This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 0

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. 

---

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