REACTION PAPER

Interaction Competence- Speaking Test

Interactional Competence across Proficiency Levels: How do Learners Manage Interaction

in Paired Speaking Tests?

By Evelina D. Galaczi

(Oxford University Press 2014 dol:10.1093/applin/amu017 Advance Access published on 30 August

2013)

Analyzed by:
Irkhas Ziana Rizqi Afriza
Irodhatul Muchasanah

This journal article is written by Evelina D. Galaczi. This article analyzes how to increase the
ability to interact successfully in a foreign/language (L2) because language become important in global
world. It also means that the writer has a purpose that provide some space for students to learn and assess
the level of proficiency in foreign languages and also the ability in conversation. Provide the insight to
have a concept in learning a foreign language both in the form of speaking, reading, writing or listening,
and also give some strategies. The direct relevant to this study is the Interactive Communication scale. At
CEFR levels there are 4 were used in this study (B1 to C2).

The review of literature is mainly related to conflicting Discourse. The writer provides important
information about the conversation analysis (CA), specifically the conversation in the classroom between
the students with the teacher or the student with other students. It allowed the investigation of micro
level interactional features.

The methodology used was subtraction method and the data were collected from the literatures
conducted by either the writer herself or from others. Test-taker performances on the candidate/candidate
interaction task at CEFR levels B1 to C2 were used in this study. The present study, with its mixed-
method approach, aims to provide a complement to such quantitative investigations .

The quantitative result of this journal article is in the level of B1 test taker devoted 21.0 percent to
minimal topic extension, where the development of other initiated topics takes more prominence 28.2
percent at B2 levels, it becomes the most frequent topic development 38.2 percent at C1 and 48.8 percent
at C2. Means on the qualitative result are at B1 test takers provided limited listener support. Listener
support was more prominent, but mostly in the form of backchannels is at B2, at C1 and C2 the listeners
are supportive was found to be more fully developed.
In our opinion, this journal focused on asking the test takers to exchange opinions about specific
situation or topic to manage the interaction on their own. The IC scale as the direct relevant, which was
developed with guidance from the CEFR.
The strength of this research is the mixed-method approach. This study combined qualitative
discourse analysis investigations with quantitative statistical supported. Because any quantitative
investigation would need to be accompanied by a through qualitative analysis of discourse generated.
We suggest that many researches use mixed-method approach is better. Because it could improve
and developed of every method resulting. So, it is possible for everyone to learn and be able to use mixed-
method to do some research. But why they didn’t give the same topic?