaching and learning institutions (e.g. Čekaite 2006; Kääntä 2010; Piirai-
nen-Marsh and Tainio 2009; Seedhouse 2004; Slotte-Lüttge 2005). Others identify
changes in a participant’s use of a structural–sequential phenomenon over a longitudi-
nal period of time and consider them as learning (e.g. Hellermann 2009; Martin 2004;
Martin and Sahlström 2010; Wootton 1997). A small group studies learning as a social
action in itself (e.g. Lee 2010; Melander 2012; Melander and Sahlström 2009a;
 42 F. Rusk et al.

Sahlström 2011) arguing that learning can be considered as something that is done by
participants ‘in the first instance’ (Schegloff 1996, 165).
Using CA to study learning, cognition and development in interaction is, however,
not without its issues. As Gardner (2012, 606) states: ‘However, the question concern-
ing what, or even whether, CA can contribute to studies of classroom learning (for
instance, language learning) is a more controversial one.’ One issue concerning the
use of CA in learning studies is that CA is not a learning theory and that CA’s interest
is not in internal cognitive, learning processes (He 2004). According to Markee
and Kasper (2004), this is true, and they suggest that learning should be considered
as constructed in interaction and cognition seen as socially distributed rather than as
individual. CA has excellent tools to reveal the learning process from an emic
perspective.
Another issue concerning the use of CA in studies on learning is that CA’s under-
standing of change is on a micro level, whereas the current theorizing and understand-
Downloaded by [Erciyes University] at 02:51 09 January 2015

ing of learning in interaction is that learning is the changes occurring on a macro level.
CA has an understanding of local sequentiality and social actions on a micro level and is
not designed to cover the longitudinal time span over which learning in interaction is
usually considered to take place (Rampton et al. 2002). The question is how to under-
stand wider (macro) issues when studying interaction on a micro level? How to under-
stand and show a ‘trajectory’ in data spanning over several days or months, when using
an analytical method that is specialized on the micro level?
One way of dealing with this is, for example, to analyse how participants orient
towards the longitudinality of the topic they are discussing. Participants engaged in
interaction with each other establish longitudinal relationships between different situ-
ations by doing the same thing or talking about the same topic in a way that explicitly
shows that what is done or said is related to past and future occurrences (e.g. Martin
2004; Melander 2009; Melander and Sahlström 2009b; Sahlström 2011). By includ-
ing this in the analysis one can argue for longitudinality and provide evidence for the
participant orientation to it in the data. Another way of using CA and still have an
understanding of wider issues is to use a more ‘synthetic approach’ (Wetherell
1998, 405). CA is, then, used for displaying participants’ sense-making in the inter-
action whereas another analytical theory is employed to understand the analysed
issues on a larger scale (Wetherell 1998). There are several examples of using a
more eclectic approach (e.g. employing CA and social – interactional theories on
learning) to study learning in interaction on both micro and macro levels (e.g.
Brouwer and Wagner 2004; Hall, Hellermann, and Pekarek Doehler 2011; Martin
and Sahlström 2010).

Different approaches to data construction and analysis

In this article, we discuss three different approaches to data construction and analysis
that seem to be emerging from the growing body of studies using CA to study learning
and cognition. The first approach includes studies that are (1) setting-centred in their
data construction and analysis. They focus on a single setting in everyday life, and
study the interactional and social practices and the sequential organization in that
specific setting (cf. Emanuelsson and Sahlström 2008; Kääntä 2010; Lee 2010;
Mehan 1979; Seedhouse 2004; Young and Miller 2004). A second (2) participant-
centred approach includes studies recording and analysing data from a participant’s per-
spective. Here, one participant, most often one individual, is in focus. What that
 International Journal of Research & Method in Education 43

particular participant orients towards is at the centre of analysis (cf. Melander 2012;
Sahlström 2011; Slotte-Lüttge, Pörn, and Sahlström 2012; Wootton 1997). A third
(3) content-centred approach is characterized by a focus on either a specific content
or a specific interactional practice in the social interaction in a specific setting (cf.
Ekström 2012; Lindwall and Ekström 2012; Lindwall and Lymer 2011; Lymer
2010; Melander 2012).
None of the above studies or data examples is pure or clear-cut examples of the
approaches. The studies do not call themselves setting, participant or content-
centred, and all studies include some elements of each other. However, the distinctive
differences in the studies can be found in the relationship between data construction and
analysis. Different ways of constructing data involve different ways of analysis, and
hence different results, both in relation to the understanding of learning and cognition,
as well as in relation to the emic points of departure.
Downloaded by [Erciyes University] at 02:51 09 January 2015

Setting-centred approach
Most video studies on learning in interaction with a CA perspective focus on a single
setting in everyday life and study participants’ interaction in that setting for an exten-
sive period of time. Most often the setting is the classroom. In these classroom studies
the focus is on participants’ practices in different situations in the particular setting. Par-
ticipants and practices might vary, but the classroom as an assumed generic setting is
framing both data construction and analysis.
Early, pure, CA studies did not focus classrooms or other institutions. Instead they
focused on naturally occurring actual conversations. But early CA studies on learning
focused classrooms (e.g. Mehan 1979). It was not until the late 1990s that the area of
CA classroom research grew rapidly (Gardner 2012). During the same time, the domain
of CA studies on second language acquisition (SLA) saw a significant growth, follow-
ing the publication of Firth and Wagner’s (1997) then controversial article criticizing
the main approach in SLA from a CA perspective (cf. Lafford 2007 for a thorough
review of the case). Many CA-for-SLA studies focused on second language classrooms
(e.g. Hellermann 2009; Markee 2000; Mori and Hasegawa 2009; Seedhouse 2004), and
classrooms are referred to as one of several ‘key contexts of study in CA . . . ’ in a
recently published handbook on CA research (Sidnell and Stivers 2012).
The focus in the early CA classroom research was either on the whole class or on the
teacher. One classic example of a setting-centred approach, and the ways of using video
and audio in these, is Mehan’s (1979) classroom study ‘Learning lessons’. The focus of
the study was the social organization of the setting, i.e. the classroom. Mehan recorded
a range of lessons in different subjects during a school year. Because only the micro-
phones were able to capture teacher-centred whole-class discussions, the analysis
was concentrated on these whole-class events (Mehan 1979). Every lesson was tran-
scribed. In the analysis, question–answer pairs and topically tied sequences of those
pairs were identified. A majority of the instances were of what later has become
known as the prototypical whole-class three-part form, Initiation, Response and Evalu-
ation (Mehan 1979).
Participants and practices were of importance in the analysis, but the focus of the
data construction and the focus of the analysis were not on specific individuals, but
on interaction patterns in the classroom. Hence, ‘Learning lessons’, with its interest
in the social organization of the setting (classroom) rather than a specific participant’s
learning and cognition, is a typical example of a setting-centred study.
 44 F. Rusk et al.

Another more recent example of such a study is Emanuelsson and Sahlström’s

(2008) article on how mathematical content is learned in both Swedish and US class-
rooms. Here, the empirical material used is part of a study called the Learner’s Perspec-
tive Study, an international video study involving 10 countries and is based at the
University of Melbourne, Australia (Clarke 2002; Clarke et al. 2006; Clarke, Keitel,
and Shimizu 2006). The data construction was made with a three-camera and a
multi-microphone design. The aim was to capture three dimensions of interaction:
what the teacher is doing and saying, what a small group of students is doing and
saying, and what the whole class as a group is doing and saying. The design is in
essence an expanded version of Mehan’s (1979) design:

The object of our research is the integrated documentation of not just the obvious social
events that might be recorded on a videotape, but also the participants’ construal of those
events, the memories, feelings, and actions invoked, and the mathematical and social
meanings and practices which arose as a consequence. The research procedure was
Downloaded by [Erciyes University] at 02:51 09 January 2015

designed explicitly to achieve this integration. (Clarke 2002, 4)

A data example from Emanuelsson and Sahlström’s (2008, Transcript 1, 209–210)

article will be used to discuss the relation between data construction and analysis in
a setting-centred approach (Figure 1). The transcript shows the teacher asking questions
about a graph that the class has been working on. The students then actively engage in
the interaction and explicitly display their stance of knowing or not knowing, which
requires the teacher to further elaborate the question (Figure 1):
As can be noticed in the example, the conversation is between two parts, the teacher
and the students. What is shown in the transcript is what is said to the whole class, since
private student-to-student conversations were not recorded. The students in this class-
room are active participants in shaping the unfolding interaction (the discussion about
the graph and mathematical content). The example displays how the setting-centred
approach captures the social organization of the setting. The data construction
enables an analysis on how this organization forms the interaction in the classroom.
Emanuelsson and Sahlström’s (2008) aim in the article pinpoints the strengths of a
setting-centred approach. The aim is to compare the social organization of two class-
rooms (one in Sweden and one in USA) and discuss differences in teacher control of
the participation of students. The aspects studied by using a setting-centred approach
are the interactional practices of the setting. Links between these practices, learning
and cognition are then understood using a social–interactional perspective. Setting-
centred studies such as this do in other words help one to better understand the
social organization of different settings where learning takes place and how the organ-
ization of the social interaction can create affordances for students to do learning.
Mehan’s (1979) and Emanuelsson and Sahlström’s (2008) studies are two examples
of what we describe as setting-centred CA studies on learning. It is done in a specific
setting of interest and the data construction and analysis focus on the social organiz-
ation, sequentiality and interactional practices in that setting. These studies give us a
good insight into the social organization of the classroom from an emic perspective
and study, e.g. which social categories and roles the participants orient to and how
the interaction is sequentially structured and organized. These are questions that
setting-centred studies have answered and that they are able to answer thanks to the
design of the data construction and how it enables an analysis of the interactional struc-
tures in the setting as a whole. In other words, the setting-centred approach captures
 International Journal of Research & Method in Education 45
Downloaded by [Erciyes University] at 02:51 09 January 2015

Figure 1. Emanuelsson and Sahlström (2008), Transcript 1, 209– 210.

what is done then and there in the classroom and how the participants in it talk the
specific setting into being. In this case it is the social organization of settings where
learning (supposedly) occurs in the school; the classroom.

Participant-centred approach
CA studies on learning consider learning and cognition to be social and interactive
phenomena emanating from the theories provided by the social–interactional and par-
ticipationist perspectives on learning (e.g. Lave 1993; Lave and Wenger 1991; Sfard
2008). As discussed above, most CA studies on learning focus on participants’ interac-
tional practices in different situations in a specific setting. According to the participa-
tionist perspective on learning, there is a need to be able to analyse an individual’s
development in social interaction over a longitudinal period of time to study learning
and provide evidence of that learning has been done. From a participationist perspective
learning can be done anywhere individuals are engaged in social interaction. A small
number of CA studies on learning have recognized the lack of a longitudinal focus
on a specific participant and the participant’s learning (cf. Sahlström 2011; Sahlström
 46 F. Rusk et al.

et al. 2010; Slotte-Lüttge, Pörn, and Sahlström 2012; Wootton 1997). These studies
have made longitudinal video recordings that capture (most of) the different settings
and situations a focus-participant is engaged in during a period of time (e.g. a week).
The point of departure is the participant and the goal is to achieve a participant’s per-
spective. The participant-centred approach records data from one focus-participant’s
point of view over several different settings, whereas the setting-centred approach
specializes in capturing the social interaction in a specific setting. It is important to
remember the fact that these CA studies on learning are not in a pursuit to generalize,
i.e. to make any general assumptions regarding how (all) children act. The aim is
instead to study how specific participants do learning in that particular situation and
with those particular co-participants.
Sahlström et al. (Sahlström 2011; Sahlström et al. 2010) recorded a seven-year-old-
girl’s everyday interaction in- and outside of preschool in a pursuit to record data of a
participant’s entire everyday interaction from the participant’s perspective. The
Downloaded by [Erciyes University] at 02:51 09 January 2015

researchers recorded the girl, Sara, for five preschool days, including extra curricular
activities. The focus was on Sara and what she oriented to. All activities at school
were recorded, including recess and lunch. Sara wore a wireless microphone for
better sound quality even during more mobile situations. She was also recorded for
large parts at home during six days. The family administered the recordings at home
(cf. Hummelstedt et al. 2008) and they were recorded during the same days as the
recordings at preschool. This way of recording is different from the setting-centred
approach as it defines a focus on a participant and follows the participant in his/her
everyday life in- and outside of school.
Building on the empirical material, Sahlström et al. (Sahlström 2011; Sahlström
et al. 2010) argues that Sara and her friend, Hanna, are doing language learning
outside of the classroom. The focus of the analysis was on situations where they
(Sara and Hanna) orient to a specific learning object: how to count to 10 in English.
English is a foreign language to both of the girls, although Sara is more proficient
and is the one teaching Hanna. They orient towards the learning object on four different
occasions during the week, which constitutes a longitudinal data set. The aim of the
study was to investigate whether what the girls are doing could be understood as
doing learning then and there on the basis of an analysis of their social actions. The
data example used here is from Sahlström’s (2011, Excerpt 3.2, 51) chapter from an
anthology on second language interactional competence (Figure 2).
In the example Hanna asks Sara if they can look at the paper that they have used
when teaching and learning to count to 10 in English (line 1). In the analysis the
focus was on how the girls orient to learning as something that they do, as an activity.
This is indicated by Hanna’s requests on lines 1 (can we look now at that English), 3
(please), 5 (can we please), 14 (you can teach me English) and 26 (can you a little learn
me something now), which all suggest a clear orientation towards learning English.
Hanna explicitly displays a wish to learn and that learning is something that is done
and expected in the situation. Sara’s answers on lines 6 and 8 (what will it be if I
say no), 10 (I would like to teach you all fast so fast English), 15 (all the time until
you go home) and 17 (promise) indicate that learning English is also from her perspec-
tive something that is doable, an activity, that is even negotiable (Sahlström 2011).
The aim was not to try to find evidence for a development in Hanna’s language use
or whether Hanna has learned to count to 10 in English or not. The results conclude that
the four situations where the girls are doing learning and orienting towards learning to
count in English are characterized by an oriented-to longitudinal character. They say
 International Journal of Research & Method in Education 47
Downloaded by [Erciyes University] at 02:51 09 January 2015

Figure 2. Sahlström (2011), Excerpt 3.2, 51.

 48 F. Rusk et al.

that they have done this activity before, that they are doing it now and that they will do
it later. The situations were also characterized by oriented-to knowledge asymmetries
through topicalized epistemic stances. They explicitly verbalize who knows what
and who knows more or less regarding the learning object; counting in English (Sahl-
ström 2011).
The data construction makes Sahlström’s (2011) study an example of a participant-
centred study. The data construction and analysis are participant-centred as the study
only focuses on one specific participant and the interaction she is part of and what
she orients to and makes relevant in her social interaction with her peers. The
example presented above does not account for how participants in general act.
Neither does it analyse the development of Hanna’s knowledge regarding how to
count to 10 in English. Instead it aims at demonstrating how learning can be understood
as an interactional activity that participants do and relate to in interaction. In theory does
the data construction give the analyst the possibility of analysing development as well.
Downloaded by [Erciyes University] at 02:51 09 January 2015

By focusing on one participant it is possible to display the specific participant’s devel-

opment and learning of a new concept.
The reason for employing a data construction such as the one presented above
derives from the participationist view that learning can be done anywhere, at any
time. One could perform a study similar to the one presented here using e.g. a
setting-centred approach and only pinpoint situations where learning is done in that par-
ticular setting. But the hard part is to know where and when learning is done. What
should one focus on? Which settings? Which participants?
The participant-centred approach can provide a better understanding of the longitu-
dinality of learning and the development of an individual’s understanding of a concept.
It is easier for the analyst to relate to the longitudinality of learning if the situations
when participants do learning about specific topics are in the data and available for
analysis. The setting-centred approach can provide evidence of participants’ learning,
socially shared cognition and affordances for learning in situations in a specific
setting (e.g. the classroom), whereas the participant-centred approach can capture
various settings and most of the situations in which the participant discusses and devel-
ops his/her understanding of an oriented-to learning object.

Content-centred approach
The third approach to data construction and analysis in CA studies on learning is the
content-centred approach. This approach includes studies on learning that are interested
in a specific content being discussed and emerging in the talk-in-interaction. It also
includes studies interested in a specific interactional practice and how it is done and
achieved in the interaction (e.g. Ekström 2012; Lindwall 2008; Lymer 2010; Melander
and Sahlström 2009a). The content-centred studies focus on specific settings or situ-
ations where a specific content or practice of interest is most likely to be done by par-
ticipants and available to capture on video. This is challenging since content is
considered a contingent phenomenon in CA, it is emergent in the talk-in-interaction
(e.g. Schegloff 2007). The point of departure for content-centred studies is to record
a specific content being discussed or a specific practice being done, whereas in the
setting-centred and participant-centred approaches the point of departure is the
setting and the participant, respectively.
Studies employing the participant-centred or the content-centred approach face a
similar dilemma in the issue of where, when and what to record. Learning as a social
 International Journal of Research & Method in Education 49

action is, similar to content, a contingent phenomenon and it is emergent in the unfold-
ing social actions. The studies presented in the participant-centred approach record as
much as possible of a focus-participant’s interaction for a longitudinal period of time
(Sahlström 2011; Sahlström et al. 2010; Slotte-Lüttge, Pörn, and Sahlström 2012).
The studies using a content-centred approach of data construction, on the other hand,
record in settings and situations where the practice or content of interest most likely
will be achieved and emerge in the talk-in-interaction.
One example of a study employing a content-centred approach is Lymer’s (2010)
thesis on a specific interactional practice being achieved in a specific setting. The interest
in this study was on the critique event in architectural education. The event is, as Lymer
(2010, 13) states, ‘ . . . an educational activity in which instructors and professional
architects give students feedback on their finished projects.’ Through analysing the prac-
tice of critique the study aims at researching how architectural competences are dis-
played in the social interaction and to help better understand how architectural
Downloaded by [Erciyes University] at 02:51 09 January 2015

competences are developed and learned. The data construction is conducted with
mainly one camera (sometimes two) and the setting is similar in all the recorded situ-
ations. The situation is the critique event at the architectural school. Present in the situ-
ation are a critic, a student and audience in the form of peers as well as instructors (Lymer
2010). Lymer (2010) describes the typical recording as including the critic and the
student who are facing each other and are slightly turned to the audience and having
the posters under scrutiny between them. The point of departure is a specific practice (cri-
tique event) being done in and through the talk-in-interaction at a specific setting (archi-
tectural education). Through the analysis of this practice one can get a better
understanding of how participants learn architectural competences (Lymer 2010, 13).
Lymer’s (2010) study is very similar to studies in the setting-centred approach. The
recordings are of one setting and there is no specific focus-participant. The analysis
focuses on the social organization in the setting and describes an interactional practice
being done in it. The distinctive difference is in the point of departure. Lymer’s (2010)
study’s starting point for both data construction and analysis is on one specific practice
(critique) and learning linked to that practice. The data construction is designed (and
developed during the project) to capture the practice (Lymer 2010). The setting that
is captured is as well a very specific event being achieved in interaction. The setting
is the critique event where the critique practice is being accomplished. The content is
also (in a broad sense) the same, architectural competence and knowledge.
Another example of a content-centred study is Lindwall’s (2008) thesis on labora-
tory work in mechanics and more specifically on designs that build on laboratory work
using a specific technology, ‘probeware’. The focus is on how mechanics is made
visible and learnable by teachers, tasks and technology (Lindwall 2008). Lymer’s
(2010) study focused on one specific practice, whereas Lindwall’s (2008) study
focuses on a specific content in the talk-in-interaction: mechanics and the ‘probeware’
technology. The data construction in Lindwall’s (2008) study differs greatly from the
one used in Lymer’s (2010). During lab activities the students sat in groups. The
groups were assigned one camera each. The cameras were placed on tripods and exter-
nal microphones were used for better sound quality. The cameras were mostly station-
ary and the camera shot was never zoomed in or out (Lindwall 2008).
The next data example is from Lindwall and Lymer’s (2011, Excerpt 2.1, 460 and Fig.
2, 459) article3 on how students in a laboratory course in mechanics topicalize their under-
standing, socially shared cognition, of the content. The study investigated 30 hours of video
material where the students used the ‘probeware’ technology. This is only one short
 50 F. Rusk et al.

transcript of a data corpus of 30 hours and exemplifies the relation between data construc-
tion and analysis. The students were supposed to create a hypothesis, then conduct an
experiment and finally discuss any deviations that might have occurred. In this transcript
a group of three students have done an experiment and are now trying to interpret the graphs
that the experiment produced (Lindwall and Lymer 2011, Fig. 2, 459). One of the graphs
did not turn out as the group had predicted (Figure 3).
Figure 4 (Lindwall and Lymer 2011, Excerpt 2.1, 460) is an example of how the
data construction enables an analysis of both the multisemiotic actions and the talk-
in-interaction regarding the graphs. The group calls for the teacher’s attention (line
Downloaded by [Erciyes University] at 02:51 09 January 2015

Figure 3. Reprinted from the Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2), O. Lindwall and G. Lymer, “Uses
of ‘Understand’ in Science Education”, p. 459, 2011, with permission from Elsevier.

Figure 4. Reprinted from the Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2), O. Lindwall and G. Lymer, “Uses
of ‘Understand’ in Science Education”, p. 460, 2011, with permission from Elsevier.
 International Journal of Research & Method in Education 51

2), as they recognize that they need help (line 1). As the teacher arrives to their position
he asks for a clarification of what they need help with (line 6). Frida then shows and
points at the graphs on the display as she tells the teacher which graphs they understand
(lines 10–11) and which they do not (lines 14 –15).
The data construction is focused on how the use of ‘probeware’ and the content of
mechanics are achieved in the talk-in-interaction. It provides a good basis for the analy-
sis on how the group uses ‘probeware’ and how mechanics are made explicit, visible
and learnable for the students with the help of the technology. It would be hard to
capture what all the groups are doing at their respective working stations using only
one camera. The cameras are focused on the content (the working stations with the ‘pro-
beware’ and the technology) and placed to provide the best view of the entire situation
including the computer display, the participants of the group and the table with the
pens, papers, etc. (Lindwall 2008). They are stationary, so the focus is on the activities
at the working stations at all times.
Downloaded by [Erciyes University] at 02:51 09 January 2015

Lindwall’s (2008) data construction is quite different compared to Lymer’s (2010).

But the starting point for both studies is the specific content or practice emerging in
the unfolding interaction. The data construction and analysis are similar in their pursuit
to capture a content (mechanics afforded by ‘probeware’) and/or specific practice (cri-
tique practice) emerging in the talk-in-interaction in a specific setting. This differs com-
pared to the other two approaches we have described and presented. The content-centred
approach focuses on learning and development with regards to a specific practice being
done or content being talked into being in interaction.

Summary
Above, we have briefly presented and discussed three approaches to data construction that
can be identified in the growing field of studies on learning in interaction from a CA per-
spective. What they all have in common is that they draw on the social–interactional and/
or participationist perspective on learning (e.g. Lave 1993; Lave and Wenger 1991; Sfard
2008) and that they use CA and an emic perspective on the data construction and analysis.
The data come from naturally occurring settings. The analysis focuses on what is obser-
vable in the data and what the participants in the data orient towards. The studies also, to a
large extent, share a common view on cognition as socially shared and situated in social
practices and activities. The distinctive differences emerge when noticing the relation
between the data construction and analysis, the point of departure of the studies.
Within the setting-centred approach the interest lies in the social organization in a
specific setting. The main interest is to use CA to understand the organization of the
social interaction in the setting and subsequently analyse learning using a social–inter-
actional perspective. The point of departure for studies in this approach is an interest
and focus on studying settings where learning takes place, how they are interactionally
organized and through that analyse how learning is afforded in these settings. These
studies have largely been a prerequisite for a growing interest in studying learning
from a CA perspective (Gardner 2012). The approach is also feasible, as CA does
not, historically, have an understanding of development and learning.
The interest of the participant-centred approach lies in the development and learning
that a participant, an individual, does. In a pursuit to better understand how learning is
done anywhere, anytime, the participant-centred approach strives to capture a holistic
view of a focus-participant’s everyday life and learning in the everyday. Content-
centred studies are interested in the social interaction on a specific content or how a
 52 F. Rusk et al.

specific interactional practice is done. The main feature of the data construction of
studies in this approach is that they strive to pinpoint where the practice is done or
where the content emerges in the talk-in-interaction, since that is when participants
most probably learn (at least some of) the content or practice.
The reason for categorizing these studies into three different approaches is to help
display how the design of the data construction seems to influence the choice of focus
for the analysis, which in turn affects which aspects of learning that are studied. This
may help future studies in the planning of their data construction depending on the
interests of and perspectives on learning in interaction that they have.

Conclusion
The analysis of learning from a CA perspective has developed tremendously during the
Downloaded by [Erciyes University] at 02:51 09 January 2015

last decades (cf. Gardner 2012; Hall, Hellermann and Pekarek Doehler 2011; Melander
and Sahlström 2010). With this article we want to encourage discussion on the relation-
ship between data construction and analysis, where different data construction involves
different ways of analysis, and different results, both in relation to learning and to the
emic points of departure. The setting-centred studies seem to generate results on the
affordances for learning in the social organization in the setting (e.g. the classroom)
(cf. Emanuelsson and Sahlström 2008; Kääntä 2010; Lee 2010; Mehan 1979). The
focus is on understanding learning and processes of cognition in instructional settings
by understanding how e.g. the classroom interaction is structured. Participant-centred
studies seem to provide evidence about the longitudinality of learning and development
from one participant’s perspective (cf. Melander 2012; Sahlström 2011; Slotte-Lüttge,
Pörn, and Sahlström 2012; Wootton 1997). They aim to understand and track overtly
displayed cognition and learning as something participants ‘embody in talk-in-inter-
action’ (Heritage 2005, 188). The content-centred studies appear to succeed in captur-
ing interactional practices linked to learning a specific content or practice (cf. Ekström
2012; Lindwall and Ekström 2012; Lindwall and Lymer 2011; Lymer 2010). They
focus on participants’ states of cognition with regards to the specific content or practice
of interest and how participants in those situations adapt and change their participation
in the unfolding talk-in-interaction regarding the content/practice.
The data in CA studies on learning originate in naturally occurring settings.
However, there is a considerable variation in what aspects data sets focus on, where
an emphasis on setting, participant or content also seems to project the subsequent ana-
lytic emphasis. The relation between data construction and analysis is important to be
aware of and to address. But contemporary studies have seldom recognized how the
underlying primary interest, either (1) an interest in the social organization of a
setting and how it links to learning or (2) an interest in studying a participant’s learning
in interaction or (3) a focus on the learning/teaching of a content/practice influences the
data construction, which in turn affects what kind of analysis that can be done.

Notes
1. Repair is a set of interactional practices through which the ongoing activity is interrupted to
attend to trouble(s) in the shared understanding. Repair is used by participants in interaction
to maintain and/or restore intersubjectivity so that the ongoing activity can progress (see e.g.
Schegloff 2007).
 International Journal of Research & Method in Education 53

2. CA studies on learning, as well as the points made in this article, are not primarily concerned
with categorizing informants and making distinctions on the basis of these categories, such
as between children’s learning and adults’ learning.
3. One of the studies included in Lindwall’s (2008) thesis.

References
Aarsand, P., and L. Forsberg. 2010. “Producing Children’s Corporeal Privacy: Ethnographic
Video Recording as Material-Discursive Practice.” Qualitative Research 10 (2): 249 –268.
Atkinson, J. M., and J. Heritage, eds. 1984. Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation
Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brouwer, C. E., and J. Wagner. 2004. “Developmental Issues in Second Language
Conversation.” Journal of Applied Linguistics 1 (1): 29– 47.
Cekaite, A. 2006. “Getting Started. Children’s Participation and Language Learning in an L2
Classroom.” PhD diss., Linköping University.
Downloaded by [Erciyes University] at 02:51 09 January 2015

Clarke, D. 2002. “The Learner’s Perspective Study: Methodology as the Enactment of a Theory
of Practice.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, April 1– 5.
Clarke, D., J. Emanuelsson, E. Jablonka, and I. A. C. Mok, eds. 2006. Making Connections:
Comparing Mathematics Classrooms Around the World. Rotterdam: Sense.
Clarke, D., C. Keitel, and Y. Shimizu, eds. 2006. Mathematics Classrooms in Twelve Countries:
The Insider’s Perspective. Rotterdam: Sense.
Ekström, A. 2012. “Instructional Work in Textile Craft: Studies of Interaction, Embodiment and
the Making of Objects.” PhD diss., Stockholm University.
Emanuelsson, J., and F. Sahlström. 2008. “The Price of Participation: Teacher Control Versus
Student Participation in Classroom Interaction.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research 52 (2): 205– 223.
Enfield, N. J., and S. C. Levinson, eds. 2006. Roots of Human Sociality. Culture, Cognition and
Interaction. New York: Berg.
Firth, A., and J. Wagner. 1997. “On Discourse, Communication, and (Some) Fundamental
Concepts in SLA Research.” The Modern Language Journal 81 (3): 285 –300.
Gardner, R. 2012. “Conversation Analysis in the Classroom.” In The Handbook of Conversation
Analysis, edited by J. Sidnell and T. Stivers, 593 – 611. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hall, J. K., J. Hellermann, and S. Pekarek Doehler, eds. 2011. L2 Interactional Competence and
Development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
He, A. W. 2004. “CA for SLA: Arguments from the Chinese Language Classroom.” The
Modern Language Journal 88 (4): 568 – 582.
Hellermann, J. 2009. “Looking for Evidence of Language Learning in Practices for Repair: A
Case Study of Self-initiated Self-repair by an Adult Learner of English.” Scandinavian
Journal of Educational Research 53 (2): 113 –132.
Heritage, J. 2005. “Cognition in Discourse.” In Conversation and Cognition, edited by H. t.
Molder and J. Potter, 184 –202. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hummelstedt, I., F. Sahlström, L. Forsman, M. Pörn, and A. Slotte-Lüttge. 2008.
“Datainsamling och inledande datahantering: FLIS-rapport 1.” Accessed April 3, 2013.
http://www.abo.fi/institution/media/27445/flis12008insamlinghantering1.pdf
Jefferson, G. 2004. “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation
Analysis. Studies from the First Generation, edited by G. Lerner, 13 –31. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Jordan, B., and A. Henderson. 1995. “Interaction Analysis: Foundations and Practice.” The
Journal of the Learning Sciences 4 (1): 39 –103.
Kääntä, L. 2010. “Teacher Turn-Allocation and Repair Practices in Classroom Interaction.” PhD
diss., Jyväskylä University.
Kasper, G. 2009. “Locating Cognition in Second Language Interaction and Learning: Inside the
Skull or in Public View?” International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching 47 (1): 11– 36.
Lafford, B. A. 2007. “Second Language Acquisition Reconceptualized?” The Modern
Language Journal 91 (s1): 735– 756.
 54 F. Rusk et al.

Lave, J. 1993. “The Practice of Learning.” In Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity

and Context, edited by S. Chaiklin and J. Lave, 3– 32. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, Y.-A. 2010. “Learning in the Contingency of Talk-in-Interaction.” Text and Talk 30 (4):
403– 422.
Lindwall, O. 2008. “Lab Work in Science Education: Instruction, Inscription, and the Practical
Achievement of Understanding.” PhD diss., Linköping University.
Lindwall, O., and A. Ekström. 2012. “Instruction-in-Interaction: The Teaching and Learning of
a Manual Skill.” Human Studies 35 (1): 27 – 49.
Lindwall, O., and G. Lymer. 2011. “Uses of ‘Understand’ in Science Education.” Journal of
Pragmatics 43 (2): 452– 474.
Lymer, G. 2010. “The Work of Critique in Architectural Education.” PhD diss., University of
Gothenburg.
Markee, N. 2000. Conversation Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Markee, N., and G. Kasper. 2004. “Classroom Talks: An Introduction.” The Modern Language
Downloaded by [Erciyes University] at 02:51 09 January 2015

Journal 88 (4): 491 –500.

Martin, C. 2004. “From Other to Self: Learning as Interactional Change.” PhD diss., Uppsala
University.
Martin, C., and F. Sahlström. 2010. “Learning as Longitudinal Interactional Change.” Discourse
Processes 47 (8): 668 – 697.
Mehan, H. 1979. Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Melander, H. 2009. “Trajectories of Learning: Embodied Interaction in Change.” PhD diss.,
Uppsala University.
Melander, H. 2012. “Transformations of Knowledge Within a Peer Group. Knowing and
Learning in Interaction.” Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 1 (3 – 4): 232– 248.
Melander, H., and F. Sahlström. 2009a. “Learning to Fly. The Progressive Development of
Situation Awareness.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 53 (2): 151– 166.
Melander, H., and F. Sahlström. 2009b. “In Tow of the Blue Whale. Learning as Interactional
Changes in Topical Orientation.” Journal of Pragmatics 41 (8): 1519 – 1537.
Melander, H., and F. Sahlström. 2010. Lärande i interaktion. Stockholm: Liber.
Mondada, L. 2006. “Video Recording as the Reflexive Preservation and Configuration of
Phenomenal Features of Analysis.” In Video Analysis, edited by H. Knoblauch, J. Raab,
H.-G. Soeffner, and B. Schnettler, 51– 68. Bern: Lang.
Mondada, L. 2012. “The Conversation Analytic Approach to Data Collection.” In L2
Interactional Competence and Development, edited by J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, and S.
Pekarek Doehler, 43 –62. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Mondada, L., and S. P. Doehler. 2004. “Second Language Acquisition as Situated Practice: Task
Accomplishment in the French Second Language Classroom.” The Modern Language
Journal 88 (4): 501 –518.
Mori, J., and A. Hasegawa. 2009. “Doing Being a Foreign Language Learner in a Classroom.”
International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 47 (1): 65 –94.
Piirainen-Marsh, A., and L. Tainio. 2009. “Collaborative Game-Play as a Site for Participation
and Situated Learning of a Second Language.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research 53 (2): 167– 183.
Rampton, B., C. Roberts, C. Leung, and R. Harris. 2002. “Methodology in the Analysis of
Classroom Discourse.” Applied Linguistics 23 (3): 373– 392.
Sahlström, F. 2011. “Learning as Social Action.” In L2 Interactional Competence and
Development, edited by J. K. Hall, J. Hellermann, and S. Pekarek Doehler, 43– 62.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Sahlström, F., I. Hummelstedt, L. Forsman, M. Pörn, and A. Slotte-Lüttge. 2010. “Samma inne-
håll – olika sammanhang: mikro-longitudinellt lärande i sjuåringars vardag.” In Språk och
Interaktion 2, edited by C. Lindholm and J. Lindström, 227 –247. Helsingfors:
Universitetstryckeriet.
Schegloff, E. 1996. “Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action.” The
American Journal of Sociology 102 (1): 161– 216.
 International Journal of Research & Method in Education 55

Schegloff, E. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis I.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seedhouse, P. 2004. “The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A
Conversation Analysis Perspective.” Language Learning, 54 (Special issue 1): 1– 300.
Sfard, A. 2008. Thinking as Communicating. Human Development, the Growth of Discourses,
and Mathematizing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sidnell, J., and T. Stivers, eds. 2012. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (Vol. 121).
Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Slotte-Lüttge, A. 2005. “Ja vet int va de heter på svenska. Interaktion mellan tvåspråkiga elever
och deras lärare i en enspråkig klassrumsdiskurs.” EdD diss., Åbo Akademi University.
Slotte-Lüttge, A., M. Pörn, and F. Sahlström. 2012. “Learning How to Be a Tähti: A Case Study
of Language Development in Everyday Situations of a 7-Year-Old Multilingual Finnish
Child.” International Journal of Bilingualism 17 (2): 153 –173.
ten Have, P. 2006. Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: Sage.
Wetherell, M. 1998. “Positioning and Interpretative Repertoires: Conversation Analysis and
Post-structuralism in Dialogue.” Discourse and Society 9 (3): 387– 412.
Wootton, A. 1997. Interaction and the Development of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge
Downloaded by [Erciyes University] at 02:51 09 January 2015

University Press.
Young, R. F., and E. R. Miller. 2004. “Learning as Changing Participation: Discourse Roles in
ESL Writing Conferences.” The Modern Language Journal 88 (4): 519 – 535.