Validating Speaking Components for an Online Task-Based Speaking Module: A Fuzzy Delphi Study with Tvet Experts

This study explores the validation of essential components of an online task-based speaking skills module tailored for learners in Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET). As effective communication becomes increasingly necessary in vocational fields, there is a need for targeted speaking instruction that reflects real-world workplace demands. To guide the design of a pedagogically sound and contextually relevant module, this research employed the Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM) to obtain expert consensus on proposed instructional elements. A total of six experts, including language educators and TVET practitioners, participated in the study. They assessed ten proposed components, including task authenticity, fluency, pronunciation, interactive communication, and the integration of field-specific vocabulary. Using a structured 7-point scale, expert feedback was analysed using established FDM procedures, including threshold values, consensus percentage, and defuzzification. The findings indicate that all components achieved the required level of consensus, with task authenticity, interactive communication, and multimedia use recording the highest consensus levels. These outcomes support the inclusion of the validated components in the module design and underscore the role of expert input in developing targeted language instruction. The study demonstrates the value of using FDM in instructional development and contributes to ongoing efforts to enhance speaking proficiency among TVET learners through online, task-based approaches

Fuzzy Delphi Method, Speaking Skills, TVET Learners, Task-Based Learning, Module Development

1. Abdullah, M. Y., & Ismail, K. (2023). Enhancing speaking skills through digital storytelling: A Malaysian TVET context. Journal of Technical Education and Training, 15(1), 120–135. https://doi.org/10.30880/jtet.2023.15.01.010 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Abdul Rahim, A. A., Embi, M. A., Hussin, S. Mohd Noor, N., Khamis, N.Y. & Din, R. (2018). Fuzzy Delphi Method Refinement of Mobile Language Learning Framework Elements for Technical and Engineering Contexts. A paper presented at 2018 IEEE 10th International Conference on Engineering Education (ICEED), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2018, pp. 173–175, doi: 10.1109/ICEED.2018.8626905. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Alias, A., Ismail, A., & Yusof, M. N. (2022). Blended learning in post-pandemic ESL education: Challenges and affordances. International Journal of Education and Practice, 10(2), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.18488/61.v10i2.2932 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Benítez, J. M., Martín, J. C., & Román, C. (2007). Using fuzzy numbers for measuring quality of service in the hotel industry. Tourism Management, 28(2), 544–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.04.018 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bodjanova, S. (2006). Median alpha-levels of a fuzzy number. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 157(7), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fss.2005.10.015 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Booker, J. M., & McNamara, L. A. (2004). Solving black box computation problems using expert knowledge theory and methods. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 85(1-3), 331-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2004.03.021 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Chang, P.-L., Hsu, C.-W., & Chang, P.-C. (2011). Fuzzy Delphi method for evaluating hydrogen production technologies. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 36(21), 14172-14179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.05.045 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Fortemps, P., & Roubens, M. (1996). Ranking and defuzzification methods based on area compensation. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 82(3), 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(95)00273-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Garai, A. (2013). Weighted intuitionistic fuzzy Delphi method. Journal of Global Research in Computer Science, 4(7), 38–42. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Gonzalez-Lloret, M. (2020). A task-based approach to technology-mediated language learning. In M. del Pilar García Mayo (Ed.), Working collaboratively in second/foreign language learning (pp. 193–212). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.18.09gon [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Hamid, A., Rahman, A., & Mokhtar, N. H. (2023). Task-based learning to promote communication skills among polytechnic students. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 9(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.522.2023.91.17.24 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Hsu, Y.-L., Lee, C.-H., & Kreng, V. B. (2010). The application of Fuzzy Delphi method and fuzzy AHP in lubricant regenerative technology selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(1), 419–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.05.068 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Ishikawa, A., Amagasa, M., Shiga, T., Tomizawa, G., Tatsuta, R., & Mieno, H. (1993). The max-min Delphi method and fuzzy Delphi method via fuzzy integration. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 55(3), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(93)90251-c [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Kaufmann, A., & Gupta, M. M. (1988). Fuzzy mathematical models in engineering and management science. New York: Elsevier Science Inc. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Lim, C. L., Mustapha, R., & Bakar, N. A. (2021). Utilising the Fuzzy Delphi Method to validate career readiness indicators for Malaysian TVET graduates. Journal of Education and Learning, 15(3), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v15i3.21054 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Mohd Noor, N. F., Mustapha, R., & Hashim, R. (2022). Designing digital modules for TVET: A fuzzy Delphi validation. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2022.19.2.4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Musa, M. K., Abdul Rahim, A. A., & Khamis, N. Y. (2025). Enhancing Speaking Proficiency through Task-Based Activities: A systematic literature review in the TVET context. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 10(SI33), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.21834/e-bpj.v10iSI33.7032 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Mustapha, R., & Darusalam, G. (2017). Application of the Fuzzy Delphi method in social science studies. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Mustapha, R., & Darusalam, G. (2022). Design and development study approaches in contemporary studies. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Nikolopoulos, K. (2004). Elicitation of expert opinions for uncertainty and risk. International Journal of Forecasting, 1(20), 143–144. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Rahman, A., Yusof, M., & Samad, N. A. (2021). Authentic tasks for TVET communication: A Delphi and FDM study. Journal of Technical Education and Training, 13(3), 102–112. https://doi.org/10.30880/jtet.2021.13.03.010 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Thomaidis, N. S., Nikitakos, N., & Dounias, G. D. (2006). The evaluation of information technology projects: A fuzzy multicriteria decision-making approach. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 5(01), 89–122. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219622006001897 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Yusof, M. H., Hassan, R., & Harun, H. (2021). Enhancing communicative competence in TVET: Role of industry-based language tasks. International Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 29(2), 80–95 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Evaluating the Impacts of Mind Mapping Strategy on Developing EFL Students’ Critical Reading Skills
• Significance of Reading Instructions for Language Improvement in Children with Down Syndrome
• Prenasalised Consonants in Liangmai
• Metadiscourse Matters: Definitions, Models, and Advantages for ESL/ EFL Writing
• Blank Minds and Stuck Voices: Understanding and Addressing Cognitive Anxiety in High-Stakes ESL Speaking Tests