Enhancing Thai Students’ Oral Language Experience using the CEFR –PBA through the Technique of Oral Presentation

The purpose of this study is to investigate students’ experiences of communicating orally and non-verbally. The participants were forty-four students in their third year of English education at a Thai Rajabhat University. Nine students were purposively selected as the student-presenters. The research methods applied were action research and case study. Data collection gained was from two sets of video recordings of students’ oral presentations. The data analysis employed speaking strategies analysis from Charttrakul (2009) as a guideline, and grounded theory (Strauss & Cobin, 1990). Findings revealed that students employed five speaking strategies in their oral presentation, particularly speaking from memory (100%). Also, the results show that five NVC strategies were employed as a parallel communication tool in all student-presenters’ oral presentation; and the most commonly NVC used was hand gesture (100%). This paper recommends using an oral presentation technique to promote Thai students’ oral skill relating verbal and non-verbal communication.


INTRODUCTION
This research study originated from the current situation of teaching English in globalization era. In Thailand, English is required to be taught in all educational levels since we are aware that English is not only used as a medium of communication in daily life but also for career and further studies in higher education. As thus, not only having linguistic competency in English is enough for Thai students, but also sociolinguistic knowledge is needed (Ruthrof, 2015). In fact, enhancing their successful communication among people who share different language and culture require Thai students to have both verbal and non-verbal communication (NVC) skills. Regarding organizing English Education Program at the research site, language teaching and learning are integrated together both knowledge of the English language and culture for the students majoring in this program. Since 2016 Ministry of Education in Thailand has launched the policy of teaching English by using the Common European Framework of References (the CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2001) as framework for standard language teaching and learning in Rajabhat universities and all school levels all over the country. In other words, English teachers in the country are required to apply the CEFR as a guideline of English content in classroom teaching.
Published by Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD. Copyright (c) the author(s). This is an open access article under CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.10n.5p.59 As described in the CEFR framework, both linguistic and sociolinguistic knowledge are stated to be entwined in language teaching and learning, that is, English lessons could not be separated from intercultural lessons. This rends affects teaching and learning management at the research site in certain ways. In other words, the goal of MOE was to develop Thai students to be able to use English correctly as well as culture appropriately in their communication. As confirmed by the speech from the Deputy of Minister of Education on "Education Reform & Entrance 4.0" in the "Think Beyond 4.0" education fair. He mentioned that "Now, education is more than preparing or providing knowledge for people. It is to humanize people by instilling them with the habit of learning, morality, analytical skills, and the ability to live with others (Ministry of Education, 2016, p. 16). In brief, these are the knowledge and skills required for citizens in the 21 st century".
In this study, the researcher investigates the students' English ability in oral presentation by employing project-based learning approach as a means and using the CEFR as the language content in implementing the CEFR-PBA innovative program. The purpose of this study was to promote both active learning and critical thinking skills. In this study, students' making an oral presentation is an activity the researcher used in the CEFR-PBA innovative program; and ALLS 10(5):59-69 the students' oral language experience was examined. The technique of making an oral presentation aimed to promote students' verbal communication (VC) and non-verbal communication (NVC). The researcher expected that it could encourage the students to learn, interact, and practice the language at the same time (Stauffer, 1965;Hall, 1970;Heald-Taylor, 1989). In brief, this study examined the students' oral language experience and non-verbal communication using a method of integrating the CEFR with project-based activities. The research question addressed in the study is, "What language experience and non-verbal communication do student gain from learning English through the CEFR and project-based activities?"

LITERATURE REVIEW
In this study, two major fields of literature were reviewed that were: 1) English as an international language (EIL) and role of intercultural competence (IC) in international communication, and 2) project-based learning (PBL). English as an International Language and Role of Intercultural Competence in International Communication English plays a significant role in the current context of international communication. Obviously, English is used as a medium to convey the message (2003; Hu, 2005;Kirkpatrick, 2007) as well as for further studies in higher education both at national and international levels (Ministry of Education, 2016, p. 16). English is the language of everyone for communication in the globalization situation (Smith, 1983;Quirk & Widdowson, 1985;Kachru, 1986;Jenkins, 2003). This situation leads to the changing role of communication which is now mainly focusing on people who share different first language and culture around the world (Crystal, 2003;Kirkpatrick, 2007). Relating to this, L2 speakers appear to use English to communicate with other non-native speakers rather than to native speakers, particularly in Thailand. Thus, this absolutely indicates the important role of English as an international language (EIL) for communication in both national and international levels.
Regarding the role of intercultural competence in international communication, miscommunication and cultural misinterpretations can happen due to incompetence inappropriateness in using both verbal and non-verbal communication. As thus, to increase understanding of communication among different L2 speakers, ones are required to have intercultural competence to avoid breaking down communication. In other words, the ability to interpret and interact with others who share different first language and background of culture appropriately is considered necessary and important in communication. Concerning classroom learning and teaching, building students' background about international culture is as important as teaching them knowledge of English. This will enable them to perceive the similarities and differences about the 'self' and 'other' using skills of interpreting (Byram, 1995;Ruben, 1997;Knapp & Hall, 2002). Thus, having intercultural competence, nonverbal communication (NVC) are the key factors to indicate successful communication as it will be a powerful message for both encoder and decoder in making the conversation understandable and meaningful (Samovar & Porter, 2001;Knapp & Hall, 2002). In particular, certain nonverbal cues such as having eye contact and gaze, facial expression, touching, posture and gesture, proxemics, and vocalization are used along with verbal communication (Leathers & Evaes, 1997;Knapp & Hall, 2007;Ting-Toomy & Chung, 2005). Certain research studies have shown that NVC has significant roles in facilitating social interactions in a variety of context and situations, the results showed that each context of meaning making has been found to be a major influence on choice and use of NVC (Brice & Brice, 2009). For instance, Damnet (2008, p. 208) found that Thai students had achieved a deeper and more understanding of the role of NVC in interactions in English. They also demonstrated a strong sense of what might be acceptable in an English language context with English native speakers and what is acceptable with fellow Thais. Similarly, Krauss, Chen & Chawla (1996, p. 236) discovered that gestural accompaniments to spontaneous speech could facilitate access to the mental lexicon in relating to gesture, speech, and lexical access.
In summary, intercultural competence and the use of NVC can be defined as the ability to interact among persons from different languages and/or culture. Also, the NVC has the major role to support the successful communication in international context. In this study, EIL was taught by assigning the students to conduct an interview project with foreigners (native or non-native) outside the classroom. This was a process of the CEFR-PBA innovative program; and the product of learning was that the students made an oral presentation in the classroom from the interview information they had. In other words, the study investigated both VC and NVC during their oral presentation in the classroom.

Project-based Learning (PBL)
Project-based Learning (PBL) is the learning approach that turns the traditional classrooms teaching to become more active and meaningful learning. The features of PBL are learner-centered teaching, learner autonomy, leaning through tasks by solving problems, and using collaborative learning (Patton, 2012;Fried-Booth, 2002). Regarding the PBL implementing, three main steps of PBL are planning, carrying out the project, and creating the end product or learning products. This advantages students to have self-directed leaning in handling their own tasks (Hedge, 2000, p. 62). For instance, in each step of processing the project, both students and the teacher have their distinct roles. While the students are responsible for their own learning in doing tasks in choosing a topic of interest and carrying out their project, the teacher would take the role as a facilitator in teaching-learning inside and outside the classroom. To elaborate, the students make decision about their own learning both seeking the knowledge, gathering and synthesizing the information they gained, and finally reporting their project. Concerning advantages of project-based learning, PBL can promote learner-centeredness, critical thinking, problem solving, and group cooperative learning (Fried-Booth, 2002;Stoller, 2006;Charttrakul, 2009). For example, being learner-centered is enhanced by student engaging in all steps of learning through the end of task assignment. Similarly, critical thinking and problem Enhancing Thai Students' Oral Language Experience using the CEFR -PBA through the Technique of Oral Presentation 61 solving naturally occur during the process of investigating and finding answers. And group work, certainly, advantages students in leaning since the characteristic of activities require students' cooperative skills and group cohesiveness (Stoller, 2006;Charttrakul, 2009). Regarding the teacher's role, he or she turns from central role as an information sender to a facilitator or supporter instead (Fried-Booth, 2002;Patton, 2012). However, there are some drawbacks of applying PBA in to language learning that should be considered. They are time consuming and students' stressfulness from working in groups (Charttrakul, 2009, p. 262).
In this study, the CEFR-PBA innovative program was implemented in which students planning their projects and studied the language used for interview at the planning stage. To clarify, this project was an integration of grammar focus in CEFR level B2.

Research Design
This study applied case study (Yin, 2003; and action research (Burns, 1999) as the major approach to conduct the study. The CEFR-PBA innovative program was embedded as a regular lesson of English for Presentation Course taught by the teacher-researcher.

Procedures
The procedure of the CEFR-PBA program was that the teacher-researcher taught the language content required for making oral presentation including grammar structure and expressions. Next, the students were assigned to work collaboratively in a group of three. They watched the selected video clips about "Good Manners" and prepared the interview questions to ask the foreigners from different countries about the topic. They then summarized the information they had from the interview, discussed with the teacher, and prepared the scripts and the power point slides. Finally, each group presented their information using power point slides for their project assessment for about ten to fifteen minutes.

Participants
Participants of the study were nine 3 rd year students in English Education Program including one man and eight women. Their age were ranged from nineteen to twenty years old. Their first language was Thai. After they had chosen their own group according to their preference including three persons in a group, three groups were selected purposively for data collection and analysis. This means that the groups of having good, fair, and poor grade average among their group were selected as representatives.

Research Instruments
The second video recording of students' making oral presentation (P4) was used as the first one (p3) was as a students practice.

Data Collection
Data collection was from three sets of video recordings of the students' making PowerPoint presentation, one set for each group. Altogether there were nine students who made an oral presentation. The students' making oral presentations were video recorded.

Data Analysis
To analyze the data, the teacher-researcher used speaking strategies analysis from Charttrakul (2009) as a guideline including grounded theory (Strauss & Cobin, 1990). To elaborate, three sets of video recording were transcribed and compared with their scripts. The teacher-researcher then watched the video again and noted down the presenters' non-verbal communication during making their oral presentation. In addition, percentage was also employed for summarizing the results from qualitative findings.

Findings
Findings in the study revealed that the students' oral experience emerged in the two aspects of communication, that is, verbal and non-verbal channels. This is presented group by group as discussed below:

Group one
Findings in verbal communication of Group One showed that the three presenters employed five speaking strategies in their presentation. Their names were Melina, Thomas, and Sarah and they used:1) reading aloud from the PPT slides, 2) reading aloud from their scripts, 3) speaking from memory, 4) speaking from understanding by using cues from PPT slides or notes, and 5) using presentation convention and discourse markers in their presentation as shown below: Firstly, reading aloud from their power point slides showed that both Thomas and Melina employed this speaking strategy as indicated in Table 1 below: Table 1 below shows Melina's giving her oral presentation by reading aloud from her PPT slides. The results showed that she copied the extracts from the scripts, pasted them on the slides, and read aloud the sentences while presenting the information. She kept her eyes-on the PPT almost of the time. In addition, she also showed difficulties in reading difficult words such as 'disparaged' and 'concerned' by revising them two or three times. This means ALLS 10(5):59-69 that she didn't have enough practice on these difficult words. However, it was obvious that this strategy could help reduce her stress since she seemed to be more relaxed while reading to the audience. In addition, she also tried her own way to reduce her stress by adding fillers like 'uh' or pausing while reading. Results showed that this strategy was effective for both presenters from this group since it was a quick way to present the information to the audience for their parts. However, this strategy couldn't get the audience's attention.
Secondly, it was found that reading aloud from their script was only used by Melina while giving her oral presentation as shown in Table 2 below: Table 2 below shows Melina employed the strategy of reading aloud from her script. For instance, she looked at the script in her hand, read aloud the sentences, and she rarely switched her eyes to the audience. Obviously, she had some difficulties in reading the word 'dissimilar'. However, she paused her reading for a while to complete her presentation. This seemed natural.
Thirdly, speaking from memory showed that both Melina and Sarah employed this speaking strategy as indicated in Table 3 below: Table 3 below shows that Melina spoke from her memory. She did this by looking at some phrases or keywords on the PPT slides while talking to the audience. However, she seemed to be nervous as the video showed that she always looked at the ceiling with rarely made eye-contacts with the audience and spoke in a monotone voice like a robot. Moreover, she also always repeated and had some difficulty in pronouncing some particular words such as 'disrespect' when she could not remember what words she needed to speak. Results from both students' using this strategy for giving presentations seemed ineffective.
Fourthly, speaking from understanding by using cues from power point slides or notes showed that all three students employed this speaking strategy as indicated in Table 4 below: Table 4 below indicates that Melina spoke from her understanding by using cues from the PPT slides or notes. She put only keywords on the PPT slides and always made eye-contact while talking to the audience. For example, she used the symbols such as a tick (/) and a cross (x) to signal the audience about what to do or what not to do in Thailand. However, her speaking was monotone and being robot-like. She always showed nervousness by repeating words such as 'necessary' twice or changed the words such "Thais hold…" to "Thai praise the…" when she could not remember. This strategy seemed ineffective for her presentation. Unlike Sarah, she seemed to have confidence and was able to hold the audience's attention. This was from her always making eyes-contact and smile to the audience while explaining. This helped her to move on smoothly from one point to another point by using signal words such as "O.K and next…", and "Alright, now, let's move on to …" It was clearly seen from Sarah that she effectively delivered in term of content to the audience. This meant she could present smooth and effective delivered all details completely within the time given. This strategy seemed to work out well and encourage her to speak smoothly.
Finally, using presentation convention and discourse markers was used, and only Thomas employed this strategy as indicated in Table 5 below: Table 5 below indicates that Thomas obviously used certain convention signposts for his presentation at the beginning of their presentation. For example, he employed words like 'first of all' 'O.K.', and "let's me start with" smoothly when making an introduction to his group presentation. He spoke confidentially, with relaxed manners. No nervousness was detected though he overused filler 'uh' (as underlined) in his speaking. Using this presentation convention could   show his gaining language experience from the initial lesson the teacher-researcher taught before giving the oral-presentation assignment. Concerning using discourse markers, two main strategies were employed by all three presenters as indicated in Table 6 below: Table 6 below shows that Thomas used discourse markers to make his presentation more smoothly. He used this strategy to recall what he wanted to speak by repeating words or phrases, pausing, and adding words or fillers. For example, he said "I will go to the uh" and then he paused his speaking before saying "to the…" and repeat the words "to the". He added filler like 'uh' or pause his speech to get the audience attention. It was noticeable that in spite the nervousness in some students, using these strategies helped him have time to think and recall what he was going to speak then.
Regarding non-verbal communication, data analysis from Group#1 showed that the students employed five types of non-verbal communication (NVC) strategies in their presentation. They were: 1) using hand gesture as pointing movement, 2) turning face and nodding to the other for signaling, 3) using action for showing examples, 4) making eye contact, and 5) using fillers. Findings of each strategy were reported below: Firstly, using hand gesture as pointing movement was the commonly NVC occurred employed by all three students in this group. Usually, they purposively used their hand to point at the screen. It was clear that they needed the audience's attention and want to signal the audience to the next point on the PPT slide. For example, Thomas and Sarah always used hand gesture to point at the screen when they wanted to emphasize the important point to the audience, change the new slide, or compare the different information between two sets of information. This technique resulted in their effective speaking since the audiences could follow what they were speaking step by step.
Secondly, turning face and nodding to the other was normally employed by all three students in this group. Normally, their purpose was to signal the audience to move on the next point while their nodding was use to introduce the audience to the next speaker. For example, when Thomas said "Ok, let's start," he then nodded his head to signal the audience he was going to start the presentation. This NVC strategy worked out well as it could get the audience' attention and concentrated on what they were speaking.
Thirdly, using action demonstration was naturally employed by two students: Thomas and Sarah. For example, when Thomas wanted to explain how to 'wai' to the audience, he showed them with clear picture by demonstrating while saying "…putting those palms together in front of you like thi (Show example)…." This made his speaking effectively and smoothly presented. It was clearly seen that he employed this strategy to help the audience understand and have clear picture of what he was speaking.
Fourthly, making an eye contact was also employed by the students in their presentation. For example, Thomas and Sarah would get the audience's attention by making eye-contact and smiling during his presentation after greeting them. This resulted in their effective presentation since this strategy could get the audience' attention and concentrated on what they were speaking.
Finally, using fillers was the commonly NVC employed during only Thomas's giving oral presentation. His purposes were pausing for thinking, his usual habit, and intending to make the presentation smoother. Regarding pausing for thinking, he always said 'uh' when speaking in order to remind himself what he was going to speak then. For example, he added "Uh, and then, uh! So, before saying this sentence "let me start with the outline of my presentation." Results showed that after saying 'uh' he would have one to two seconds to think of what was he was going to speak. This NVC strategy seemed effective. Concerning using fillers dues to his usual habit, this seemed to be using with no purpose and meaning. For example, when he said, "I'd like to show you uh the differences between uh ….", "Next, uh the differences between uh…." He often added fillers to the sentences without meanings or purposes. So, this can be interpreted as it was from speakers' habit of speaking or when he or she feels nervous. This strategy appeared to work out well since it's quite annoying. Regarding to using fillers in intending to make the presentation smoother, he added fillers such as 'O.K.', 'Uh' or 'Actually' before speaking the new sentences. The results showed that he tried to make his speaking smoother, more professional, and worked out well. It could help the audience follow their presentation and also could guide them for the coming presentation.
In brief, findings from oral presentation in Group One showed that the most speaking strategies they employed were speaking from understanding by using cues from power point slides or notes and using presentation convention and discourse markers. This obviously showed their confidence in speaking as well. On the other hand, reading aloud from the PPT slide was found and their nervousness and  Thomas I will go to the first one by comparing … And then, we will move on to the next topic with Sarah.
I will go uh (pausing) to the uh to the first one by comparing ……… ALLS 10(5):59-69 unconfident were clearly observed. As for non-verbal communication, the most strategy they employed was hand gesture since it made them confident when speaking.

Group two
In Group Two, three student-presenters were Paula, Kathy, and Anna. Data analysis revealed their use of four speaking strategies in their verbal communication. They were: 1) reading aloud from their scripts, 2) speaking from memory, 3) speaking from understanding by using cues from PPT slides or notes, and 4) using presentation convention and discourse markers as presented below: Firstly, reading aloud from their power point slides showed that both Kathy and Anna employed this speaking strategy as indicated in Table 7 below: Table 7 below shows Kathy employed the technique of reading aloud from her scripts. She looked at the script in her hand and read aloud the sentences smoothly and sometimes switched to make eye contact to the audience. She also used technique of pausing at some pace. However, this strategy seemed effective. She couldn't hole the audience's attention while reading aloud since it was quite boring.
Secondly, speaking from memory showed that both Paula and Anna employed this speaking strategy as indicated in Table 8 below: Table 8 below shows that Anna spoke from her memories by looking at some phrases or keywords on the PPT slides while talking to the audience. She seemed to be nervous as the video showed that her voice was vibrated while speaking. She made a few eyes-contact to the audience by looking at the back of the room. Moreover, she sometimes repeated certain difficult words such as 'threshold' as underlined in Table 8 above. This strategy seemed ineffective for her as she couldn't hole the audience's attention while speaking since it was quite boring.
Thirdly, speaking from understanding by using cues from power point slides or notes showed that both Paula and Anna employed this speaking strategy as indicated in Table 9 below: Table 9 below indicates that Paula spoke from their understanding by using cues from the PPT slides or notes. To do this, they put only keywords on the PPT slides and explain each point to the audience. For example, Paula put the keywords 'Sawaddee', "Male-khrap" and "Female-Kha" on the slide then said "Sawaddee is usually followed by kha when spoken by a female and by khrap when spoken by male" and explained each point smoothly but spoke a little fast. It was clearly seen from using this strategy that she effectively delivered the content to the audience. This strategy seemed effective and could encourage her to speak.
Lastly, using presentation convention and discourse markers showed that all three presenters employed this speaking strategy as showed in Table 10 below: Table 10 below indicates that Kathy used certain convention signposts for her presentations. She used certain signposts to signal the audience by starting her first topic with the expression, "Let start talking with…." She spoke smoothly, with confidence, and relaxed manners. Findings from all presentations showed that using this strategy could show their gaining language experience from the initial lesson the teacher-researcher taught before giving an oral presentation. Concerning using discourse markers, pausing while presenting the information was performed by Anna as reported in Table 11 below: Table 11 below shows that only Anna used discourse markers for her oral-presentation. This strategy helped make her delivery smoothly presented. For instance, she always paused when she wanted to emphasize the important words for the audience to notice. It was noticeable that this    Concerning non-verbal communication, data analysis showed that the students in Group Two employed five types of NVC strategies in their presentation. They were: 1) using hand gesture as pointing movement, 2) turning face and nodding, 3) using action demonstration, 4) making eye contact, and 5) using fillers. Findings of each strategy were reported below: Firstly, using hand gesture as pointing movement was the commonly NVC occurred employed by all three students in this group. Obviously, their purpose was to get the audience's attention. It could be interpreted that they want to emphasize the important point, and to signal the audience to the next point on the slide. For instance, when Anna wanted to show the steps, she used hand gesture to signal the steps such as 'the first', 'the second', or 'the third'. This resulted in her effective speaking. The audiences could follow what she was speaking step by step. This NVC strategy worked out well.
Secondly, turning face and nodding was also the common NVC features employed by all two students, Paula and Kathy. Their purpose was to signal the audience when they want to hand on the presentation to the next person. For example, Paula turned her face and nodded to Kathy and said "The followings are some examples about good manners in Thailand. Kathy will show you some details for this topic." This NVC strategy worked out well as it could get the audience' attention for the coming presentation.
Thirdly, using action demonstration was also the NVC features employed by Kathy. Her purpose was that she wanted to explain clearly how to 'wai' to the audience while speaking these sentences "O.K. Let start with Wai. It is done by joining hands in front of the chest and bending the head like this" (Demonstrating). This technique made her speaking effective and smooth. It was clear that she employed this strategy to help the audience have clear picture of her point. This resulted in her effective speaking.
Fourthly, making an eye contact was during Anna's presentation. Anna moved her eyes and head to the audience in different direction naturally when she wanted to emphasize the important point of her speaking. This resulted in her effective presentation since this strategy could get the audience' concentration.
Finally, data analysis showed that all three presenters used fillers during their oral presentation. The purpose of this NVC was that they wanted to recall or make the presentation smoother. For instance, Kathy added filler 'um' when she said 'These behaviors show show (um) the symbolic of." to recall what she was going to speak then. Another example was that when Paula said 'O.K.' before saying "Let me give you a summary." This NVC strategy seemed effective. It could help the audience to follow their presentation and guide them the coming presentation.
To sum, findings from oral presentation in Group Two showed that the students employed speaking from understanding by using cues from PPT slides or notes, and using presentation convention and discourse the most in their verbal communication. And these strategies made them confident and relaxed. However, using discourse markers as using sounds for emphasizing, pausing, or speaking slowly were rarely used among them.

Group three
In Group Three, findings revealed that the three student-presenters -Bella, Nina, and Britney-employed three speaking strategies in their oral presentation. They were: 1) reading aloud from their scripts, 2) speaking from memory, and 3) speaking from understanding by using cues from PPT slides or notes. The findings were reported below: Firstly, reading aloud from their scripts showed in both Bella's and Britney's oral presentation as indicated in Table 12 below: Table12 below shows that Bella employed the technique of reading aloud from her scripts. She looked at the scripts and read aloud the sentences to the audience smoothly. From both presenters, this strategy seemed to make her feel relaxed. However, the presentation was not effective because she couldn't attract the audience's attention while reading aloud and it was quite boring.
Secondly, speaking from memory showed in Britney's oral presentation as indicated in Table 13 below:  Table 13 below reveals that Britney spoke from her memories. She did this by looking at some keywords on the PPT   slides while talking to the audience. For example, when she said "the first point that I am going to mention is about…," then she recalled what she was going to speak by repeating words as " I will talking about…." for the second time. It seemed that repeating words help her to recall what she was going to speak. However, she seemed to be nervous as the video showed that she looked at the back of the room and often repeated the words for thinking or recalling. Results show that this strategy seemed ineffective. She couldn't hole the audience's attention while speaking since it was quite boring.
Thirdly, speaking from understanding by using cues from power point slides or notes was also commonly used by the two presenters as indicated in Table 14 above: Table 14 above indicates that Bella spoke from her understanding by using cues from the PPT slides or notes. She used the table to differentiate the way to say 'Sorry' and 'Excuse me.' and put some keywords and phrases on the PPT slides. She always made eye-contact while talking to the audience. Results showed that this strategy seemed to work out well and encourage her to speak smoothly particularly when she added some filler like 'O.K. ', or 'Uh'. Fourthly, using presentation convention and discourse markers was also commonly employed by all students as showed in Table 15 above:  Table 15 above indicates that Britney used certain convention signposts for her presentations. For example, she used the words "First off all", 'second', and "Alright, as you can see on the screen" smoothly when making an introduction to her group presentation. She spoke with confidence and relaxed manners. Results showed that using this presentation convention could show her gaining language experience from the initial lesson which the teacher-researcher taught before giving the assignment. Moreover, pausing was performed only by Nina as reported in Table 16 below: Table 16 above shows that only Nina used discourse markers. And this helped make her delivery smoothly presented. For instance, she always used these when she wanted to emphasize the important words for the audience to notice and get the audience's attention. It was noticeable that this strategy made her presentation natural and meaningful to the audience.
Relating non-verbal communication, data analysis showed that the students in Group Three employed four strategies of non-verbal communication (NVC) in their oral presentation. They were:1) using hand gesture as pointing movement, 2) turning face and nodding, 3) making eye contact, and 4) using fillers. Findings of each strategy were reported below: Firstly, using hand gesture as pointing movement was commonly employed by all three students in this group purposefully. In particular, they used this NVC when they wanted to attract the audience's attention, and to signal the audience to the next point on the PPT slides. For example, Bella always used hand gesture to point at the screen when she wanted to emphasize the important point, moved on to the next topic, or change the new slide to the audience while she was speaking. In addition, when she wanted to compare the different information between two sets of information, she used hand gesture to point at those different details. Regarding this technique, it was clear that their purpose was to make sure that the audience was following them. This resulted in their effective speaking since the audience could follow what they were speaking step by step.
Secondly, turning face and nodding were also the common NVC strategy employed by Nina and Britney. Their purpose of using this NVC was to signal the audience to move on to the next point on the PPT slides while their nodding head was used to introduce the audience to the next speaker. For example, when Britney wanted to move on to the next point on the PPT slides, she said "Next, I'm going to move on to the next point. It is …." This NVC strategy worked out well as it could get the audience' attention for the coming presentation.   Thirdly, making an eye contact naturally employed by all three students in their presentation. Their purpose was to get the audience's attention. For example, Nina made meaningful eye-contact and smiling after greeting and thanking the audience. This was similar to Britney and Bella. They made their eye-contact to the audience when they wanted to emphasize on the important point. This resulted in their effective presentation since this strategy could get the audience' attention, concentrated, and be able to follow what they were speaking.
Finally, using fillers was the common technique employed by the two presenters during the students' giving oral presentation: Bella and Britney. They naturally used fillers in order to pause for thinking or recalling. For example, Bella added "O'K' before saying this sentence "do you know the apologizing for the British and Thais are different". This NVC strategy was effective because it could help the speakers to remind themselves and have time to think of what they were going to say next.
To conclude, findings in Group Three showed that mostly the students employed speaking from understanding by using cues from PPT slides or notes as well as using presentation convention and discourse markers. In contrast, the least strategy they used was reading aloud from the script, and this strategy was effectively used since they couldn't hold the audience's attention and was quite boring. Concerning non-verbal communication, hand gesture and making eye-contact were used by all three presenters while two of them only employed turning face and using fillers. These NVC strategies made them feel relaxed and confident. Only using filler for thinking or recalling was used due to nervousness.

A Summary of Oral Language Experience
To summarize, students' oral language experience in both verbal and non-verbal communication could briefly presented in Tables 17 and 18 above: Table 17 above showed that the common five speaking strategies the students' employed for their oral presentation. Regarding to this, speaking from memory was commonly used by all students (100%) though they felt nervous and couldn't get audience attention. In contrast, reading aloud from their power point slides was not commonly used by them (22.22%) though the students feel relaxed while speaking but they couldn't hold the audience's attention and was quite boring.
Table 18 above indicates that the student-presenters in all three groups naturally employed five types of NVC to help make their presentations go smoothly and to get audience's attention. Using hand gesture as pointing movement was commonly used by all students (100%) with the purpose of getting the audience's attention. In contrast, using action demonstration was rarely used (33%).

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This research paper presents an investigation of oral language experience and non-verbal communication the  students gained from making their oral presentation in the CEFR-PBA innovative program. Action research and case study method were applied; and the researcher in this study also performed as the teacher. The participants were 9 students of 3 rd years majoring in English Education Program. Findings revealed that the student-presenters used both verbal and non-verbal communication in their oral presentation. Regarding verbal communication, the most speaking strategies the students employed was speaking from their memory. The reason could be that memorizing was the basic and easiest skill that the learners use at the starting point of learning the language. On the other hand, reading aloud from their power point slides was rarely used because of their having awareness of how to present a good presentation since more practice could keep them from using this skill. On the other hand, the most NVC the students employed was using hand gesture as pointing movement. This could be because body language of using hand gesture was naturally used in giving presentation which was taught in the initial lesson before their conducting the interview project. In addition, gestures were normally used to compensate for not having enough English fluency, and enhanced the communicativeness of messages in a referential communication task (Dushay, 1991). In contrast, using action demonstration was rarely used by the student-presenters.
As for recommendation, this study was limited to the time spending on teaching the language lesson as well as the students' conducting the CEFR-PBA interview project. Thus, it was recommended that if the teachers who would like to apply the CEFR-PBA program, more time should be spent on teaching the language lesson and students should be allowed more time to practice English. In particular, students require more time for preparation and rehearsal their PBA project before giving an oral presentation.