113

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research

Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 113-130, February 2023
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.22.2.7
Received Dec 30, 2022; Revised Feb 16, 2023; Accepted Feb 22, 2023

The Effectiveness of Opinion Gaps, Reasoning,

and Information Tasks in Improving Speaking
Skills
Sri Mulyani* , Vismaia S. Damaianti , Yeti Mulyati
and Andoyo Sastromiharjo
Indonesian language Education Department, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia,
Bandung, Indonesia

Abstract. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of using the
gap task of opinion, reasoning and information on speaking skills at the
secondary school level. This study used a quasi-experimental research
method involving 352 students. The three experimental groups received
treatment with gaps in opinion, reasoning, and information gap tasks. All
groups were examined for their initial speaking ability. The experimental
group was given an intervention with gaps in opinion, reasoning, and
information while the control group was given a traditional intervention
to improve speaking ability. After the intervention had been carried out,
all groups were examined for their speaking ability. Data analysis was
performed using one-way ANOVA. The results indicated that the
experimental groups showed a significant increase in speaking ability
compared to students in the control group in the post-test phase.
Intervention from giving the gap task of opinion, reasoning, and
information is more effective for improving speaking skills. Three
assignments of opinion gaps, reasoning, and information can improve
students' speaking fluency. Of the three assignments, the information gap
assignment provides the most significant contribution compared to the
gap of opinion and reasoning tasks because the instructions in the
information gap task are more varied and more intensive in encouraging
students to interact in various contexts. Based on these findings, the
researcher recommends designing materials by creating assignments that
contain gaps in opinions, reasoning, and information to achieve learning
objectives.

Keywords: information gaps; opinion gap; reasoning gaps; speaking

ability

*
Corresponding author: Sri Mulyani; [email protected]

©Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
 114

1. Introduction
The ability to speak is a language skill that is essential to communicate
successfully with others. This means that the ability to speak is one of the main
skills in expressing information, feelings, intentions or goals, ideas, beliefs, and
individual feelings (Abdullah et al., 2021; Stark et al., 2020). Language learning
must pay attention to speaking skills and using language realistically, as well as
requiring practice to improve pragmatic-contextual abilities. In addition to
speaking skills, reading and writing skills are also necessary in using language
because these skills can improve comprehension and fluency in speaking (Cenoz
& Gorter, 2022; Wongsa & Son, 2022). Speaking fluency is inseparable from other
language skills because speaking ability is a productive language skill; therefore
good reading and listening skills are needed. However, this study is focused on
speaking ability. The term ‘fluent’ is defined as an individual's ability to use
language both grammatically and at a good speed so that that people can convey
their intentions and goals to the others without any misunderstanding (Albino,
2017; Kim, 2020). There are several definitions of fluency in speaking, including
the ability to speak at length with few pauses, the ability to use sentences
systematically and coherently, the ability to express feelings according to context,
and the ability to use language creatively and imaginatively.

Speaking ability is an important language skill in teaching both first language

and second language (Ataeifar et al., 2019; Fang et al., 2022). However, in reality,
teaching speaking still has not received special attention from language teachers
in either first or second language teaching. Currently, learning to speak is more
intensive in terms of strengthening grammar structures, memorising dialogues,
or memorising vocabulary (Dippold et al., 2022; Lin & Clark, 2021). There is still a
lack of tasks in the form of real applications that encourage students to use their
language directly. However, learning demands require students to be able to
improve their speaking skills communicatively. This is a problem because the
demands of learning according to the teaching process are not optimal for
students’ achieving learning goals.

The failure to teach speaking skills is caused by various factors, both internal and
external, including the quality of the teacher, teaching methods, the proportion of
material that is not balanced (dominated by structure), limited time, number of
students, student motivation, and the school environment which is not yet
optimal to encourage students' speaking skills (Buehler et al., 2021; Palma-Gómez
et al., 2020; Perkins et al., 2018). To overcome this problem, teacher innovation is
necessary in using learning methods or strategies that are able to facilitate
students’ improvement of their speaking skills. In this study, assignments were
designed that prioritised the gaps in opinion, reasoning, and information in the
process of teaching speaking. This strategy was used with the aim that students
would be able to solve problems while at the same time encouraging students to
practise their speaking skills (Aliakbari, 2014; Marzban & Hashemi, 2013; Tonia &
Ganta, 2015). There are various teaching techniques for teaching speaking in
language skills. However, this task presentation technique was considered by the
researcher to be effective in improving speaking skills.

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 115

Teaching techniques using information gaps use incomplete information and

encourage students to find this information through communication with friends
so that students' speaking skills are trained. Information gaps can be in various
contexts, for example, regarding student information, school information,
environmental information and others (Fallahi et al., 2015; Yaprak & Kaya, 2020).
Furthermore, the opinion gap can be in the form of a task asking for opinions,
feelings, views, and preferences regarding social issues or certain topics.
Reasoning gaps can be in the form of assignments to find paragraph patterns
contained in information such as deductions, causal relationships, or practical
reasoning; students are then asked to explain the relationships between the
information they have read (Fallahi et al., 2015; Soleimani & Dastjerdi, 2021). With
all these techniques, students are actively required to speak logically and
communicatively. Through this teaching technique, not only do speaking skills
improve, but also critical thinking skills and other language skills such as reading
and listening. This shows that speaking ability is a language skill that requires
intensive practice. It is a language skill that must not only be learnt but must be
used directly (Marashi & Mirghafari, 2019; Yaprak & Kaya, 2020). Teaching
speaking skills in the field is still regarded as passive, for example, by memorising
vocabulary, filling in exercises, or doing assignments without actively
encouraging students to be directly involved in speaking activities. Naturally, this
method of teaching makes language teaching boring and ineffectual in helping
students to improve their speaking skills.

There have been several previous studies investigating the role of task-based
language teaching. Previous research examining the impact of task-based
programs on language teaching has found it to be more effective than traditional
teaching methods in improving students' productive skills in language, such as
speaking and writing skills (Soleimani & Dastjerdi, 2021; Tonia & Ganta, 2015).
Other research investigated the role of retelling tasks and differences of opinion
in improving speaking and spontaneous thinking skills. This task can improve
students' speaking skills in the experimental rather than the control group. Other
research investigated the role of information gaps and opinion gaps on reading
comprehension skills. Students in this study were divided into experiment and
control groups, the latter of which only used the traditional question-and-answer
method. Based on this research, it was found that giving information and opinion
gap assignments was able to improve reading comprehension skills (Aliakbari,
2014; Marashi & Mirghafari, 2019).

Furthermore, task-based research is also applied to listening and speaking skills.

This study provides assignments that encourage students to engage in speaking
and listening to information. The results study showed that the experimental
group that received this task showed an increase in listening and speaking skills
that was superior to that of the control group (Fallahi et al., 2015; Soleimani &
Dastjerdi, 2021). The opinion gap task was examined in previous studies on the
fluency of students' speaking ability. From this study, it was found that the
students' speaking ability increased significantly. From several previous studies
(Aliakbari, 2014; Marashi & Mirghafari, 2019; Yaprak & Kaya, 2020), there is no
research that compares the effectiveness of the three task-based language teaching
tasks in the gaps of opinion, reasoning, and information on speaking ability.

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 116

Therefore, the difference between this study and previous research is the use of
the three tasks of disparaging opinions, reasoning, and information and
comparing their effectiveness on students' speaking abilities. In addition, the
focus of speaking skills in this study is the aspect of fluency. This study seeks to
examine the effect of differences of opinion, reasoning and information
assignments on speaking ability, especially fluency. For this study, researchers
designed various speaking teaching techniques as an alternative solution for
improving students' speaking skills. Teaching techniques using gaps in opinion,
reasoning, and information are considered by researchers to be interesting and
effective in encouraging students' speaking skills. Therefore, this research was
intended to examine the influence of the three task-based language teaching of
disparaging opinions, reasoning, and information in improving students'
speaking competence.

2. Literature Review
2.1. Teaching Speaking Skills
Speaking is one of the language skills in which there is a process of information
processing and interpretation of meaning to build interactive, spontaneous,
context-related, and developing communication (Abdulaal et al., 2022;
Ghahderijani et al., 2021). Speaking is also a communication tool that is most often
used by humans because, through direct verbal communication, speakers can
provide direct responses. However, every human must learn a certain language
before communicating. The ability to speak does not only entail grammar and
vocabulary skills, but individuals must also practise by direct communication so
that their speaking skills are fluent and improved (Homayouni, 2022; Ritonga et
al., 2022). The ability to speak is the most basic language skill in human life. In
language teaching, speaking ability is the ability to produce productive spoken
language in the form of verbal utterances. It is supported by non-verbal elements
that contain meaning according to the context. Therefore, the ability to speak is
also an active and productive language ability. A person can speak fluently, not
only by relying on knowledge of the language but also by being able to process
information by means of knowledge of the language.

Fluency in speaking is a person's ability to produce meaningful speech

confidently without any significant obstacles. In addition, fluency is also defined
as the use of speaking skills spontaneously, fluently, and comprehensively
without any significant errors that interfere with the interlocutor's understanding
(Hartono et al., 2022; Snow et al., 2020). Fluency is also defined as the ability to
put parts of speech together with the least hesitation or inhibition (Skoura-Kirk et
al., 2021). The aim of teaching speaking skills is to facilitate students so that they
are able to communicate efficiently and communicatively both in school and
beyond, in the family and community environment. Therefore, the ability to speak
is a language skill that is essential in real life. Good interactions among people are
based on good communication skills in relating to the other person. Language
teachers thus have a crucial role in facilitating students’ ability to speak both in
and beyond the classroom (Hartono et al., 2022; Ulupinar, 2018). In addition,
speaking activities in class will also lead to feedback from the teacher for
improving the quality of the speaking (Williams et al., 2019). If the teaching class
gives students increased opportunities to speak, students will have more

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 117

opportunities to use the language components stored in their memory and will
use their language skills more fluently (Hartono et al., 2022; Hadianto et al., 2021,
2022). This situation can encourage students to use language independently while
increasing their ability to use words, phrases and sentences seamlessly without
hesitation or requiring much thinking. It can therefore be concluded that teachers
must pay more attention to speaking skills in language teaching.

Teaching speaking skills should provide a meaningful learning process

environment, thereby encouraging students to speak so that they can
communicate directly and freely (Abdulaal et al., 2022; Islam & Stapa, 2021).
However, in the field, there are still many teachers who teach speaking through a
series of less meaningful tasks such as completing exercises or memorising. Good
speaking learning activities are learning activities that entail active participation,
are carried out with a series of systematic activities, present real contextual
situations, and are able to improve students' speaking skills (Koutsoftas &
Srivastava, 2020; Lin & Clark, 2021). Teaching speaking activities that are
interesting and encourage active participation from students can have a
significant influence on basic interaction skills and communication skills. Such
speaking activities can make the learning process more meaningful and real.

2.2 Task-based teaching of speaking skills

Task-based language teaching is carried out based on the principles of experience-
based and real-life learning developed by John Dewey in the 1890s. Teaching
speaking skills must be conducted by presenting real-life contexts that can
encourage students to speak in the classroom. Researchers pay attention to
theoretical learning modifications that can be turned into pragmatic learning
activities that make a more meaningful contribution to students' speaking abilities
(Soleimani & Dastjerdi, 2021; Zhang et al., 2019). Students who are facilitated with
a learning process that encourages practical activities can improve their
productive language skills and are able to broaden their horizons as well so that
they are better prepared to enter the world of work. This concept has long been
introduced in the communication strategy. This strategy embraces individuals
from various media to communicate and understand each other. This strategy can
be used in learning so that they are finally able to master the language (Albino,
2017; El Majidi et al., 2021). This strategy is considered better than merely studying
theory and doing written assignments in class. This task-based learning is a move
away from a traditional approach that is considered not optimal for improving
students' speaking skills in language learning. This traditional method gives the
wrong impression that students will be able to speak easily through memorising
and using grammar when speaking. However, this traditional method has proved
to be ineffective in improving effective communication skills (Fang et al., 2022;
Sohn et al., 2022). As such, a task-based learning movement has emerged that
brings real-life situations into the classroom.

This task-based language learning works by using the mechanism of students'

natural abilities that are conditioned in the target language in a real-life context.
This has proved to be effective in improving students' speaking ability. Students'
opinions are the basis for changing the process of learning to speak because,
through voicing their opinions, students have an opportunity to carry out

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 118

intensive verbal interactions while at the same time training their spontaneous
thinking (Dilber & Kömür, 2022; Yaprak & Kaya, 2020). This indicates that a wide
range of opportunities for students to participate actively in communication can
accelerate the improvement of students' speaking skills in the target language.
Intense practice, besides being able to help students' speaking skills, can also help
students develop cognitive and other linguistic abilities (Aliakbari, 2014; Marashi
& Mirghafari, 2019). This practice method can help students to avoid memorising
knowledge about language without applying it. In addition, task-based teaching
also provides an alternative learning process for students to work in groups. Such
a learning group is an alternative to individual learning. Through group learning,
students will have the opportunity to talk freely without fear or being concerned
about being different when communicating with the teacher.

Unlike the task-based approach, traditional language teaching often does not pay
attention to the fundamental aspects of learning a language. Students are taught
grammar, words, sentences, and other linguistic aspects; however, they are not
taught the spoken language, idioms, or expressions that are often used in spoken
language (Marzban & Hashemi, 2013; Tonia & Ganta, 2015). Task-based learning
provides opportunities for students to be taught idioms and idiomatic language
and to use it practically in class. Task-based teaching is considered to be effective
in teaching language orally. This task-based teaching method is widely used in
first and second language learning in the classroom. Tasks are defined as a series
of activities that encourage students to do something or carry out certain activities
in order to achieve the goals of the learning process (Fallahi et al., 2015; Yaprak &
Kaya, 2020). These students must be involved in this task interactively, which can
help them to understand and apply the subject they are studying. A good
assignment must encompass several components, namely cognitive aspects,
reasoning, information processing, material transformation, and classification.

There are several characteristics of a task, including the fact that the task must be
pragmatic in that it must prioritise the meaning of the assignment. Assignments
must produce non-linguistic abilities that support students' cognitive abilities.
Assignments must also provide opportunities for students to search for and select
linguistic references necessary to complete assignments (Aliakbari, 2014; Marashi
& Mirghafari, 2019). Tasks must be in the form of steps or procedures that provide
opportunities for students to carry out tasks clearly and to be creative in these
steps to achieve learning goals. One of the task-based language teaching
approaches that can be used in teaching spoken language is the assignment of
information gaps, reasoning, and opinions. The information gap task entails
giving assignments that encourage students to fill in the missing information
through understanding and interacting with their friends by means of spoken
language (Aliakbari, 2014; Marzban & Hashemi, 2013; Tonia & Ganta, 2015). The
reasoning gap task requires students to analyse, identify, and infer relationships
or patterns in the information presented. The opinion gap task, on the other hand,
encourages students to provide views and take a stand on a problem. These tasks
can stimulate students' oral language skills through arguments and other forms
of communication (Palma-Gómez et al., 2020; Zhou & Yoshitomi, 2019).

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 119

3. Methodology
3.1. Participant
This study involved 250 middle-level students with a gender percentage of 50%
male and female, respectively. This study used a quasi-experimental research
method, namely the Pre-test Post-test Non-equivalent Control Group Design,
which is a design that provides a pre-test before being subjected to treatment, and
a post-test after being subjected to treatment in each group (Stark et al., 2020;
Wongsa & Son, 2022). The selection technique used was purposive sampling.
Power analysis considerations and the level of confidence are the main
considerations in determining the number of samples. The intervention in the
experimental group with the three dissenting opinions, reasoning, and
information tasks was carried out for three months with one month each for each
type of intervention. Intervention in the control group was over one month with
traditional methods.

The number of samples that met the criteria enabled the effects of the gaps in
opinion, reasoning, and information tasks on students' speaking abilities to be
investigated. In the early stages, the researcher first ensured that the students'
language skills were at the same or homogeneous level by using a placement test
from Oxford. Next, the participants were divided into three experimental groups
according to the three gap tasks that would be used to improve students' speaking
skills. The matched-group design was chosen to divide the experimental and
control groups. This was done so that the effect of the dependent variable on the
independent variable could be determined. Determination of the sample also
considers research ethics; therefore the participants in this study expressed their
consent to be voluntarily involved in this study.

3.2. Instrument
The instrument used to assess the fluency of speaking from the results of the three
treatment tasks, gaps in opinion, reasoning, and information consists of several
instruments to reinforce data mutually. There were several such instruments used
in this study to measure students' speaking ability, including the Oxford Speaking
Placement Test, Top Notch 3, research questions for interviews, and a speaking
checklist. Tests using the placement test from Oxford were used to determine the
standard deviation and average speech ability in the pre-test phase. The Top
Notch 3 instrument was also used to assess speaking ability by asking students to
speak for three minutes about a topic and record it. To examine the validity of the
students’ speaking ability test, the students were given a choice of topics for
speaking that are commonly used in the learning process. Furthermore, the inter-
assessor reliability test was carried out using the Pearson correlation with a value
(r = 0.85). The validity test was also carried out through expert judgment
involving eight experts using the Content Validity Index analysis on the
instrument. In addition, teachers were also involved in testing the validity. Based
on the results, the results of the validity and reliability tests in the pre- and post-
test phases obtained Pearson correlation values of 0.85 and 0.88, respectively. In
addition, the instrument used showed an internal consistency of 0.89. These
results indicated that the instrument used met the criteria of validity and
reliability.

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 120

Furthermore, the instrument used to assess speaking fluency was a speaking

checklist adapted from Hughes (2003). This instrument assesses speaking fluency
based on several aspects when someone gives a speech. Fluency in research is
defined as an element of speaking ability. This fluency assessment was carried out
using the discourse management and speaking ability criteria developed by Ellis
(2004) which consists of a maximum of five points. There are several criteria for
evaluating fluency, namely the ability to compose long sentences even though
there is a sense of doubt, there is relevant improvisation even if it is repeated, and
using appropriate non-verbal aspects. In addition, the aspects used in assessing
students' speaking fluency include 1) there are still many sentences used that
have not been completed but have been changed to new sentences; 2) intensity of
repetition of words, phrases, and clauses; 3) improvement, or justification of
syntactic pronunciation; and 4) the number of speech items replaced by other
items. The point range for fluency is 0-20 points. This scale was adopted from the
initial test from Cambridge University. To maintain the validity of the assessment
process, the researcher involved speaking experts who already hold certificates
and have experience in speaking spanning more than 10 years.

3.3. Data collection procedures

Researchers carried out several stages in collecting data. The participants involved
in this study totalled 250 students who were selected from five secondary schools.
Participants were divided into three experimental groups to attempt three dissent,
reasoning, and information tasks, as well as one control group. Next, the students'
speaking ability pre-test was carried out in all groups, followed by the
intervention, and finally, the post-test. In the opinion gap experimental group,
the researcher checked their speaking ability by asking students to speak using
words, sentences, and idioms that would become examination material. During
this phase, students discussed opinions, feelings, or views on a given topic, while
the teacher acted as a facilitator if students experienced errors or difficulties
during speaking, such as grammatical errors, or the use of difficult words, thereby
directing the discussion to stay on track.

In the information gap experimental group, students were given the task of
discussing in groups to find incomplete information about each other and about
information on certain topics. This information search was carried out by means
of students’ communicating with each other, either in pairs or in groups. In the
experimental group carrying out the reasoning or reasoning gap task, students
were given a certain topic and tasked with providing claims and reasons
regarding the topic. Furthermore, the pattern of information was also checked by
the students who explained the pattern again using their own language. Students
in the control group were given an intervention using traditional instruction that
focused on the teacher's role and a question-and-answer session as usual. After
the intervention session ended, a post-test was carried out to check the
effectiveness of the intervention of disagreements, reasoning, and information in
improving speaking skills. The researcher transcribed all students' speech and
conducted an analysis of the number of words, use of grammar, insight, barriers
or pauses, speed, and non-verbal aspects that support students' speaking fluency.

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 121

3.4. Data analysis

After the data had been collected, data analysis was conducted using several tests.
First, a data normality test and the Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K-S) test on speaking
ability data were carried out. Next, an analysis was conducted using the t-test
and ANOVA to assess the influence of the intervention of the three tasks, namely
gaps in opinion, reasoning, and information gap on improving students' speaking
ability, especially students' speaking fluency.

4. Result
The researcher described the results of processing the normality test data in the
pre-test and post-test phases to carry out further tests. The distribution of the data
on the pre-test and post-test can be seen in Table 1. Next, a one-way ANOVA test
and a paired sample t-test were conducted . It was found that the data on students'
speaking abilities in each group in the pre-test phase were relatively the same.
Descriptive statistics can be seen in Table 2. The average score of students'
speaking abilities in the three experimental groups and the control group was
relatively the same. The average value of the three experimental groups that
received the opinion gap task was 11.02, the reasoning gap was 11.10, and the
information gap experimental group was 10.65. The average value of the control
group is 11.15.

Table 1: Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (pre-test and post-test)

Task gap group Statistic df Sig.
Opinion. Pre .175 88 .092
Opinion. Post .224 88 .080
Reasoning. Pre .245 88 .142
Reasoning. Post .278 88 .092
Information. Pre .123 88 .205*
Information. Post .263 88 .135
Control. Pre .156 88 .205*
Control. Post .143 88 .204*

Table 2: Descriptive statistical data (pre-test of all groups)

Task Gap Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Opinion 88 11.02 1.753 .2682
Reason 88 11.10 1.564 .2563
Information 88 10.65 1.476 .2336
Control 88 11.15 1.687 .3442
Total 352 11.03 1.635 .1562

A sig value (0.812) was found from the results of the one-way ANOVA test (Table
3). This sig value is greater than (0.05). This means that the pre-test scores in each
group, both the experimental and control groups, were not too significant or it
could be said that they had relatively the same initial abilities. The results of the
ANOVA test at the pre-test can be seen in Table 3. Furthermore, after the
intervention using the four interventions, the gaps in opinion, reasoning, and
information, the speaking ability of students from the experimental group showed
a significant increase. This was reinforced by the mean scores in each experimental
group for differences in opinion, reasoning, and information, which were 18.13,

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 122

18.05, and 19.31, respectively while the average of the control group was 11.42.
From these data, it can be concluded that the three experimental groups
experienced an increase in speaking ability which was superior to that of the
control group. To strengthen the effect of the intervention on students' speaking
ability, a one-way ANOVA test was conducted. Based on the results, a sig value
of (0.000) was obtained; this value was less than (0.50). It can be concluded that
the three interventions of opinion gaps, reasoning, and information contributed
significantly to students' speaking abilities. In addition, the experimental group
also showed a more significant increase than the control group. The increase in
speaking ability at the post-test can be seen in Table 4.

Table 3: One-way ANOVA (pre-test)

Sum of Df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Between 4.562 2 1.245 .437 .812
Groups
Within 445.856 350 2.673
Groups
Total 425.432 352

Table 4: Data descriptive statistics post-test phase in all groups

Task Gap Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Opinion 88 18.13 1.3276 .3215
Reason 88 18.05 1.2547 .4572
Information 88 19.31 1.7582 .3761
Control 88 11.42 1.3862 .2245
Total 352 16.72 3.3541 .2567

Table 5: ANOVA test results in the post-test phase

Sum of Df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square

Between Groups 1426.451 2 425.665 231.524 .000

Within Groups 263.425 350 1.768
Total 1376.456 352

To confirm that the three tasks of opinion gap, reasoning, and information
effectively improve speaking skills, an ANOVA test was conducted in the post-
test phase. As reflected in Table 5, the value of sig 0.00 is less than 0.05, which
means that the intervention was significantly effective regarding students'
speaking ability. Furthermore, to find out more about the effectiveness of the three
interventions on differences of opinion, reasoning, and information in each of the
experimental and control groups, Scheffe's post-hoc test was carried out. Table 6
shows Scheffe's post-hoc test at the post-test stage. Based on the results of tests
conducted with the post-hoc Scheffe test, the average value in the opinion gap
intervention group was 18.13, the average value of the reasoning gap was 18.05,
the average value of the information gap was 19.31, while the average value of the
control group was 11.42. From these data, it was found that the experimental
group experienced a significant increase in speaking ability compared to the

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 123

control group. There is a significant difference between the experimental group

with differences of opinion and reasoning (P = 0.9888 > 0.05). Moreover,
significant differences were found between the opinion and information groups.
The information experimental group showed the most significant improvement
compared to the other two experimental groups. Next, a paired-sample t-test was
carried out to determine differences in the speaking ability of the experimental
group before and after the intervention The results can be seen in Table 7.

Table 6: Scheffe's post-hoc test in all groups

Task M Difference Std. Error Sig.

Opinion gap Reason. Group −.04634 .23621 .988

Information. −.31824 .23621 .000
Group
Control. Group 5.4622* .23621 .000
Reason gap Opinion. Group .04528 .23621 .988
Information. −.22553 .23621 .000
Group
Control. Group 6.76331* .23621 .000
Information gap Opinion. Group .28267 .23621 .000
Reason. Group .32538 .23621 .000
Control. Group 6.44752* .23621 .000
Control Opinion. Group −6.5635* .23621 .000
Reason. Group −6.46682* .23621 .000
Information. −7.14432* .23621 .001
Group

Table 7: Paired sample test (before and after all groups)

Group pre-post M SD Std. Error t Sig.
M df (2-
tailed)
Pair 1 Opinion. Post— 7.35521 1.44365 .27823 22.834 351 .000
Opinion. Pre
Pair 2 Reason. Post — 8.11342 1.24351 .23315 24.566 351 .000
Reason Pre
Pair 3 Information. Post 8.22561 1.22678 .25782 26.446 351 .000
—Information. G.
Pre
Pair 4 Control. Post— .15331 .13425 .04672 2.889 351 .134
Control. Pre

Researchers examined the comparison of students' abilities in the pre-test and

post-test phases in each group with a paired t test. As depicted in Table 7, the sig
value (0.134) was greater than 0.05. From this finding, it can be concluded that the
difference in the increase in the control group in each phase was not significant.
This is different from the difference in ability in the three experimental groups.
From the results of the paired sample t test, it was found that the sig value in the
three experimental groups was 0.00, which was smaller than 0.05. From this value,
it can be concluded that the intervention of the three gaps of opinion, reasoning,
and information made a significant contribution to students' speaking ability.

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 124

5. Discussion
Three interventions using gaps in opinion, reasoning, and information were more
effective in improving students' speaking skills compared to those of students
who were in the control group who received the traditional method (question and
answer). Of the three gap task interventions, it was found that the information
gap proved to make a more significant contribution compared to the other two
gaps, namely the opinion and reasoning gap. Based on data processing of the
research results, task instructions on gaps in opinion, reasoning, and information
can train students' speaking skills, especially impacting on speaking fluency
(Cabell et al., 2021; Disbray et al., 2022). By following the instructions of the three
assignments, students can improve their speaking ability significantly.
Instructions that can improve speaking skills in the information gap experimental
group are instances where students are asked to find information that does not
yet exist by exchanging information with friends in their group. Instructions for
the experimental group of gaps in opinion were that students were asked to
express their views, attitudes, and feelings towards a problem or phenomenon
that existed in real life (Aliakbari & Mohsennejad, 2014; Ganta, 2015). The
instruction in the reasoning gap of the experimental group was that students were
asked to look for new information and retell the pattern of the information and
conclude it. These instructions led to students’ being more fluent in speaking.
This is in accordance with the theory that students' speaking ability can be
increased through the intensity of organised practice (Albino, 2017; El Majidi et
al., 2021).

The use of tasks in the learning process can provide a wider range of opportunities
for students to use language without worrying about making mistakes. These
three gap assignments require that the learning process takes place in a natural
atmosphere or in a real-life context that is introduced into the classroom. Such a
setting in the classroom allows students to improve communication fluency
naturally even though they have not paid much attention to the grammatical
aspect (Goldfeld et al., 2021; Palma-Gómez et al., 2020). In addition, this gap
assignment can increase students' motivation and confidence levels in carrying
out communication activities. Of the three gap tasks, the information gap task has
the most significant contribution to improving speaking ability. Instruction on the
information gap task has several benefits, including promoting students’
cooperative activities, providing opportunities to negotiate meaning, making
students feel comfortable and less afraid when speaking, increasing the intensity
of communicative practice, providing opportunities for students to discover and
communicate meaning, and improving students' attention to the social context of
communication (Ghahderijani et al., 2021; Islam & Stapa, 2021). The findings of
this study reinforce the results of previous research, which proved that gap
assignments can facilitate student communication (Bagheri & Mohamadi
Zenouzagh, 2021; Ritonga et al., 2022; Skoura-Kirk et al., 2021).

This study reinforces the findings of previous research showing the opinion gap
task effectiveness. This task-based teaching relies heavily on the abstract or
concrete aspects of task instruction. The more abstract the assignment given, the
greater the students' difficulty in achieving learning objectives. From the results
of previous research in which students were given reading, listening, and

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 125

speaking assignments, it was found that some students still had difficulty
following assignments that were unclear or had never been experienced before
(Hartono et al., 2022; Snow et al., 2020). In addition, students also sometimes
became confused if the instructions given were not clear. Therefore, the main
factor for student success in participating in task-based language teaching is
determined by the students’ experience in following the task, the clarity of
instructions, and student knowledge.

Although this task-based speaking teaching can improve speaking fluency, this
gap assignment cannot be applied in all topics of conversation (Ulupinar, 2018;
Williams et al., 2019). A teacher must be able to choose the right topic and
encourage students' critical thinking and active participation in speaking
activities. These gap assignments must be authentic or situate students as they are
in real life despite being in the classroom. Therefore, a teacher must be able to
provide these authentic situations that encourage students to participate actively
in the learning process. Based on the research findings, the information gap task
was shown to be more effective compared to other gap tasks because students
were encouraged to use spoken language more intensively while at the same time
encouraging their critical thinking in uncovering information (Hartono et al.,
2022; Yeh et al., 2021). Moreover, communication activities and the presentation
of the results of this information can encourage fluency in speaking and motivate
students to express views, attitudes, or feelings regarding the information they
receive.

Information gap task instructions are also more intensive in interacting with
various settings, such as interaction with partners, group members, presentations,
and with instructors. Interaction with these various contexts affords students
more opportunities to speak without hesitation or fear of being wrong (Ulupinar,
2018; Williams et al., 2019). To obtain missing information, students must
communicate with partners, groups, or teachers. This situation encourages the
potential of students to speak more optimally compared to merely listening to
explanations from the teacher regarding grammar and other language issues.
Speech error feedback can be given directly when the communication is carried
out by the teacher (Islam & Stapa, 2021; Zhou & Yoshitomi, 2019). Although the
three gap tasks of opinion, reasoning, and information can significantly contribute
to speaking ability, these three-gap tasks also have several limitations, including
requiring a considerable amount of time, the ability of the teacher to control the
class so that the interactions carried out are in the setting of the learning process,
and the fact that there remain students who are still confused if the instructions
are not clear. The findings of this study as a whole reinforce that spoken language
cannot only be obtained through explanations of grammar and other materials,
but must also be practised intensively. In addition, the practices carried out must
be authentic or place students in simulated real-life situations (Bagheri &
Mohamadi Zenouzagh, 2021; Snow et al., 2020).

6. Conclusion, Limitation, and Recommendation

Based on the results of the research, it can be concluded that the three assignments
of gaps in opinion, reasoning, and information can effectively improve students'
speaking skills. This happens because these three assignments can present

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 126

authentic situations in the classroom so that they provide more opportunities

which encourage students to be trained in real communication. Of the three
assignments, the information gap assignment provides the most significant
contribution compared to the gaps of opinion and reasoning tasks because the
instructions in the information gap task are more varied and more intensive in
encouraging students to interact in various contexts. Through a variety of
contexts, students have the opportunity to receive more and varied language
input, so that these students are also able to produce more and varied language
output. In addition, with intensive practice, students' linguistic abilities in spoken
language are better trained because spoken language not only requires mastery of
vocabulary and grammar but also requires non-verbal abilities that support
students' fluency and fluency in speaking. The implication of this research is that
teaching speaking must be carried out in various situations or contexts so that
teachers must be able to present authentic situations in class that motivate
students to speak freely. Situations that encourage students to speak are situations
that provoke students to add, argue, support, or give their opinions on material
or topics. One of the situations that encourage this practice of speaking are the
gaps of opinions, reasoning, and information. This activity significantly improves
students' speaking skills, as well as fluency.

This study has several limitations, including the fact that this research does not
deal with gender variables, which might affect the results of the intervention.
Moreover, it lacks reinforcement with qualitative research. In addition the
duration of the intervention is quite short, the level of students' knowledge of the
topic is not examined, and the speaking skills examined here focus on fluency;
therefore further research is needed.

The research recommends that future studies pay attention to the shortcomings
of this study, including samples that must be larger and wider. In addition
attention must be paid to gender while the study needs to be strengthened by
qualitative data, for example, with feedback regarding the strengths and
weaknesses that students identify from the three assignments. Furthermore, the
duration of the intervention should be longer, the level of knowledge of the
material should be checked, and the non-verbal elements of speaking ability
should be examined. Based on the findings of this study, students' speaking skills
should not always be in the area of grammar or speech knowledge, but students
should be given ample opportunities to practise these because speaking skills can
only improve through such practice.

7. References
Abdulaal, M. A. A. D., Alenazi, M. H., Tajuddin, A. J. A., & Hamidi, B. (2022). Dynamic
vs. diagnostic assessment: Impacts on EFL learners’ speaking fluency and
accuracy, learning anxiety, and cognitive load. Language Testing in Asia, 12(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-022-00179-0
Abdullah, M. Y., Hussin, S., Hammad, Z. M., & Ismail, K. (2021). Exploring the effects of
flipped classroom model implementation on EFL learners’ self-confidence in
English speaking performance. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, 295, 223–
241. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47411-9_13
Albino, G. (2017). Improving speaking fluency in a task-based language teaching

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 127

approach: The case of EFL learners at PUNIV-Cazenga. SAGE Open, 7(2).

https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017691077
Aliakbari, M., & Mohsennejad, F. (2014). The effect of story retelling opinion gap task on
Iranian EFL students’ speaking skill. August.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/THE-EFFECT-OF-STORY-
RETELLING-OPINION-GAP-TASK-ON-Aliakbari-
Mohsennejad/bf552a0a9ccac9d2e2db7dd19209a2c622e395a4
Ataeifar, F., Sadighi, F., Bagheri, M. S., & Behjat, F. (2019). Iranian female students’
perceptions of the impact of mobile-assisted instruction on their English speaking
skill. Cogent Education, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1662594
Bagheri, M., & Mohamadi Zenouzagh, Z. (2021). Comparative study of the effect of face-
to-face and computer mediated conversation modalities on student engagement:
Speaking skill in focus. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language
Education, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-020-00103-0
Buehler, F. J., Van Loon, M. H., Bayard, N. S., Steiner, M., & Roebers, C. M. (2021).
Comparing metacognitive monitoring between native and non-native speaking
primary school students. Metacognition and Learning, 16(3), 749–768.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-021-09261-z
Cabell, S. Q., Gerde, H. K., Hwang, H. J., Bowles, R., Skibbe, L., Piasta, S. B., & Justice, L.
M. (2021). Rate of growth of preschool-age children’s oral language and decoding
skills predicts beginning writing ability. Early Education and Development, 00(00),
1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2021.1952390
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2022). Pedagogical translanguaging and its application to language
classes. RELC Journal, 53(2), 342–354.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882221082751
Dilber, E., & Komur, Ş. (2022). The role of two-way information-gap tasks on students’
motivation in speaking lessons in an ESP context. Language and Technology, 2–14.
https://doi.org/10.55078/lantec.1118527
Dippold, D., Heron, M., & Gravett, K. (2022). International students’ linguistic transitions
into disciplinary studies: A rhizomatic perspective. Higher Education, 83(3), 527–
545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00677-9
Disbray, S., O’Shannessy, C., MacDonald, G., & Martin, B. (2022). Talking together: How
language documentation and teaching practice support oral language
development in bilingual education programs. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 25(4), 1451–1466.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2020.1767535
Ellis, R. (2004). Tasked-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
El Majidi, A., De Graaff, R., & Janssen, D. (2021). Debate as a pedagogical tool for
developing speaking skills in second language education. Language Teaching
Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211050619
Fallahi, S., Aziz Malayeri, F., & Bayat, A. (2015). The effect of information-gap vs. opinion-
gap tasks on Iranian EFL learners’ reading comprehension. International Journal of
Educational Investigations, 2(3), 170–181. www.ijeionline.com
Fang, F., Zhang, L. J., & Sah, P. K. (2022). Translanguaging in language teaching and
learning: Current practices and future directions. RELC Journal, 53(2), 305–312.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882221114478
Ghahderijani, B. H., Namaziandost, E., Tavakoli, M., Kumar, T., & Magizov, R. (2021). The
comparative effect of group dynamic assessment (GDA) and computerized
dynamic assessment (C-DA) on Iranian upper-intermediate EFL learners’
speaking complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF). Language Testing in Asia, 11(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-021-00144-3

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 128

Goldfeld, S., Snow, P., Eadie, P., Munro, J., Gold, L., Orsini, F., Connell, J., Stark, H., Watts,
A., & Shingles, B. (2021). Teacher knowledge of oral language and literacy
constructs: Results of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of
a professional learning intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 25(1). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2020.1714629
Ganta, T. G. (2015). The strengths and weaknesses of task-based learning (TBL). Scholarly
Research Journal For Interdisciplinary Studies, 3(16), 2760–2771. www.srjis.com
Hadianto, D., Damaianti, V. S., Mulyati, Y., & Sastromiharjo, A. (2021). Enhancing
scientific argumentation skill through partnership comprehensive literacy. Journal
of Physics: Conference Series, 2098(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-
6596/2098/1/012015
Hadianto, D., S. Damaianti, V., Mulyati, Y., & Sastromiharjo, A. (2022). Effectiveness of
literacy teaching design integrating local culture discourse and activities to
enhance reading. Cogent Education, 9(1).
https://doi,org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.2016040
Hartono, D., Basthomi, Y., Widiastuti, O., & Prastiyowati, S. (2022). The impacts of teacher
’s oral corrective feedback to students ’ psychological domain : A study on EFL
speech production. Cogent Education, 9(1).
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2152619
Homayouni, M. (2022). Peer assessment in group-oriented classroom contexts : On the
effectiveness of peer assessment coupled with scaffolding and group work on
speaking skills and vocabulary learning. Language Testing in Asia.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-022-00211-3
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Islam, M. S., & Stapa, M. B. (2021). Students’ low proficiency in spoken English in private
universities in Bangladesh: Reasons and remedies. Language Testing in Asia, 11(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-021-00139-0
Kim, D. (2020). Learning language, learning culture: Teaching language to the whole
student. ECNU Review of Education, 3(3), 519–541.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531120936693
Koutsoftas, A. D., & Srivastava, P. (2020). Oral language contributions to reading and
writing in students with and without language-learning disabilities.
Exceptionality, 28(5), 380–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2020.1801435
Lin, Y., & Clark, K. D. (2021). Speech assignments and plagiarism in first-year public
speaking classes: An investigation of students’ moral attributes in relation to their
behavioral intention. Communication Quarterly, 69(1), 23–42.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2020.1864429
Marashi, H., & Mirghafari, S. (2019). Using content-based and task-based teaching in a
critical thinking setting to improve EFL learners’ writing. Studies in English
Language and Education, 6(1), 26–43. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v6i1.11745
Marzban, A., & Hashemi, M. (2013). The impact of opinion-gap tasks on the speaking of
Iranian intermediate EFL learners. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 943–
948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.142
Palma-Gómez, A., Herrero, R., Banõs, R., Garciá-Palacios, A., Castañeiras, C., Fernandez,
G. L., Llull, D. M., Torres, L. C., Barranco, L. A., Cárdenas-Gómez, L., & Botella,
C. (2020). Efficacy of a self-applied online program to promote resilience and
coping skills in university students in four Spanish-speaking countries: Study
protocol for a randomized controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry, 20(1), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-020-02536-w
Perkins, M., Gezgin, U. B., & Roe, J. (2018). Understanding the relationship between
language ability and plagiarism in non-native English speaking business

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 129

students. Journal of Academic Ethics, 16(4), 317–328.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-018-9311-8
Ritonga, M., Farhangi, F., Ajanil, B., & Farid Khafaga, A. (2022). Interventionist vs.
interactionist models of dynamic assessment (DA) in the EFL classroom: Impacts
on speaking accuracy and fluency (SAF), foreign language classroom anxiety
(FLCA), and foreign language learning motivation (FLLM). Language Testing in
Asia, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-022-00195-0
Skoura-Kirk, E., Brown, S., & Mikelyte, R. (2021). Playing its part: An evaluation of
professional skill development through service user-led role-plays for social work
students. Social Work Education, 40(8), 977–993.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2020.1764521
Snow, P. C., Graham, L. J., Mclean, E. J., & Serry, T. A. (2020). The oral language and
reading comprehension skills of adolescents in flexible learning programmes.
International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 22(4), 425–434.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2019.1652343
Sohn, B. G., Dos Santos, P., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2022). Translanguaging and trans-semiotizing
for critical integration of content and language in plurilingual educational
settings. RELC Journal, 53(2), 355–370.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882221114480
Soleimani, M., & Dastjerdi, H. V. (2021). Impact of opinion-exchange and information gap
tasks on EFL learners’ willingness to communicate. International Journal of
Language and Translation Research, 1(2), 69–87.
https://doi.org/10.12906/978389966720
Stark, H. L., Eadie, P. A., Snow, P. C., & Goldfeld, S. R. (2020). The impact of a sustained
oral language professional learning program on Australian early years’ teachers’
knowledge, practice and beliefs: A mixed-methods exploration. Professional
Development in Education, 46(2), 178–194.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1603170
Ulupinar, D. (2018). Foreign language anxiety among counseling students speaking
English as a second language: A rationale for future research. International Journal
for the Advancement of Counselling, 40(2), 162–172.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10447-017-9318-7
Williams, R. T., Pringle, R. M., & Kilgore, K. L. (2019). A practitioner’s inquiry into
vocabulary-building strategies for native Spanish-speaking ELLs in inquiry-based
science. Research in Science Education, 49(4), 989–1000.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9848-6
Wongsa, M., & Son, J. B. (2022). Enhancing Thai secondary school students’ English
speaking skills, attitudes and motivation with drama-based activities and
Facebook. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 16(1), 41–52.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2020.1853134
Yaprak, Z., & Kaya, F. (2020). Improving EFL learners’ oral production through reasoning-
gap tasks enhanced with critical thinking standards: Developing and
implementing a critical TBLT model, pre-task plan, and speaking rubric. Advances
in Language and Literary Studies, 11(1), 40.
https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.11n.1p.40
Yeh, H. C., Chang, W. Y., Chen, H. Y., & Heng, L. (2021). Effects of podcast-making on
college students’ English speaking skills in higher education. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 69(5), 2845–2867.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10026-3
Zhang, X., Ardasheva, Y., Egbert, J., & Ullrich-French, S. C. (2019). Building assessments
for self-efficacy in English public speaking in China. Asia-Pacific Education

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 130

Researcher, 28(5), 411–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00441-9

Zhou, Y., & Yoshitomi, A. (2019). Test-taker perception of and test performance on
computer-delivered speaking tests: The mediational role of test-taking
motivation. Language Testing in Asia, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-019-
0086-7

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter