2.1Turn allocational procedures

Previous research on turn allocational procedures has indicated that they are not randomly chosen. Based largely on traditional American classrooms, much research has suggested that individual nomination and invitations to bid prevail in classroom interaction (Lemke 1990Lemke, Jay L. 1990 Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.; McHoul 1978McHoul, Alexander 1978 “The Organization of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom.” Language in Society 7 (2): 183–213. ). Conversely, invitations to reply, which could result in a chaotic event of simultaneous starts, have rather restricted use, for example, when the teacher knows that only a few students have access to the answer or when a choral response is anticipated (McHoul 1978McHoul, Alexander 1978 “The Organization of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom.” Language in Society 7 (2): 183–213. ). Dominant turn allocational procedures, however, may vary across different settings according to cultural backgrounds (McCollum 1989McCollum, Pamela 1989 “Turn-Allocation in Lessons with North American and Puerto Rican Students: A Comparative Study.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly 20 (2): 133–156. ; Poole 2005Poole, Deborah 2005 “Cross-cultural Variation in Classroom Turn-taking Practices.” In Directions in Applied Linguistics, ed. by Bruthiaux Paul, Atkinson Dwight, Eggington William, Grabe William, and Ramanathan Vaidehi, 201–220. Clevedon, OH: Multilingual Matters. ), students’ ages (Petitjean 2014Petitjean, Cécile 2014 “Social Representations of Turn-taking in Classrooms: From Compulsory to Post-compulsory Schooling in French-speaking Switzerland.” Classroom Discourse 5 (2): 138–157. ), instructional goals (Seedhouse 2004Seedhouse, Paul 2004 The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective, Language Learning. Malden, MA: Blackwell.), and teachers’ personal beliefs (Xie 2010Xie, Xiaoyan 2010 “Turn Allocation Patterns and Learning Opportunities.” ELT Journal 65 (3): 240–250. ).

Though they have been largely in passing, many observations have been made of how certain turn allocational procedures are used to deal with various instructional issues. Individual nomination is used to maintain control over students in a way that attracts the attention of students who are not paying attention (Payne and Hustler 1980Payne, George, and David Hustler 1980 “Teaching the Class: The Practical Management of a Cohort.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 1 (1): 49–66. ). Invitations to reply are used to warm up at the beginning of a lesson (Mehan 1979Mehan, Hugh 1979 Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ), and choral elicitations offer an opportunity for silent participation to students who lack the competence to perform alone (Van Dam 2002Van Dam, Jet 2002 “Ritual, Face, and Play in a First English Lesson: Bootstrapping a Classroom Culture.” In Language Acquisition and Language Socialization, ed. by Claire Kramsch, 237–65. New York, NY: Continuum.; Xie 2010Xie, Xiaoyan 2010 “Turn Allocation Patterns and Learning Opportunities.” ELT Journal 65 (3): 240–250. ). Invitations to bid are used as a face-saving strategy by minimizing the possibility of nominating an unknowing and unwilling student, for example, when setting the scene for a new topic (McHoul 1978McHoul, Alexander 1978 “The Organization of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom.” Language in Society 7 (2): 183–213. ; Van Dam 2002Van Dam, Jet 2002 “Ritual, Face, and Play in a First English Lesson: Bootstrapping a Classroom Culture.” In Language Acquisition and Language Socialization, ed. by Claire Kramsch, 237–65. New York, NY: Continuum.). Also, which student to select or whose contribution to approve are fundamentally guided by teachers’ concern for managing student participation (Paoletti and Fele 2004Paoletti, Isabella, and Giolo Fele 2004 “Order and Disorder in the Classroom.” Pragmatics 14 (1): 69–85.; Waring 2013Waring, Hansun Zhang 2013 “Managing Competing Voices in the Second Language Classroom.” Discourse Processes 50 (5): 316–338. ).

Some researchers have noted that questions are often asked without explicit instruction about how to respond, resulting in students’ shifts between bids to reply and direct replies (Hansen 1993Hansen, David T. 1993 “From Role to Person: The Moral Layeredness of Classroom Teaching.” American Educational Research Journal 30 (4): 651–674. ; Margutti 2006Margutti, Piera 2006 ““Are You Human Beings?”: Order and Knowledge Construction through Questioning in Primary Classroom Interaction.” Linguistics and Education 17 (4): 313–346. ). This has given rise to research regarding how students come to respond in the way they do. Many studies have explicated the interactional mechanisms that underlie the elicitation of in-unison or choral responses (Lerner 2002Lerner, Gene 2002 “Turn-sharing: The Choral Co-production of Talk-in-Interaction.” In The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Celia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, and Sandra A. Thompson, 225–257. Oxford: Oxford University Press.; Margutti 2006Margutti, Piera 2006 ““Are You Human Beings?”: Order and Knowledge Construction through Questioning in Primary Classroom Interaction.” Linguistics and Education 17 (4): 313–346. , 2010Margutti, Piera 2010 “On Designedly Incomplete Utterances: What Counts as Learning for Teachers and Students in Primary Classroom Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 43 (4): 315–345. ; Stoffelsma and Van Charldorp 2020Stoffelsma, Lieke, and Tessa Cyrina van Charldorp 2020 “A Closer Look at the Interactional Construction of Choral Responses in South African Township Schools.” Linguistics and Education 58: 100829. ). For instance, Margutti (2010)Margutti, Piera 2010 “On Designedly Incomplete Utterances: What Counts as Learning for Teachers and Students in Primary Classroom Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 43 (4): 315–345. analyzed how students are guided into an in-unison response by teachers’ elicitation in particular linguistic forms in certain contexts; the degree of such guidance varies, resulting in different levels of the synchronization of simultaneous answers (Stoffelsma and Van Charldorp 2020Stoffelsma, Lieke, and Tessa Cyrina van Charldorp 2020 “A Closer Look at the Interactional Construction of Choral Responses in South African Township Schools.” Linguistics and Education 58: 100829. ).

There has been less research that has explained how students come to bid to reply, rather than directly reply. However, Margutti (2006)Margutti, Piera 2006 ““Are You Human Beings?”: Order and Knowledge Construction through Questioning in Primary Classroom Interaction.” Linguistics and Education 17 (4): 313–346. offered an insightful explanation. Some questions are constructed in such a place and, more importantly, in such a grammatical form (e.g., eliciting completion devices and yes/no questions) that conveys a sense of obviousness; other questions are produced, often in a wh-question form, disallowing the same level of transparency and are followed by students’ bids to reply. Through this observation, Margutti (2006)Margutti, Piera 2006 ““Are You Human Beings?”: Order and Knowledge Construction through Questioning in Primary Classroom Interaction.” Linguistics and Education 17 (4): 313–346. argued that teachers use linguistic means to convey their stance regarding students’ access to an answer and that the grammatical conventions of questions are recognized by the students, who then respond accordingly.

Research mentioned above suggests that teachers provide students with linguistic and contextual guidelines on how to respond. This was also supported by my own observation of Korean EFL classroom interaction; however, I observed that very similar questions (not only in grammatical form but also in the sequential context in which they appear) often result in responses that differ in form. For example, the question that elicits vocabulary after listening to a text, “What did you hear?”, and the question used to activate students’ background knowledge, “What do you see in the picture?”, may be followed by direct replies in one class and bids to reply in another.

It appears that participants orient to the formal conventions of questions, eliciting and offering a certain form of response; however, at times, this seems to be superseded or overridden by other practical considerations. I argue that participants use invitations to bid to convey a certain interactional meaning, which will be elaborated on after a discussion on hand-raising as a resource for an invitation to bid.

2.2Hand-raising and individual performance

Hand-raising has been largely viewed as a turn allocational device that allows orderly, one-at-a-time speaker transition in classroom interaction (McHoul 1978McHoul, Alexander 1978 “The Organization of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom.” Language in Society 7 (2): 183–213. ; Sahlström 2002Sahlström, Fritjof 2002 “The Interactional Organization of Hand Raising in Classroom Interaction.” The Journal of Classroom Interaction 37 (2): 47–57.). From the teacher’s perspective, it has been also considered an expression of power and authority (Hansen 1993Hansen, David T. 1993 “From Role to Person: The Moral Layeredness of Classroom Teaching.” American Educational Research Journal 30 (4): 651–674. ) and an instruction tool, for instance, for checking whether the class is following the lesson (Payne and Hustler 1980Payne, George, and David Hustler 1980 “Teaching the Class: The Practical Management of a Cohort.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 1 (1): 49–66. ). Moreover, hand-raising represents students’ expression of their willingness to reply (McHoul 1978McHoul, Alexander 1978 “The Organization of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom.” Language in Society 7 (2): 183–213. ; Sahlström 2002Sahlström, Fritjof 2002 “The Interactional Organization of Hand Raising in Classroom Interaction.” The Journal of Classroom Interaction 37 (2): 47–57.).

Research has suggested that hand-raising performs various other interactional functions. For example, Sahlström (2002)Sahlström, Fritjof 2002 “The Interactional Organization of Hand Raising in Classroom Interaction.” The Journal of Classroom Interaction 37 (2): 47–57. showed that students use hand-raising not only at an ‘appropriate’ place to be chosen (i.e., by reference to a transition relevance place) but also at a ‘wrong’ place not to be chosen and, thus, only to show that they have an answer. Sahlström (2002)Sahlström, Fritjof 2002 “The Interactional Organization of Hand Raising in Classroom Interaction.” The Journal of Classroom Interaction 37 (2): 47–57. also observed that students keep their hands up until a chosen student’s response has progressed to the point where the message is recognizable, thereby displaying disagreement with it. Additionally, Takahashi (2018)Takahashi, Junko 2018 “Practices of Self-Selection in the Graduate Classroom: Extension, Redirection, and Disjunction.” Linguistics and Education 46: 70–81. revealed that students raise their hand at the same time as they begin to speak in graduate seminars, suggesting that hand-raising is an embodiment of self-selection.

As reviewed above, previous research has mainly explored how the delicate timing of hand-raising, especially by students, creates particular interactional import. Here I do not focus on hand-raising per se, but on how it is used to show the participants’ stance that the question is legitimate for individual performance. This observation requires further elaboration, as follows.

Research has noted the face-threatening nature of the classroom environment, where students are required to fulfill their institutional role, which includes answering test questions to display their knowledge or lack thereof. Fundamentally, the threat lies in students’ identity as a cohort (Payne and Hustler 1980Payne, George, and David Hustler 1980 “Teaching the Class: The Practical Management of a Cohort.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 1 (1): 49–66. ; Sahlström 2002Sahlström, Fritjof 2002 “The Interactional Organization of Hand Raising in Classroom Interaction.” The Journal of Classroom Interaction 37 (2): 47–57.): Students are managed as a cohort in that they are required to speak as a representative of the cohort and listen to what is going on, regardless of whether they are directly addressed. In this environment, where schisming is disallowed, whatever a student utters in the classroom is subject to evaluation not only by the teacher but also by the whole class – it is like a stage performance, subject to the audience’s evaluation (Schwab 2011Schwab, Götz 2011 “From Dialogue to Multilogue: A Different View on Participation in the English Foreign‐Language Classroom.” Classroom Discourse 2 (1): 3–19. ; Van Dam 2002Van Dam, Jet 2002 “Ritual, Face, and Play in a First English Lesson: Bootstrapping a Classroom Culture.” In Language Acquisition and Language Socialization, ed. by Claire Kramsch, 237–65. New York, NY: Continuum.). Naturally, students experience pressure during their performance.

This pressure is particularly an issue in foreign language classrooms (Brown 2014Brown, H. Douglas 2014 Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.). Students inevitably make errors when learning a new language, which causes them anxiety and embarrassment (Van Dam 2002Van Dam, Jet 2002 “Ritual, Face, and Play in a First English Lesson: Bootstrapping a Classroom Culture.” In Language Acquisition and Language Socialization, ed. by Claire Kramsch, 237–65. New York, NY: Continuum.). As Van Dam (2002)Van Dam, Jet 2002 “Ritual, Face, and Play in a First English Lesson: Bootstrapping a Classroom Culture.” In Language Acquisition and Language Socialization, ed. by Claire Kramsch, 237–65. New York, NY: Continuum. suggested, teachers have a good understanding that students are susceptible to such negative affect, especially when they perform alone; therefore, teachers use chorusing to allow students to take advantage of a ‘silent’ participation mode. Students feel comfortable speaking as a group, wherein they may remain ‘anonymous’ even if an error occurs. Conversely, even a small error during individual performance can threaten a student’s face, especially if they have bid to reply, thereby having claimed that they have access to the required knowledge.

Individual performance is a dominant form of student participation in some cultures (McCollum 1989McCollum, Pamela 1989 “Turn-Allocation in Lessons with North American and Puerto Rican Students: A Comparative Study.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly 20 (2): 133–156. ; Philips 1972Philips, Susan U. 1972 “Participant Structures and Communicative Competence: Warm Springs Children in Community and Classroom.” In Functions of Language in the Classroom, ed. by Courtney B. Cazden, Vera P. John, and Dell Hymes, 370–394. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.). It allows students to demonstrate their knowledge and, therefore, their self-worth, ultimately giving them the motivation to excel (Hansen 1993Hansen, David T. 1993 “From Role to Person: The Moral Layeredness of Classroom Teaching.” American Educational Research Journal 30 (4): 651–674. ; Philips 1972Philips, Susan U. 1972 “Participant Structures and Communicative Competence: Warm Springs Children in Community and Classroom.” In Functions of Language in the Classroom, ed. by Courtney B. Cazden, Vera P. John, and Dell Hymes, 370–394. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.). As Hansen (1993)Hansen, David T. 1993 “From Role to Person: The Moral Layeredness of Classroom Teaching.” American Educational Research Journal 30 (4): 651–674. demonstrated, students display eagerness and impatience to secure an opportunity for individual performance in some instructional settings. In the Korean elementary school EFL classrooms examined in this study, students also competitively display their desire to take the floor. They not only raise their hands higher and/or quicker than others but also vocalize their wish to be chosen (by yelling, “Me, me!”). It appears that students’ desire for individual performance prevails over their concern about potential failure; otherwise, they would remain less ‘active.’

It is noteworthy that students are publicly recognized for successful performance, mainly in the form of the teacher’s positive assessment and, sometimes, by the entire class’s congratulatory ritual (as shown in Excerpts [3] and [4]). I do not suggest that students necessarily anticipate such a ‘reward’ when they bid to reply, but rather that they would be aware, through their experience in the classroom, that successful performance induces some form of public recognition, though overwhelmingly tacit, and that this reward could not be earned without risking failure in front of others.

Taken together, I argue that participants use invitations to bid as a form of taking a stance that a question elicits the kind of knowledge worthy of performing on stage. This paper examines where and for what they draw on invitations to bid, focusing on the interactional and instructional effect tended by the participants.

4.1Invitations to bid at the beginning of an activity

Teachers often explicitly demand that students raise their hands to reply at the outset of an activity, as shown in Excerpt (1). The class is starting a reading comprehension activity.

1   T:   Wow:, you did a good job. Ca. ((Korean for ‘well’)) Now this
2        time I’ll ask you, some questions, about,(.) [these sentences.=
3                                                     [((points))
4        =Okay? If you know [(that) uh, raise up your hands.=
5                           [((hand U))
6        =Okay? You could get a point. Ready? Hmm::
7        When is, [Earth Day?
8     →           [((hand U))
9        (.)
10  Ss:  ((hand U))
11   T:  Okay, when is, Earth day?
12  Ss:  (0.2) ((Hand U))
13   T:  You.
14   S:  Earth Day is on April 22.
15   T:  That’s right. [Earth Day is on April 22.
16                     [((attaches a piece of paper indicative of a point
17       on the whiteboard))

In lines 1–2, the teacher announces that she will ask questions about the “sentences” related to special days that the class read, which is followed by a demand that they raise their hand if they know the answer (line 4) and a promise for a “point” for a correct answer (line 6). In doing so, the teacher declares that the questions to be asked are of particular importance, leading to an explicit form of reward – a point – when answered correctly.

In line 7, the teacher asks the first question. Notably, the teacher pauses at “is,” which is spoken right before the name of a special day is most likely to be uttered. The pause at such a ‘critical’ moment alerts the students that they will need to raise their hands quickly for an opportunity to reply and, ultimately, to earn a point. The teacher resumes the question turn, reminding and urging the class, via her own hand-raising, that they should raise their hands (line 8). The teacher repeats the question, letting some time lapse until more students’ hands are raised (lines 11–12). A student is nominated and succeeds in getting a point as promised (lines 13–17). The class then moves on to the next question (not shown here).

Overall, the activity resembles a quiz show, in which questions are asked to test the knowledge of the contestants, who compete against each other to earn some explicit form of reward (e.g., points, money). The teacher could have sought a contribution from anybody or the whole class, but she decides to use an invitation to bid, thereby choosing to manage the entire activity with some tension.

A similar use of an invitation to bid is shown in Excerpt (2). The class has read a story that includes expressions for asking and giving directions, and the teacher is initiating an activity wherein they check the vocabulary from the story. The teacher is standing behind a portable board.

1   T:   So we need to:,(1.2) check, the words and the expression,
2        (0.6) that was in the book. So [what did you [listen from the=
3     →                                 [((hand U))
4  Ss:                                                [((hand U))
5   T:   =story?
6        (0.4) ((Ss hand U))
7   T:   ((unintelligible)) Kee,=
8  Ss:   =((hand D))
9   K:   Go straight.
10  T:   [Go straight. Umhm::, go straight, very good:.=
11       [((finds a strip and puts it on the board))
12 Ss:   [((hand U))
13  T:   =and what [else?
14    →            [((hand U))
15       (0.2) ((Ss hand U))
16  T:   Alice?
17 Ss:   ((hand D))
18  A:   Next to.=
19  T:   =[Next to::. Okay, great. =
20        [((finds a strip and puts it on the board))
21 Ss:   [((hand U))
22  T:→  =(Hum:) what else, did you hear? ((Ss hand U))
((lines omitted))
43  T:→  =(and) we can use [this. Between:, very good. Mun? ((Ss hand U))
44                         [((puts a strip on the board))
45  M:   [Along.
46 Ss:   [((hand D))
47       (0.2) ((T looks at the back of the board))
48  M:   Alo- Along.
49  T:   Along? Along the stree- Oh:: very good.[I don’t have the=
50 Ss:                                          [((hand U))
51  T:→  =word, but very good job, Hwa? ((Ss hand U))
52 Ss:   ((hand D))

In lines 2 and 5, the teacher elicits vocabulary items by asking the question, “So what did you listen from the story?” She simultaneously raises her hand, inviting students’ bids to answer in line 3. Given what the question is posed to elicit (i.e., different vocabulary items), an invitation to bid may have been inevitable to avoid a simultaneous outburst of answers (McHoul 1978McHoul, Alexander 1978 “The Organization of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom.” Language in Society 7 (2): 183–213. ). However, its use by the teacher is not merely to maintain orderliness, as indicated in the ensuing unfolding talk.

The teacher’s question in lines 2 and 5 is followed by the nomination of Kee (line 7), who offers an expression (line 9). In line 10, the teacher initially registers the answer through repetition (“Go straight.”), confirms the answer with a minimal recipient token, and repeats the expression again (“Umhm::, go straight,”) before issuing a positive evaluation (“very good:.”). This notably prolonged teacher’s third turn co-occurs with a series of other actions: searching for the corresponding vocabulary strip, taking it out, and then placing it on the board (line 11). In lines 13–22 and the subsequent talk (omitted), the teacher continues to show that this physical conduct is part of an elicitation cycle and that a successful performance in the context of the current activity is not only offering an expression from the story but one that the teacher has prepared and hidden behind the board.

This becomes even clearer as the talk continues. Upon the teacher’s nomination (line 43), Mun offers the word “along” (line 45). In the face of a silence (line 47), Mun repeats his answer (line 48). Indicating her belated recognition of the word with a change-of-state token (Heritage 1984Heritage, John 1984 “A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of its Sequential Placement.” In Structures of Social Action ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.), the teacher issues a positive assessment but adds an explanation: “Oh:: very good. I don’t have the word” (line 49 and 51). Preempting that the added explanation is heard as diminishing the student’s contribution, she once again repeats the positive assessment, “but very good job,” and then nominates another student.

The teacher appears to be leading a typical after-listening vocabulary check activity, but her use of an invitation to bid enables her to not only do that but also to line up certain expressions on the board; the expressions turn out to be used in the following activity regarding practicing asking for and giving directions (as will be shown in Excerpt [4] below). The teacher utilizes each elicitation for such a pre-determined ‘screening’ purpose, establishing its value as an instructional tool. Similar to Excerpt (1), an invitation to bid is used to fulfill the teacher’s instructional agendum, specifically concerning how to manage the current activity as a link to the next, where they would use the expressions on the board.

As shown, teachers employ an invitation to bid, ascribing a particular value to a question toward an instructional plan or agendum from the outset of an activity. A similar use is also observed midway through an ongoing activity.

4.2Invitations to bid in the middle of an activity

It is not uncommon that various unplanned issues arise midway through developing talk. Teachers use an invitation to bid to deal with such issues, exemplified in Excerpt (3). The teacher is asking a series of questions aiming to teach words ending with -ing.

1   T:   Oka:y. >So.< (.) How do you say? ((showing ‘string’)).
2  Ss:   String.
3   T:   String. [Right?
4  Ss:           [Str[ing.
5   T:               [Mm:. So, one more. What’s this? ((showing ‘king’))
6  Ss:   Ki::ng.
7   T:   °Wow: >What’s this?<
8  Ss:   Si::ng.
9   T:   Sing. There is one I-N-G more. How do you say?
10 Ss:   Singing.
11  T:   Right. Singing.
12 Ss:   Singing.
13  T:   Si:nging.
14 Ss:   Si:inging.
15  T:   Si:nging.
16 Ss:   Si:nging.
17  T:   >Si:nging<.
18 Ss:   >Si:inging<.
19  T:   >Si:nging<.
20 Ss:   >Si:inging<.
21  T:   >Si:nging<.
22 Ss:   >Si:inging<.
23  T:   So, okay. What’s this?
24 Ss:   Wing.
25  T:   Double-U. Woo Woo Wing.
26 Ss:   Wing.
27  T:   Wing.
28 Ss:   Wing.
29  T:→  [What is wing in Korean?
30       [((hand U))
31  S:   Uh[::
32  T:     [Uh::: Hyun.
33  S:   [I will answer, ((unintelligible) °nalkay ((“wing”)).
34       [((stands up))
35  T:   Is it right everyone?
36 Ss:   Yes.
37  T:   Okay. ((clap clap)) Excellent.
38 Ss:   ((clap, clap)) Excellent.
39  T:   Okay. Let’s say one more time. What’s this everyone?
40 Ss:   Ri:ng.

In lines 1 to 10, the teacher elicits students’ reading knowledge of the words ending with -ing. After eliciting “singing,” she has the class repeat it six times (lines 11–22) before moving on to the next -ing word, “wing” (line 23). As with “singing,” she has the class repeat the word twice (lines 25–28). Given this established pattern, it is anticipated that the teacher will repeat the word “wing” or move on to present a new word. Subsequently, however, she deviates from this course of action by issuing a different question, which asks the meaning of the word that they have just read (line 29). By asking this question, the teacher addresses the immediate needs to check the students’ previous knowledge of a word being dealt with; she specifically uses an invitation to bid, ascribing a particular pedagogical value to the question (as indicated in line 30).

Subsequently, the teacher nominates Hyun, whose successful performance is followed by the entire class’s ratification (lines 32–36) and an upgraded positive evaluation, “excellent” (lines 37–38). In line 39, the teacher returns to eliciting the reading of a word, thereby ending the momentary detour that has started with the target question.

Another example is shown in Excerpt (4). The class is learning how to seek and give directions in English. In line 1, the teacher proposes that they “practice key expressions” gathered from a story that they just read (see Excerpt [2] above). Note that a vocabulary strip, “how can I get to,” is on the blackboard.

1   T:   Let’s jus- (uh) practice key expression together:. So: if I::
2        put thi:s, [here, how can you: say? How can you ask?
3                   [((places a whale in the blank next to ‘How can you
4        get to’))
5        (.)
6   T:   Everyone, ready, go.
7  Ss:   <How can I get to whale?>
8   T:→  Very good. [And how   would      you    [answer?
9                   [((points at an expression)) [((hand U)),
10       (0.2) (( T gazes at the class))
11 Ss:   [((hand U))
12  T:   [Who wants to answer?
13       (0.1)
14  T:   Yes. ((pointing at a student))
15  S:   ((seated))Go straight two block and turn left. It’s on your
16       left.
17  T:   Very good:.=>Everyone, say< “Good job, Sohee!”.
18 Ss:   Good job, Sohee!
19  T:   And if I want to put, (0.2) two, um::: somewhere, (0.4) (at-)

Placing the picture of a whale (a character that appeared in the story that the class had read) next to the vocabulary strip, “how can I get to” (lines 3–4), the teacher asks “How can you: say? How can you ask?” (line 2) to elicit a question for asking a direction. The vocabulary strip gives the students most of the answer in written form; they are only required to read it although they need to supply the word “whale.” A split second later (line 5), the teacher demands that the whole class answer at the same time (line 6), and the cohort answers by reading what is shown on the board (line 7). This is followed by a positive evaluation (line 8).

Connecting directly to the next related question with “and” (Heritage and Sorjonen 2009Heritage, John, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen 2009 “Constituting and Maintaining Activities across Sequences: And-prefacing as a Feature of Question Design.” Language in Society 23 (1): 1–29. ) in line 8, the teacher asks for the ‘answer’ to the question that the class just formulated. She simultaneously points to the phrase “go straight” (line 9) as if she requires the students to use it in their answer. Students are only given a phrase, deprived of an expression to read off the board this time, as well as a map showing where to start and where the whale is. The teacher is demanding an answer to check the students’ knowledge of how to use the particular phrase, anticipatively learned from the story that they just read; she uses an invitation to bid, treating the current question as carrying a notable pedagogical value (line 9).

Subsequently, a student is nominated and succeeds in giving a complete direction (lines 14–16). Her performance is followed by the teacher’s emphatic positive evaluation (“Very good:.”) and an initiation of a congratulatory ritual wherein the entire class participates (lines 17–18).

In the following talk (not shown), the teacher repeats the pattern in which she first elicits the whole group to merely read the direction-seeking question before turning to an invitation to bid, eliciting a direction using a particular expression. The teacher differentiates two different kinds of questions by ascribing a notable value to the second question of each pair, which is used to deal with the real-time instructional demand to check students’ learning of how to give a direction.

Invitations to bid are also used to deal with contingencies that result from students’ responses to questions (as well as lack thereof); the questions are constituted as carrying a notable value rather belatedly, as in Excerpt (5).

1    T:   Okay, great. Do you remember what we learned on:: Wednesday?
2         (0.5)
3         Do you remember?
4         (0.2)
5         mew paywessnayo? ((“What did we learn?”))
6         (0.2)
7         cinan [sikaney. ((“last class”)]
8   Ss:         [Calling
9    S:   Hold on.
10   T:   Calling. [Hold on, please.=
11   K:            [((slow hand U))
12   T:   =((points toward K))=
13  Ss:   =((unintelligible outburst))
14   T:   May I speak to: blablabla? And?
15         (0.2)
16   T:   There was other things.=
17        =tto mweka issess[e?= ((“What else was there?”))
18 K&S:                    [((hand U))
19   T:   =[Par::k, Let’s meet at the?
20  Ss:   Park.
21   T:   Blabla <park>. And [other [things?=
22      →                    [((hand U))
23   K:                             [((hand U))
24   T:   =tto mweka[issesse?= ((“What else was there?”))
25                  [((nominates K with a hand))
26   K:   =[Blablabla, it’s for you. It’s blablabla.=
27         [((hand D))
28   T:   Ney::, ((“yes”)) [Jinwoo, it’s for you.=
29  Ch:                    [[((hand U))
30   T:   =It’s Daeun. Cha!
31  Ch:   Who’s calling, please?
32   T:   Who’s calling, please? Okay. And they: were going to do
33        something together.

In lines 1–7, the teacher tries to elicit expressions that they learned in the previous lesson, specifically in a few installments in the face of students’ lack of forthcomingness. In lines 8–10, several students respond by offering expression(s), which are related to making a phone call, and they are registered by the teacher. In response to students’ simultaneous offers of answers in line 13, the teacher specifically confirms another telephone expression, and then she adds, “and?” thereby seeking more such expressions in line 14. Faced by silence (line 15), she repeats her elicitation, requiring “other things.” (lines 16 and 17). The teacher herself offers an expression for arrangement-making (lines 19 and 21) but immediately reinstitutes her elicitation, demanding “other things” once again (line 21). This particular elicitation, however, differs from what it precedes. The teacher raises her hand concurrently, thereby declaring that the question, which has been posed to invite direct replies, is now legitimate for individual performance (line 22). Latching onto this demand, she adds a question in Korean – an equivalent for “What else was there?” (line 24) – continuing to demand others as if anticipating certain expressions.

When nominated (line 25), Kai offers two expressions, notably relating to those regarding talking on the phone (line 26). As the teacher starts to confirm Kai’s answer (lines 28 and 30), Cha bids to reply (line 29). Joining Kai, he gives another phone conversational expression (line 31). After confirming it, the teacher moves on to reviewing expressions for arrangement-making, one of which she momentarily alluded to in line 19 (lines 32 and 33). For the rest of the activity (not shown), the teacher did not use an invitation to bid any longer; students, too, answered directly.

This example is interesting in many aspects. Kai shows his persistence in bidding to reply in line 11 and then in line 18 amid everyone else’s direct responses. In doing so, he claims that the question elicits the kind of information worthy of individual performance; he may be claiming that he has the information legitimate for such performance. In line 12, the teacher allows him to perform solo, aligning with his stance, but she only gestures toward him as if encouraging him to speak; the teacher’s gesture is followed by a simultaneous outburst (line 13). The teacher’ proactive endorsement of individual performance does not occur until she has already repeated her demand for “other things” the second time in line 21, as if the class is failing to offer the items that she demands. The teacher deals with this impasse by employing an invitation to bid; she belatedly launches a search for an able and willing student(s) to satisfy her particular demand, which instantly constitutes the elicitation question as carrying notable weight.

I have shown that teachers use invitations to bid when implementing varying instructional agenda, which have been set up at the outset of an activity (Excerpts [1] and [2]), or when dealing with various instructional demands that arise amid its progression, (Excerpts [3]–[5]). Overall, it is the teacher’s choice to employ an invitation to bid, deciding to deal with an instructional goal or issue at all or in a particular manner, when they have options possibly involving other turn allocational procedures.