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

 
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, 

---

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