Sari, C.C. (2020). Conversation Analysis: Turn-Taking Mechanism and Power Relation in Classroom Setting. Celtic: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature, & Linguistics, 7(2), 118-136. 118 CONVERSATION ANALYSIS: TURN-TAKING MECHANISM AND POWER RELATION IN CLASSROOM SETTING 1Candrika Citra Sari* 1Universitas Bina Nusantara, Indonesia *Corresponding Author: candrika.sari@binus.ac.id ABSTRACT Institutional conversation in the classroom has been known to be fully controlled by the teacher in order to achieve specific goals of the teaching and learning process. This study aims at finding out how teachers manage the flow of classroom interaction, how students may possibly take the floor and issue about power and hierarchy between teacher-students in a teacher-fronted whole classroom interaction. The result is expected to give an overview or a reflection on how teachers encourage learning to happen by the way they use their power to manage the turn taking mechanism in a whole class interaction. The data is in the form of unscripted classroom interaction in the field of language from YouTube. Specifically, the analysis is focussed on analysing the turn-taking rules in a whole class interaction using Conversation Analysis (CA). Gesture is also one means of communication which accompanied verbal communication, and therefore to enrich the data, gestures of the participants are also taken into consideration. This study found that teacher and students turn is asymmetrical. However, teacher possesses no absolute power in term of controlling the turn-taking as students appeared to overlap the teacher’s talk to take the turn and try to perform unfocalized effort to nominate themselves as the first speaker using gestures. The content of teachers’ TCU indicates that the teacher tries to stimulate the students’ critical thinking by posting open-ended question, and evaluates and responds students’ answers by using follow-up question. Keywords: Classroom Interaction; Conversation Analysis; Power Relation; Turn Taking ABSTRAK Untuk mencapai tujuan pembelajaran, secara umum diketahui bahwa percakapan di ruang kelas dikontrol oleh guru. Penelitian ini menginvestigasi bagaimana guru mengontrol jalannya percakapan dalam diskusi kelas dan bagaimana siswa dimungkinkan untuk mendapatkan giliran dalam berbicara. Selain itu, power dan hirarki dalam interaksi di kelas juga menjadi poin lain yang menjadi fokus dalam penelitian ini. Penelitian ini menyuguhkan hasil penelitian yang didapat melalui metode analisis percakapan (Conversation Analysis). Hasil penelitian ini diharapkan dapat menjadi gambaran atau sarana refleksi tentang bagaiama guru mengatur mekanisme percakapan dalam kelas besar. Data dalam penelitian ini adalah sebuah video interaksi kelas yang diupload ke YouTube. Secara spesifik analisis akan meliputi turn-taking rules (mekanisme giliran berbicara) dan juga gerak tubuh yang terlibat untuk mengalokasikan dan mengambil giliran dalam berbicara. Penelitian ini menemukan bahwa interaksi guru dan siswa di kelas tidak simetris. Meskipun demikian, guru dalam penelitian ini tidak memiliki power yang absolut dalam mengontrol interaksi karena terdapat bukti dimana siswa memotong pembicaraan guru. Selain itu, siswa juga secara terbuka menunjukkan keinginannya untuk mengambil alih giliran berbicara dengan cara mengangkat tangan mereka. Isi dari TCU guru mengindikasikan bahwa guru mencoba untuk menstimulasi siswa dalam berpikir kritis dengan memberikan pertanyaan-pertanyaan terbuka dan menindaklanjuti pertanyaan tersebut berdasarkan respon atau jawaban yang diberikan oleh siswa. mailto:candrika.sari@binus.ac.id Celtic: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature and Linguistics Vol. 7, No. 2, December 2020. E-ISSN: 2621-9158 P-ISSN:2356-0401 http://ejournal.umm.ac.id/index.php/celtic/index 119 Kata Kunci: Analisis Percakapan; Giliran Berbicara; Hubungan Kekuasaan; Percakapan Di Ruang Kelas INTRODUCTION Talking is an activity which is typically done by more than one participant who normally performs turn-taking during the talk (Cameron, 2001). In an effective conversation, overwhelmingly one party talks at a time and speaker-change does occur accordingly (Okata, 2016; Sacks et al., 1978). This gives an idea that turn-taking organization among participants is fundamental in conversation. In conversation analysis (CA) which is coined by (Sacks et al., 1978) Transition Relevance Place (TRP) and Turn Constructional Unit (TCU) are the important parts of turn-taking organization analysis. Turns are constructed through not less than one or more than one TCUs. The end of TCU is very important because it may possibly be TRP which simply means that speaker change may occur (Cameron, 2001). Participants employ different kinds of ways to project the end of the current speaker's turns (TRP). TCU which is ended with TRP is usually complete in term of semantics, grammar, and intonation (Cameron, 2001; Sahlström, 2002). In addition, aspects of nonverbal behaviours, such as gazing to the selected participant at the end of the TCU can also be seen as a turn yielding signal (Cameron, 2001; Rossano et al., 2009) or pointing to the nominated participant (Kääntä, 2012; Mondada, 2013). In a natural conversation, turn allocation technique can be divided into two; the first turn is nominated by the current speaker and the next turn is allocated by self-selection (Sacks et al., 1978). This means if the next speaker is already chosen by the current speaker, he/she has to speak and other participants have no right to take the turn. Meanwhile, participants can self-select themselves if the next speaker has not been chosen by the current speaker. When no one is nominated by the current speaker and no one want to self-select him/herself, then current speaker can keep the turn (Ingram & Elliott, 2014). Different from the natural conversation of which the participants' right to construct turn are mostly symmetric, turn allocation in institutional setting, such as in a classroom, especially during a lesson, is driven by the teacher. During a lesson, the teacher will be the one who decides about who can talk, when to talk, and what to talk and so the interaction’s relationship is seen as asymmetrical (Garton, 2012). A number of Conversation Analysis (CA) study have been conducted in classroom setting (i.e. Evnitskaya & Berger, 2017; Garton, 2012; Mchoul, 1978; Seedhouse, 2004). One of the early and influential study done on the basis of CA was from Mchoul (1978). Based on the result of his study of the structure of turn-taking in Geography class, Mchoul (1978) developed sets of turn-taking structure between teacher and students during a lesson. According to Mchoul's (1978) rule, if the teacher acts as the current speaker, the teacher can select the next speaker. The selected student must take the turn and other students do not have the right to speak. Yet, if the teacher has not yielded the floor to the students, the teacher has to continue the turn. Students can self-select themselves, but they will need to get approval from the teacher to speak. In other words, the teacher retains his/her right as the first speaker in a whole classroom interaction. From McHoul’s rules it is important for the teacher as the first speaker to be able to manage the turn taking very well as Gardner (2019) points out that one necessary condition for learning to happen is setting up participation interaction to allow joint attention. Sari, C.C. (2020). Conversation Analysis: Turn-Taking Mechanism and Power Relation in Classroom Setting. Celtic: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature, & Linguistics, 7(2), 118-136. 120 Research also found that opportunities to participate actively in lesson is advantageous in learning (Allwright, 2005; Walsh, 2011). For this reason, as the first speaker, teachers need to trigger the students to participate and engage in a whole class interaction by distributing the turn equally. Nonverbal resources to manage turn allocation in classroom setting has also gain attention (Kääntä, 2012; Sahlström, 2002; Waring, 2014). In order to allocate turns to the students, Kääntä (2012) finds that teachers employ embodied actions, such as gazing, nodding head and performing hand gestures simultaneously with talk in whole class instructional interaction. Even though it is known that interaction in a classroom setting is asymmetrical (Brooks, 2016; Evnitskaya & Berger, 2017; Seedhouse, 2004), research has shown that students might also nominate themselves to take the turn (Kääntä, 2012; Sahlström, 2002; Waring, 2014). In multiparty institutional setting such as classroom, various multimodal actions might involve to enrich the interaction. It is undeniable that hand raising is a quite observable movement to indicate the students’ willingness to take the turn. Sahlström (2002) conducted a research about hand-raising in classroom interaction and found that in general, students raise their hands at the teacher's turn or at the end of the teacher's TCU which is accurately projected as TRP to indicate their willingness to take the turn without disturbing the teacher's turn. However, Sahström (2002) underlines that the teacher's TCUs tend to be shorter when the students raise their hands while the teacher is speaking. These studies imply that students do influence teachers’ next speaker selection. However, apparently teacher is not always yield the floor to the students who raised their hands as in Waring (2014) study, it is found that teachers sometimes “bypass” students’ non-verbal bid such as hand raising to involve non-bidding students. Apart from being responsible to manage the turn allocation, teachers’ power may also visible through the structure of classroom talk between teacher and student. Brooks (2016) found an evidence that in a face to face classroom interaction, teacher maintains certain power structures over class discussion. She found evidence that teacher acts as “Questioner” who continuously throws questions and evaluates students’ response. This finding correlates to Mehan (1979) in Brooks, (2016) teacher-students classroom interaction patterns: IRE (Initiation, Response, Evaluation) or IRF (Initiation, Response, Feedback) pattern. Not only shown by spoken discourse, teacher’s power is also embodied in the spatial arrangement of a classroom in which the teacher has the absolute right to stand and move around the classroom while others can only do that when they are told by the teacher also reflect that the teacher has greater participation's right than the students (Mchoul, 1978). Even though previous researches have examined teacher-students interaction during teacher-fronted classroom time, none of it discussed about the turn taking mechanism of the interaction in detailed, covering the approximate length or the characteristics of the teacher and students TCU, either when they took turn after being appointed or when they overlapped each other speech. In addition, this study also interested in examining the power and hierarchy in classroom interaction through the turn taking mechanism and the content of teacher’s TCU and students’ TCU. This becomes important to give overview or reflection on how should teachers encourage learning to happen by the way they utilize their power to manage the turn taking mechanism in a whole class interaction. In short, I seek to answer these following Celtic: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature and Linguistics Vol. 7, No. 2, December 2020. E-ISSN: 2621-9158 P-ISSN:2356-0401 http://ejournal.umm.ac.id/index.php/celtic/index 121 research questions. 1. What is the turn-taking patterns of the teacher-students interaction during teacher- fronted classroom time under investigation of this study; including how the teacher signals the turn allocation and how the students indicate their intention to take the turn, and the length of the students TCU when they take turn after/without being nominated? 2. How power and hierarchy are being represented in the teacher-fronted classroom interaction under investigation of this study as representing by the content of teacher’s TCU and students’ TCU? METHOD The data used for this study is unscripted classroom interaction video recording which was uploaded by Wakefield (2010) on YouTube at the following URL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAz7TD02ytU. The total duration of the video is 9.59, but only approximately the first 6 minutes of the video was transcribed. The stretch of interaction under study begins at 0.01 and ends at 6.17. In this video, there was one female teacher engaged in a whole class interaction with approximately 17 students. Due to privacy reason, all identified names mentioned in the video were converted into pseudonym. From the video, the teacher circulated around the classroom while delivering teachers talk, whereas, the students sat on their seats. They learned and discussed about the meaning of some words and the root of words which were related to a language class genre. The YouTube video was converted to a WAV file and exported to ELAN; a computer software to transcribe and annotate audio recording (ELAN (Version 4.9.4), 2016). The teacher's hand gestures when allocating the turn, such as pointing hand, and also the students' gesture, such as hand-raising are recorded in the transcription. Following Kääntä (2012), in the transcription, the gestures were written in between wavy brackets ({...}). Additionally, in an attempt to indicate the time when the hand gestures were performed, the explanation of the gesture was written underneath the stretch of speech which was produced at the same time as the occurrence of the hand gesture (see Appendix 1 for the complete key of the transcription convention). CA (Conversation Analysis) coined by (Sacks et al., 1978) is applied in order to find the turn-taking's rule of the data under investigation. The Turn Constructional Unit (TCU) and the Transition Relevance Place (TRP) are analysed based on CA theory by focussing on the speaker’s intonation (raising or falling), how the speakers yielded the floor to other speakers, how the speakers nominated themselves to take the turn, the content of the speakers’ TCU and also the words that the speakers used to manage the turn allocation. All of these aspects were recorded in a detailed transcription (see Appendix 2 for the full transcription). In addition to the verbal cues performed by the speakers, the physical turn-taking regulating signals such as hand raising performed by the participants were also examined to reveal the teacher's way in allocating the turn and the student's strategies to perform turn-taking initiation. Sari, C.C. (2020). Conversation Analysis: Turn-Taking Mechanism and Power Relation in Classroom Setting. Celtic: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature, & Linguistics, 7(2), 118-136. 122 FINDINGS Turn-Taking Pattern Six extracts along with the explanation are presented to reveal the general turn- taking rule of the investigated classroom interaction. Extract 1 and 2 are the examples of the most occurring turn-taking patterns. Extract 3, 4, 5, and 6 are the examples of the less occurring turn-taking patterns. From the presented Extracts, the overall rule is summarized at the end of this point. Extract 1 014 Teacher: our your skill are great:, what else:. 015 {three 016 students raised their hands} 017 Teacher: Kristen{teacher pointing at Kristen} 018 (.) 019 Kristen (S): [because we keep on practising.] 020 [{Some other students 021 still put their hands up}] 022 (0.1) 023 Teacher: [you keep on pra::ctising 024 feno:menal: let's look at the next box:(0.2)look at 025 the purple] 026 [{some students still put 027 their hands up}] 028 [[box(.)] 029 [{students' hands down}] In Extract 1 (line 15), there are three students directly raising their hands at the completion of the teacher's TCU (line 14). This TRP can be accurately projected since the teacher clearly yields the floor by using the word "what" to pose a question to the students. Additionally, she lengthens the final syllable and drops the intonation a little bit at the end of her TCU (line 014). However, the students do not directly take the floor, they raise their hands until the teacher nominates the next speaker in line 017 by mentioning a student's name and pointing at the student. Then, the nominated student takes the floor by answering the teacher question. When the nominated student is speaking in line 019, the other students still indicate their intention to speak by raising their hands, but after the nominated student completed his TCU as indicated by the falling intonation, after 0.1 second gap the teacher self-selected herself to take the turn and produce stretch of speech in lines 023, 024, 025, and 028; she ignores the students' signals to take the turn until the students put their hands down in line 029. Other examples of this pattern can be found in Appendix 2, specifically, lines 050-062, lines 097-105, lines 151-168, lines 250-261. Extract 2 215 Teacher: what does it mean to struggle[ who knows the word] 216 [{students put their 217 hands up}] Celtic: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature and Linguistics Vol. 7, No. 2, December 2020. E-ISSN: 2621-9158 P-ISSN:2356-0401 http://ejournal.umm.ac.id/index.php/celtic/index 123 218 (0.8) 219 Teacher: Kim [would] you like to share out with us? 220 [{students' hands down}] 221 (0.8) 222 Kim (S): like em if somebody like is grabbing you like like em 223 (0.5)when you are struggling to get something(0.2) 224 you pull really hard trying to get it 225 (0.1) Extract 2 (line 219) shows that the teacher nominates the next speaker by only mentioning a student's name without gesture. After the next speaker is chosen, other students withdraw their hands (line 220) and the nominated student takes the turn (lines 222-225) without any interruption. Generally, during the 6 minutes whole class interaction, there is no evidence of students interrupting the nominated student's turn (see Appendix 2, specifically lines 233-242 and lines 281-290 for other examples which are the same as Extract 2). Extract 3 083 Teacher: what is that mean to be a little bit lauder when 084 we speaking¿ 085 Whole class: Conviction Extract 4 106 Teacher: I make something special for you: and because it's 107 special do you think that I'm I give the same 108 present(0.1)to[everybody? 109 [{some students put their hands up}] 110 Students: [yes] ((calling out)) 111 Students: [No] ((calling out)) Extract 5 135 Teacher: is something that is important to Georgina 136 important to everybody? 137 (0.3) 138 Student 3: NO ((calling out)) Extract 3, 4, and 5 show that in some parts of the interaction, the students do not wait until being nominated by the teacher to take the turn. In these examples, instead of raising their hands and waiting to be nominated, the students are calling out (Extract 3 line 085, Extract 4 lines 110-111, Extract 5 line 138). However, they do not overlap the teacher's speech. They call out at the end of the teacher's TCUs'. Extract 3 lines 083- 084, extract 4 lines 106-108 and extract 5 lines 135-136 indicate that the teachers produce grammatically and syntactically complete TCUs with rising intonation. Additionally, the teacher also clearly yielding the floor to the students by posing questions to the students by using question words; what (line 083), do (107), and is (line Sari, C.C. (2020). Conversation Analysis: Turn-Taking Mechanism and Power Relation in Classroom Setting. Celtic: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature, & Linguistics, 7(2), 118-136. 124 135). It is worth noting that the students' TCUs (lines 085, 110, 111, 138) only consist of one word. Another example of the same pattern as these three Extracts can be found in Appendix 1, lines 275-278. In other parts of the interaction, there are also evidences off some students who call out and produce TCUs' consisting of two or three words (see full transcription in Appendix 2, specifically lines 113-115 and lines 202-207). Extract 6 006 Teacher: the team is amai:zing you guys win every weekend: 007 (0.3)bike::s,= 008 Gamelon (S): = our[skill] 009 Teacher: [your] 010 {Teacher pointing at Gamelon} 011 (0.5) 012 Gamelon (S): our skill are good cause we(0.1) cause we 013 keep yea_(0.1)our skill are good. In Extract 6, Gamelon (student) self-selects himself by calling out before the teacher completely finishes her turn (line 008). Line 007 shows that the teacher's TCU is in continuing intonation. This indicates that the teacher wants to continue her turn. Besides, the overlapping speech between the teacher and Gamelon (lines 008 and 009) shows that the teacher actually has not quite finished her turn. Yet, since Gamelon has already initiated to take the turn, the teacher then finally yielding the floor and clearly nominating Gamelon as the next speaker by pointing at him (line 010). After being clearly nominated to take the floor, Gamelon produces longer TCU (lines 012-013). Through the full transcript in Appendix 1, it is noticeable that the overlapping speeches between participants do not happen frequently. However, the participants' speeches are sometimes overlapping with the other participants' hand gestures. For instance, other students put their hands up when one student is having his/her turn (Appendix 1 lines 019-022) and students put their hands up to show their initiation to answer the teacher's question before the teacher finishes her turn (see Appendix 2 lines 014, 023- 027, 050-053, 215, 069-071). Drawing from the explanations above, the summary of the turn-taking rule is as the following. 1. The teacher clearly nominated the next speaker either by mentioning the next speaker's name or pointing at the next speaker or even both. 2. Overwhelmingly students put their hands up to indicate their initiation to take the turn and wait until being nominated. 3. When the nominated speaker is speaking, other participants do not orally interrupt. 4. Overwhelmingly one party speaks at a time; overlapping mostly occurs between the current speaker's speech and the other participants' hand gestures. 5. Students also take the turn without being nominated by the teacher, but they only produce short TCU consisting of one to three words. Mostly, they always do that at the end of the teacher's TCU when the teacher is clearly yielding the floor by posing questions. 6. There is one interactional evidence found which is deviating rule number 5; student takes the turn before the teacher completely finishes her turn. When this happened, Celtic: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature and Linguistics Vol. 7, No. 2, December 2020. E-ISSN: 2621-9158 P-ISSN:2356-0401 http://ejournal.umm.ac.id/index.php/celtic/index 125 the teacher stopped speaking and let the student took the floor. 7. The students TCUs are longer (consisting of more than 3 words in one string of TCU) when they are nominated by the teacher to take the floor. Participants' Power Relation in Classroom Interaction From the finding in point 4.1, the teacher power is obviously higher than the students; the teacher does not need to compete with the students to take the turn and the teacher is the one who allocates the turn. Additionally, from the data, it is evident that the content of the students' TCUs is always about answering the teacher's question which are mostly in the form of open-ended question (See Extract 7). Extract 7 255 Teacher: what do you think [Angelica?] 256 [{Teacher pointed at Angelica}] 257 ((other students' hands down)} 258 (0.1) 259 Angelica (S):(0.1 ) 261 (0.3) 262 Teacher: what would that me:an: that's that's an interesting 263 one in fact I lo:ve how she's thinking class I like 264 how she's thinking Line 255, shows that the teacher yields the floor by posing a question and directly mentioning the name of the next speaker who is responsible to take the floor. Then, the next speaker's answering the question without posing another question to the teacher (see line 259, Extract 7). After the students completed their TCUs, the teacher directly takes the turn and evaluates the student's answer by saying: "...that's an interesting one...I love how she's thinking..." (Extract 7 lines 261, 263). The teacher's evaluating the students' answer several times (see Appendix 1 line 080, lines 283-284 for other examples of teacher's evaluation). Yet, there is no evidence in the data which shows that the students also evaluating the teacher's statement. This shows that in the classroom under study, the teacher has prerogative right in the interaction to evaluate the other participants. It means the teacher has more power in the interaction. DISCUSSION The finding shows that the teacher appears to be the main speaker which allocate the turn and maintain the effectiveness of the teacher-students interaction. It agrees with Okata's (2016) (Sacks et al.'s (1978) findings that in a usual and effective conversation, overwhelmingly, there is only one party speaks at a time. In addition, the majority of classroom interaction in this study follows the rules of turn-taking outlined by Mchoul (1978) in which the teacher mainly acts as the main speaker who has the prerogative right to take the turn, continue the turn and/or select the next speaker, whereas the students as the teacher's interlocutors only take the turn when they are nominated. However, there are some interactional contexts where the turn taking's structure alters to that of McHoul's (1978) rule, specifically when one student self-selects himself and call out before the teacher finishes her turn, resulting in overlapping speech between them. Sari, C.C. (2020). Conversation Analysis: Turn-Taking Mechanism and Power Relation in Classroom Setting. Celtic: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature, & Linguistics, 7(2), 118-136. 126 When this condition happened though, students do not produce a long string of speech, they only produce sort TCU consisting of less than three words. Yet, given that the teacher directly stopped speaking and yielded the floor to that particular student implies that student may also possess power in classroom interaction. According to Sidelinger, Bolen, Frisby, & McMullen (2012), students may affect instructor's behaviours in classroom interaction. The same as (Brooks, 2016), this study found that the teacher continually asks questions to the students, and then provide evaluation to the students’ answer. This means, in term of the conversation content, the interactions form IRE (Initiation, Response, Evaluation) pattern of which the teacher initiates the question, the students respond to the question, and lastly the teacher evaluates the students answer. In this study, there is no evidence of students evaluate the teacher’s answers, and therefore it seems that there is power difference between teacher and student. In (Brooks, 2016), the teacher only asks quiz type question of which the answer is set and known by the teacher, whereas in this study the teacher appeared to ask many open-ended questions that allow students to explore their knowledge. Then, the teacher provides constructive feedback to encourage the students elaborate their answers. This inquiry style in my opinion does not place the teacher as the “know all” and put the students as “without knowledge”. This condition has lessened a social divide between teacher and students as the students gain more valued and power in class. Besides, the data also shows that although the students are most likely wait to be nominated to speak, the fact that they still do unvocalized attempt to take the turn by raising their hands even before the teacher finishing her speech may indicate that students also have power in the interaction even though their power is not as high as the teacher. In other words, I would say that in this study the power of the teacher in managing the turn-taking mechanism is not absolute. To a certain point that students can still show their desire to be the speaker and take the turn by raising their hands and can call out their answer before being nominated. As found in this study, teacher could mitigate the social distance between teacher and students by encouraging students to nominate themselves and exposing students with an open-ended question. By doing so students will have more freedom to talk in class and express their idea. To value the students’ answer, the teacher could give feedback or develop follow up question according to the students answer, and therefore the students are forced to think critically based on the stimulation given by the teacher. By doing so, the students could be prepared to answer the 21st century learning requirement which is explained by Ansori (2019) as having to be academically competent, critical, and able to communicate their voice. CONCLUSION To conclude this article, several important points are summarized in the following. The interaction between teacher and students in the data is mostly asymmetrical; the teacher acts as the first speaker who manages the turn-taking system. She nominated the next speaker by either employing hand gestures or by directly mentioning the students' name or by mentioning the student's name while also pointing at the nominated student. The teacher has higher power than the students as shown by the fact that teacher is the one who ask question and evaluate the respond. Yet, it is Celtic: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature and Linguistics Vol. 7, No. 2, December 2020. E-ISSN: 2621-9158 P-ISSN:2356-0401 http://ejournal.umm.ac.id/index.php/celtic/index 127 worth noting that in the turn-taking mechanism, the power of the teacher is not absolute as there are some evident in which the student overlapping the teacher's speech and calling out before being nominated. Besides, the fact that the students are allowed to show their eagerness to take the turn by raising their hands is also one evident that students also possess power in the interaction. This study, however, does not include the analysis of silent; pauses or gaps of the classroom interaction under investigation, whereas silent may also affect the turn-taking patterns between participants. Thus, future study can be conducted to examine pauses or gaps in classroom interaction. REFERENCES Allwright, D. (2005). From teaching points to learning opportunities and beyond. Tesol Quarterly, 39(1), 9–31. Ansori, M. (2019). English teachers’ efficacy in using pedagogical techniques to promote higher order thinking skills. Celtic: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature, and Linguistics, 6(2), 1–13. Brooks, C. F. (2016). Role, Power, Ritual, and Resistance: A Critical Discourse Analysis of College Classroom Talk. Western Journal of Communication, 80(3), 348–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2015.1098723 Cameron, D. (2001). Working with spoken discourse. Sage. ELAN (version 4.9.4). (2016). Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, the Language Archive. http://tla.mpi.nl/tools/tla-tools/elan/ Evnitskaya, N., & Berger, E. (2017). Learners’ Multimodal Displays of Willingness to Participate in Classroom Interaction in the L2 and CLIL Contexts. Classroom Discourse, 8(1), 71–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2016.1272062 Gardner, R. (2019). Classroom Interaction Research: The State of the Art. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(3), 212–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2019.1631037 Garton, S. (2012). Speaking out of turn? Taking the initiative in teacher-fronted classroom interaction. Classroom Discourse, 3(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2012.666022 Ingram, J., & Elliott, V. (2014). Turn taking and “wait time” in classroom interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 62, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.12.002 Kääntä, L. (2012). Teachers’ embodied allocations in instructional interaction. Classroom Discourse, 3(2), 166–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2012.716624 Mchoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7(2), 183–213. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500005522 Mondada, L. (2013). Embodied and spatial resources for turn-taking in institutional multi-party interactions: Participatory democracy debates. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 39–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.010 Okata, G. N. (2016). Turn taking sequence in discourse: A tool to effective conversation in a related speech of interlocutors. International Journal of Research in Arts and Social Sciences, 9(1), 152–161. Rossano, F., Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). Gaze , questioning , and culture (J. Sidnell (Ed.); Issue Rossano 2009, pp. 187–249). Cambridge University Press. https://ebookcentral-proquest- Sari, C.C. (2020). Conversation Analysis: Turn-Taking Mechanism and Power Relation in Classroom Setting. Celtic: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature, & Linguistics, 7(2), 118-136. 128 com.ezproxy2.library.usyd.edu.au/lib/usyd/detail.action?docID=461171&pq- origsite=primo#goto_toc Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1978). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, 7–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-623550- 0.50008-2 Sahlström, F. (2002). The interactional organization of hand raising in classroom interaction. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 37(2), 47–57. Seedhouse, P. (2004). The organization of turn taking and sequence in language classrooms. Language Learning, 54(S1), 101–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9922.2004.00270.x Sidelinger, R. J., Bolen, D. M., Frisby, B. N., & McMullen, A. L. (2012). Instructor compliance to student requests: An examination of student-to-student connectedness as power in the classroom. Communication Education, 61(3), 290– 308. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2012.666557 Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Taylor & Francis. Waring, H. Z. (2014). Turn allocation and context: Broadening participation in the second language classroom. In Discourse in context: Contemporary applied linguistics (Vol. 3, pp. 301–320). Bloomsbury London, England. APPENDIX 1 Transcription Key : speaker identity/ start of turn [ ] overlaping talk & overlaping talk with gesture of the participants { } description of gesture = latching (.) micropause less that 0.1   speech that is noticeably quieter than surrounding speech  falls pitch  rises pitch  Arrow beside speaker names indicates lines of analytic focus . Falling intonation or final intonation , continuing intonation ? rising intonation, question ¿ low rise intonation; stronger than comma but weaker than question mark. _: inflected falling intonation : inflected rising intonation < > the stretch of talk in between is markedly slowed (( )) transcriber comment ( ) empty parentheses indicates no hearing is possible word underlining to indicate stressed in some part of the words WORD capital letter indicates loudness than the surrounding talk Celtic: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature and Linguistics Vol. 7, No. 2, December 2020. E-ISSN: 2621-9158 P-ISSN:2356-0401 http://ejournal.umm.ac.id/index.php/celtic/index 129 APPENDIX 2 Full Transcription 001 ((Students raise their hands)) 002 Teacher: [Ga:melon.] 003 [{pointing at Gamelon}] 004 (3.9) 005 Gamelon (S): the_ you say, 006 Teacher: the team is amai:zing you guys win every weekend: 007 (0.3)bike::s,= 008 Cameron (S): =our [skill] 009 Teacher: [your] 010 [{teacher pointing her hand at Gamelon}] 011 (0.5) 012 Cameron (S): =[our skill] are good cause we (0.1) cause we 013 keep yea_(0.1)our skill are good. 014 Teacher: our your skill are great:, what [else:. 015 {3 students 016 raised their hands} 017 Teacher: Kristen{teacher pointing at Kristen} 018 (.) 019 Kristen (S): [because we keep on practising.] 020 [{Some other students 021 still put their hands up}] 022 (0.1) 023 Teacher: [you keep on pra::ctising 024 feno:menal: let's look at the next box:(0.2)look at 025 the purple] 026 [{some students still put 027 their hands up}] 028 [[box(.)] 029 [{students' hands down}] 030 What is the next word [that is down there.] 031 [{students raise their hands}] 032 (2.4) 033 Teacher: [yes] 034 [{pointing at student 1}] 035 [{other students' hands down}] 036 (0.5) 037 Student 1: where¿ 038 (0.7) 039 Teacher: right here, 040 (0.5) 041 Teacher: put your finger on it pli::s: Sari, C.C. (2020). Conversation Analysis: Turn-Taking Mechanism and Power Relation in Classroom Setting. Celtic: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature, & Linguistics, 7(2), 118-136. 130 042 (0.4) 043 Teacher: I need the tracking finger [going] 044 Student 1: [spes] spes spes 045 Teacher: spe:cial, 046 Student 1: special 047 (2.6) 048 Teacher: specially, 049 1.5) 050 Teacher: Specially what do we think that sounds like what is 051 that root word in [there? 052 [{some students raise 053 their hands}] 054 (0.1) 055 Teacher: [Ms. Tiggins told you about root words what is the 056 root word that will be in specially?] 057 [{students keep raising their hands}] 058 (0.4) 059 Teacher: yes.= 060 ={teacher pointing at Hermione} [other students 061 put their hands down} 062 (0.7) 063 ((Students start to raise their hands when the 064 teacher said, "there", in line 051 and they keep on 065 raising their hands until the teacher said, "yes", 066 in line 059) 067 Hermione (S): Special. 068 (0.5) 069 Teacher: spe:cial:(0.4)what is that [mean to be special] 070 [one student, not 071 Georgina, raises his hand}] 072 Georgina?= 073 ={the student's hand down} 074 (0.5) 075 Georgina (S): It means to be something it means to be something it 076 means to be something that you very very like and 077 important 078 (0.5) 079 Teacher: something that you lai:k a lo:t and is important to 080 you excellent (0.1)next time let's try just a little 081 bit more la::ud. 082 (0.5) 083 what is that mean to be a little bit lauder when 084 we speaking¿ 085 Whole class: Conviction Celtic: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature and Linguistics Vol. 7, No. 2, December 2020. E-ISSN: 2621-9158 P-ISSN:2356-0401 http://ejournal.umm.ac.id/index.php/celtic/index 131 086 Teacher: Thank you we need to speak with conviction I can't 087 barely hear you now Ms. Tiggins is oold ( ) of 088 hearing:(0.2) I can't hear you if I'm over here 089 okay,(0.4)she se::d(0.7)tha::t (0.3)to be 090 special(0.4) mean you ( ) it was really important to 091 you:(0.6)and it was ve:ry it was something that you 092 like the whole lot(0.1) so something is 093 specially(0.7)specially mai::d (0.2)specially 094 mei:d (0.3) Ms. Tiggin specially meid 095 present for each of her students 096 (0.9) 097 Teacher: What do you think that[means?] 098 [{Students raise their hands}] 099 (1.6) 100 Teacher: [yes Omari] 101 [{pointing at Omari}] students' hands 102 down} 103 (0.5) 104 Omari (S): 105 (0.5) 106 Teacher: I make something special for you: and because it's 107 special do you think that I'm I give the same 108 present(0.1)to[ everybody? 109 [{students put their hands up}] 110 Some students: [yes] ((calling out)) 111 Some other Students: [No] ((calling out)) 112 (0.3) 113 Teacher: ma:ybe 114 (0.8) 115 Student 2: YES YES MAYBE ((Student 2 calls out)) 116 (0.4) 117 Teacher: Who thinks no?= 118 ={students raise their hands} 119 (2.3) 120 Teacher: [Kaitrin [why not?]] 121 [{Teacher pointing at Kaitrin}] 122 [{other students' hands down}] 123 (2.1) 124 Teacher: Why do you think no? 125 (2.4) 126 Teacher: 127 (0.5) 128 Teacher: will I give the same thing to everybody¿ Sari, C.C. (2020). Conversation Analysis: Turn-Taking Mechanism and Power Relation in Classroom Setting. Celtic: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature, & Linguistics, 7(2), 118-136. 132 129 (0.1) 130 Teacher: If- cause this is important, 131 (0.3) 132 Teacher: Georgina told us that if something is special to you 133 it's important to you 134 (0.2) 135 Teacher: is something that is important to Georgina important 136 to everybody? 137 (0.3) 138 Student 3: NO ((calling out)) 139 (1.3) 140 Teacher: Georgina might have: (0.2) what is your favourite 141 animal at home(0.2)your favourite ( - - ) 142 (2.3) 143 Hermione (S): ((inaudible, Georgina says something softly)) 144 (0.1) 145 Teacher: I can't hear you 146 (0.8) 147 Hermione (S): my dog 148 (0.2) 149 Teacher: your do::g 150 (0.6) 151 Teacher: What is [something that really your favourite 152 favourite toy ever:] 153 [{some students raise their hands}] 154 Teacher: [Draka:y.] 155 [{teacher pointing at Grakay}] ((other students' 156 hands down)) 157 (0.1) 158 Grakay (S): parrot 159 (0.5) 160 Teacher: your [pa:rrot,] 161 [{students raise their hands}] 162 (0.1) 163 Teacher: What's your favourite toy [Macy?] 164 [{Teacher pointing at Macy, 165 other students' hands' down}] 166 Macy (S): ( ) ((inaudible)) 167 (2.0) 168 Teacher: your ( ) baby toy now (0.5) 169 do you think (0.9)that if Ms Tiggens make something 170 specially ma:de for each of you that it will be the 171 same thing: Celtic: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature and Linguistics Vol. 7, No. 2, December 2020. E-ISSN: 2621-9158 P-ISSN:2356-0401 http://ejournal.umm.ac.id/index.php/celtic/index 133 172 (1.1) 173 Teacher: will they all be different things or will they all be 174 the same¿ 175 (0.1) 176 Whole class different 177 (0.1) 178 Teacher: they're all different. 179 (0.1) 180 Teacher: they're all different and they're all important to 181 you for different reason 182 (0.1) 183 Teacher: so they're all specially ma:de 184 (0.2) 185 Teacher: now,(0.7)let's think about this:(0.4) 186 If I specially made a special food for you gu:ys 187 (0.1) 188 Teacher: I specially mai:d bro::wnies (0.2) for Ms Tiggens's 189 cla:ss(1.0) 191 (0.9) 192 Teacher: what do you think 193 (1.4) 194 Teacher: about these brownies do you think they're gonna be 195 the same brownies with Ms ( _ _ _ ) class kids: 196 (1.5){ 197 Teacher: [whay: not?] 198 [{teacher pointed at student 4}] 199 (0.5) 200 Student 4: 201 (0.1) 202 Teacher: some brownies are different and the brownies our 203 class has:(0.5)because they are specially made(0.5) 204 means that important to who? Ms ( ) class or our 205 class? 206 (0.3) 207 Whole class our class ((calling out)) 208 (0.2) 209 Teacher: exa::ctly, 210 (0.1) 211 Teacher: let's look at the next word 212 (0.6) 213 Teacher: struggle 214 (0.6) Sari, C.C. (2020). Conversation Analysis: Turn-Taking Mechanism and Power Relation in Classroom Setting. Celtic: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature, & Linguistics, 7(2), 118-136. 134 215 Teacher: what does it mean to struggle[ who knows the word 216 [{students put their 217 hands up}] 218 (0.8) 219 Teacher: Kim [would] you like to share out with us? 220 [{students' hands down}] 221 (0.8) 222 Kim (S): like em if somebody like is grabbing you like like em 223 (0.5)when you are struggling to get something(0.2) 224 you pull really hard trying to get it 225 (0.1) 226 Teacher: so you're trying your best. 227 (0.2) 228 Teacher: I heard some keywords there try your 229 best(0.3)you're 230 trying to get awa:y (0.1) you're working really 231 ha:rd. 232 (0.2) 233 Teacher: what else do we know about srugling?= 234 ={students put their hands up} 235 Teacher: you're struggle on football Theon 236 (0.2)when someone trying to tackle you(0.3) 237 Teacher: tell me [why] 238 [{other students' hands down}] 239 (0.3) 240 Teacher: what's going on. 241 4.6) 242 Theon (S): so I can break out the I can break out the tackle 243 Teacher: Can you speak a bit lauder I can't barely hear you 244 (0.2) 245 Theon (S): so I can break out the tackle and get detached down 246 (0.1) 247 Teacher: so you can break out the ta:ckle and get detach 248 down 249 (0.2) 250 Teacher: [I'am hearing a thing here(0.4)I'm hearing 251 something that sounds like like you're 252 trying to get away from something] 253 [{students' rais their hands}] 254 (0.3) Celtic: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature and Linguistics Vol. 7, No. 2, December 2020. E-ISSN: 2621-9158 P-ISSN:2356-0401 http://ejournal.umm.ac.id/index.php/celtic/index 135 255 Teacher: what do you think [Angelica?] 256 [{Teacher pointed at Angelica}] 257 ((other students' hands down)} 258 (0.1) 259 Angelica (S): (0.1) 261 (0.3) 262 Teacher: what would that me:an: that's that's an interesting 263 one in fact I lo:ve how she's thinking class I like 264 how she's thinking 265 (0.3) 266 Whole class we think is great 267 (0.1) 268 Teacher: It is great you know what 269 (0.4) 270 Teacher: because they say that you're struggling like you're 271 movin (0.2)somebody holding on to your body right? 272 (0.1) 273 Some students: yes 274 (0.1) 275 Teacher: she said that you're strugling with Math can Math 276 hold on to your body? 277 (0.1) 278 Whole class: no 279 Teacher: Math cannot hold on to your body 280 (0.2) 281 Teacher: but how could you be struggling in Ma:th 282 (0.6) 283 Teacher: what does it mean Angelica I like where you going 284 with this I think it's right he:re I think you got it 285 (0.1) 286 Teacher: what does it mean to struggle in Math? 287 (0.5) 288 Angelica (S): <it means like(0.1)if you stuck on something 289 (0.1)you don't know what's the answer(0.1)you can get 290 help from somebody> 291 Teacher: would you mind saying that a little bit louder with 292 conviction first because everybody in here need to Sari, C.C. (2020). Conversation Analysis: Turn-Taking Mechanism and Power Relation in Classroom Setting. Celtic: A Journal of Culture, English Language Teaching, Literature, & Linguistics, 7(2), 118-136. 136 293 hear you (0.1) come on a little bit lauder with 294 conviction 295 (0.4) 296 Angelica (S): if you stuck on something on your ma:th and you 297 don't know what's the answer you you want to get some 298 help from somebody 399 (0.2) 300 Teacher: if you stuck on something like your Ma::th 301 (0.3)it might mean that you don't know the a:nswer 302 and you need to get help from somebody(0.4)so you 303 might have private tutoring session