Understanding Learning for Work: Contributions from Discourse and Interaction Analysis

  • Laurent FilliettazEmail author
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)


In recent years, interaction and discourse analytic methods have been applied extensively in various areas of educational research and have become an important theoretical perspective for those concerned with the study of learning in social settings. Following this innovative perspective, this chapter advances two main arguments. First, it stresses the idea that adopting a discursive and interactional approach on professional practice can contribute to the body of concepts and methods applied for understanding practice-based learning. And second, it considers that there exists a strong epistemological continuity between social theories of learning on the one hand, and research methods belonging to the field of discourse and interaction analysis on the second hand. From there, the aim of the chapter is to identify and specify an interdisciplinary field intersecting linguistics methods and professional education research. It is also to show what these methods consist of, how they may be enacted and applied and what are their potentialities and practical implications for researching the field of professional and practice-based learning.


Discourse Interaction Language Knowledge Identity Context Multimodality 


  1. Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2012). Crossing boundaries between school and work during apprenticeship. Vocations & Learning, 5(2), 153–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (Ed.). (2009). The handbook of business discourse. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Billett, S. (2001a). Learning in the workplace: Strategies for effective practice. Crows Nest: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  4. Billett, S. (2001b). Learning through work: Workplace affordances and individual engagement. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13(5), 209–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boden, D. (1994). The business of talk. Organizations in action. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Boutet, J. (2008). La vie verbale au travail: des manufactures aux centres d’appels. Toulouse: Editions Octarès.Google Scholar
  7. Bruner, J. S. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cameron, D., et al. (1994). The relationship between researcher and researched: Ethics, advocacy and empowerment. In D. Graddol, J. Maybin, & B. Steirer (Eds.), Researching language and literacy in social context (pp. 18–25). London: Open University.Google Scholar
  9. Candlin, C. N. (Ed.). (2002). Research and practice in professional discourse. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press.Google Scholar
  10. De Saint-Georges, I., & Duc, B. (2007). Order, duration and rhythm: Tuning to complex temporal arrangements in workplace learning. In G. Morello (Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th Palermo International Conference on Social Time. Retroscapes and futurescapes: Temporal tensions in organizations. CD-ROM.Google Scholar
  11. De Saint-Georges, I., & Duc, B. (2009, Decembre 2–4). Trajectoires situées d’apprentissage et transformations de l’expérience en formation professionnelle initiale. Proceedings of the international conference Recherches et Pratiques en Didactique Professionnelle. Dijon, CD-ROM.Google Scholar
  12. De Saint-Georges, I., & Filliettaz, L. (2008). Situated trajectories of learning in vocational training interactions. European Journal of Psychology of Education, XXIII(2), 213–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work. Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Duc, B. (2012). La transition de l’école au monde du travail: une analyse interactionnelle et longitudinale des phénomènes de participation et de construction identitaire en formation professionnelle initiale. PHD dissertation, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
  15. Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (Eds.). (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Erickson, F. (2004a). Origins: A brief intellectual and technological history of the emergence of multimodal discourse analysis. In P. Levine & R. Scollon (Eds.), Discourse and technology: Multimodal discourse analysis (pp. 196–207). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Erickson, F. (2004b). Talk and social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge Polity Press.Google Scholar
  18. Evans, K., Hodkinson, P., Rainbird, H., & Unwin, L. (2006). Improving workplace learning. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Filliettaz, L. (2007). “On peut toucher ?”: l’orchestration de la perception sensorielle dans des interactions en formation professionnelle initiale. Swiss Journal of Applied Linguistics, 85, 11–32.Google Scholar
  20. Filliettaz, L. (2009a). Les discours de consignes en formation professionnelle initiale: une approche linguistique et interactionnelle. Education & Didactique, 3(1), 91–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Filliettaz, L. (2009b). Les formes de didactisation des instruments de travail en formation professionnelle initiale. Travail et Apprentissages: Revue de didactique professionnelle, 4, 28–58.Google Scholar
  22. Filliettaz, L. (2010a). Guidance as an interactional accomplishment: Practice-based learning within the Swiss VET system. In S. Billett (Ed.), Learning through practice: Models, traditions, orientations and approaches (pp. 156–179). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Filliettaz, L. (2010b). Dropping out of apprenticeship programmes: Evidence from the Swiss vocational education system and methodological perspectives for research. International Journal of Training Research, 8(2), 141–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Filliettaz, L. (2010c). Interaction and miscommunication in the Swiss vocational education context: Researching vocational learning from a linguistic perspective. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 7(1), 27–50.Google Scholar
  25. Filliettaz, L. (2011a). Asking questions… getting answers. A sociopragmatic approach to vocational training interactions. Pragmatics & Society, 2(2), 234–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Filliettaz, L. (2011b). Collective guidance at work: A resource for apprentices? Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 63(3), 485–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Filliettaz, L. (2012). Interactions tutorales et formation des formateurs. Travail & Apprentissages, 9, 62–83.Google Scholar
  28. Filliettaz, L., & de Saint-Georges, I. (2006). La mise en discours du temps en situation de formation professionnelle initiale: le cas du trempage de l’acier. Swiss Journal of Applied Linguistics, 84, 121–144.Google Scholar
  29. Filliettaz, L., de Saint-Georges, I., & Duc, B. (2009). Interactions et dynamiques de participation en formation professionnelle initiale. In M. Durand & L. Filliettaz (Eds.), Travail et formation des adultes (pp. 95–124). Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  30. Filliettaz, L., de Saint-Georges, I., & Duc, B. (2010a). Reformulation, resémiotisation et trajectoires d’apprentissage en formation professionnelle initiale. In A. Rabatel (Ed.), Reformulations pluri-sémiotiques en contexte de formation (pp. 283–305). Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté.Google Scholar
  31. Filliettaz, L., de Saint-Georges, I., & Duc, B. (2010b). Skiing, cheese fondue and Swiss watches: Analogical discourse in vocational training interactions. Vocations & Learning, 3(2), 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fuller, A., & Unwin, L. (2003). Learning as apprentices in the contemporary UK workplace: Creating and managing expansive and restrictive participation. Journal of Education and Work, 16(4), 407–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gee, J. P., & Green, J. L. (1998). Discourse analysis, learning and social practice: A methodological study. Review of Research in Education, 23, 119–169.Google Scholar
  34. Gee, J. P., Hull, G., & Lankshear, C. (1996). The new work order. Behind the language of the new capitalism. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  35. Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merill Company.Google Scholar
  36. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  37. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Guile, D., & Young, M. (1998). Apprenticeship as a conceptual basis for a social theory of learning. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 50(2), 173–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Heath, C., Knoblauch, H., & Luff, P. (2000). Technology and social interaction: The emergence of “workplace studies”. British Journal of Sociology, 51(2), 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, C. (2010). Video in qualitative research. Analysing social interaction in everyday life. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Heller, M. (2003). Globalization, the new economy and the commodification of language. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 473–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2003). Power and politeness in the workplace. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  44. Holmes, J., Joe, A., Marra, M., Newton, J., Riddiford, N., & Vine, B. (2011a). Applying linguistic research to real world problems: The social meaning of talk in workplace interaction. In C. N. Candlin & S. Sarangi (Eds.), Handbook in applied linguistics: Communication in the professions (pp. 533–549). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  45. Holmes, J., Marra, M., & Vine, B. (2011b). Leadership, discourse, and ethnicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis. Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Koester, A. (2010). Workplace discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  48. Koskela, I., & Palukka, H. (2011). Trainer interventions as instructional strategies in air traffic control training. Journal of Workplace Learning, 23(5), 293–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images. The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Kress, G., Jewitt, C., Ogborn, J., & Tsatsarelis, C. (2001). Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  51. Kunégel, P. (2005). L’apprentissage en entreprise: L’activité de médiation des tuteurs [Learning in the workplace: The mediating action of tutors]. Education Permanente [Continuing Education], 165, 127–138.Google Scholar
  52. Kunégel, P. (2011). Les maîtres d’apprentissage. Analyse des pratiques tutorales en situation de travail. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  53. Lacoste, M. (2001). Peut-on travailler sans communiquer? In A. Borzeix & B. Fraenkel (Eds.), Langage et travail (pp. 21–53). Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
  54. Lamamra, N., & Masdonati, J. (2009). Arrêter une formation professionnelle: Mots et maux d’apprenti-e-s [Dropping out of vocational training: An apprentices’ perspective]. Lausanne: Antipodes.Google Scholar
  55. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Levine, P., & Scollon, R. (Eds.). (2004). Discourse and technology: Multimodal discourse analysis. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Macbeth, D. (2003). Hugh Mehan’s learning lessons reconsidered: On the differences between the naturalistic and critical analysis of classroom discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 239–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mayen, P. (2002). Le rôle des autres dans le développement de l’expérience. Education permanente, 139, 65–86.Google Scholar
  59. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Mercer, N., & Howe, C. (2012). Explaining the dialogical processes of teaching and learning. The value and potential of sociocultural theory. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 1, 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mondada, L. (2006). La compétence comme dimension située et contingente, localement évaluée par les participants. Swiss Journal of Applied Linguistics, 84, 83–119.Google Scholar
  62. Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction: A methodological framework. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics (pp. 43–72). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  64. Panselinas, G., & Komis, V. (2009). Scaffolding through talk in groupwork learning. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4, 86–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pastré, P., Mayen, P., & Vergnaud, G. (2006). La didactique professionnelle [Professional didactics]. Revue Française de Pédagogie [French Journal of Pedagogy], 154, 145–198.Google Scholar
  66. Rex, L., Steadman, S. C., & Graciano, M. K. (2006). Researching the complexity of classroom interaction. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 727–771). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  67. Roberts, C., Sarangi, S., Southgate, L., Wakeford, R., & Wass, V. (2000). Oral examinations: Equal opportunities, ethnicity, and fairness in the MRCGP. British Medical Journal, 320, 370–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rojas-Drummond, S., & Mercer, N. (2003). Scaffolding the development of effective collaboration and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  70. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1978). A simplest systematics of the organization of turn taking for conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 7–55). New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sarangi, S., & Candlin, C. (2003). Trading between reflexivity and relevance: New challenges for applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 24(3), 271–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Scollon, R., & Wong Scollon, S. (2003, March). Lighting the stove: Why habitus isn’t enough for critical discourse analysis. Paper presented at the workshop New Research Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity, Vienna.Google Scholar
  74. Stalder, B. E., & Nägele, C. (2011). Vocational education and training in Switzerland: Organisation, development and challenges for the future. In M. M. Bergman, S. Hupka-Brunner, A. Keller, T. Meyer, & B. E. Stalder (Eds.), Youth transitions in Switzerland: Results from the TREE panel study (pp. 18–39). Zürich: Seismo.Google Scholar
  75. Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  76. Tynjälä, P. (2008). Perspectives into learning at the workplace. Educational Research Review, 3, 130–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (1997). Discourse as social interaction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  78. Vine, B. (2004). Getting things done at work. The discourse of power in workplace interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis and the study of doctor-patient interaction. In B.-L. Gunnarsson et al. (Eds.), The construction of professional discourse (pp. 172–200). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  82. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2001). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  83. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zimmerman, D. H. (1998). Identity, context and interaction. In C. Antaki & S. Widdicombe (Eds.), Identities in talk (pp. 87–106). London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Psychology and Educational ScienceUniversity of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations