Part 2: Inquiry into language learners

Collaborative

shadowing
activities: Whycollaboration?
Etsuko Shimo
Miyazaki Municipal
University
shimo@miyazaki-mu.ac.jp
About Etsuko

I received a Master of Education in TESOL from the State University of New York,
University at Buffalo,in 2001.1 currently teach English classes and seminars on lan
guage learning and teaching at a Japanese university. My research interests include
portfolio assessment, cooperative learning, learner strategies and beliefs, and learnerautonomy.

2001#fc—a—3 —^WitfC^ • A'7 7 7 P - ^ f T t f ^ f ± (TESOL^m i i i L S L L mtE\tB^o±^x^m<Dmmtnm^^-mnmm<DAcknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to everyone who has given me inspiring
suggestions in writing this paper. I would also like to say thank you to my students
for their enthusiastic attitude and efforts, and warm cooperation inside and outside
the class.

49•

More A u t o n o m y You Askj

so

•

Shimo

Abstract

Input, output, and interaction are all essential in language learning, the process ofwhich involves cogni
tive and meta-cognitive development and social and affective factors. Moreover, actual language use
requires notonly linguistic knowledge but supra-linguistic knowledge including communication strategies and world knowledge. To engage learners in such complex language learning and use, collaborative
activities are useful; they can provide authentic situations ofmeaningful communication and situations
which accommodate the purposes of language use and learning, such as communication with others,
self-discovery and self-development in a social community. The collaborative shadowing activity presented in this paper can be used asa tool to create a collaborative learning atmosphere. This easily done
activity can increase input, output, and interaction opportunities, help learners to retain knowledge byrepetition, so that they can realize meaningful communication inEnglish, andto enhance learner con
fidence in oral communication abilities. This paper willexplore the benefits ofcollaborative shadowing
activities bydiscussing various processes andfactors in language learning and use and by emphasizing
the importance ofcollaboration, which isclosely related to the promotion oflearner autonomy.
mm^WzH^XU, T>7Vh-79h7Vh-T>^^V3>0£T^SgT-feD,^©^lf7°
nt^cH, wM-y$mmtti(DWM^&£w-iiiMwmmm<mi%ir&o ^maysmmmiz^®&5tmmfcwm^W'&m%nm'%iz\t, £.ymMzmvrzn 53.-7—->3>o^^aftt %>w,mmm^&fz£n?L%<, »«§»«, m^t<D3^ 0.-^-^3 >, a#o*t?©gs^i..
^f&Mtv^r£nm&m-^w<Dmiz-&mhrzM<Dnmz%-Dfcw%c zz.x^^-r^&mmy•&7'u-£7,jpmm*mmL, *&, ^wmsBUMm<mM~r%ffla®mm<Dmm&*mmLtz5%x, t s t i x t m >7s«]0a*^a*TSo

In a presentation titled "Ventriloquation: the Intermental-Intramental Dance in Language
Classrooms" at the "Autonomy in Language Learning: Maintaining Control" Conferencein Hong Kong in June 2004, Murphey introduced shadowing as one of the tools of"ventriloquation for the purposes of enhancing intramentalization." He suggested that whena person has internalized what he or she had processed intermentally, in other words, between
his or her mind and someone else's mind, the learning itself becomes part of the learner's—
intramentally. Murphey stated that shadowing and summarizing, along with some other tools
such as action logs and newsletters, can promote ventriloquation (speaking in mind—speaking
intramentally) and eventually allow students more "agency" in their learning (Murphey, 2004,
June; Murphey, 2004, p.22).
That was the first time for me to learn of conversational shadowing techniques. I was
so impressed by what I saw that I could not help trying out the techniques in my language
classrooms as soon as I got back to Japan. I started to take time for such collaborative
shadowing activities in my English classes.
This paper will discuss effects of collaborative shadowing activities by uncovering thetheories underlying these activities and by referring to student reactions in my classrooms. The
purpose of the paper is to investigate the importance of collaboration in language learning andto share one simple pair activity that can be used as a first small step for creating a collaborative
learning environment.
I will first discuss various aspects of language learning, and then the importance ofcollaborative learning activities in language classrooms. The collaborative shadowing activity is,
in fact, just one simple, sample collaborative learning activity of many kinds. But such simple
—

LD

SIG

2006

Anthology —5i * Collaborative shadowing activities

activities can become meaningful and useful as a socialactivityin language learning and as asmall step towards a collaborative learning environment.
HOW DO WE LEARN LANGUAGE?

Why is collaboration so important? I would like to take into consideration how we learn

language to think about the importance of collaboration in language learning.
Language acquisition or language learningconsists of complex processes.1 First, input plays
an important role in languageacquisition.As Krashen (1985) suggested, extensive amounts of
input at the i+1 level—at the levelslightly higher than the learner's current level and therefore
comprehensible for the learner—is definitely useful and beneficial for the learner. However,language learnerswho only receive input without themselves producing language will achieve
limited learning.
Learners also need output (Swain, 1994) and interaction (Long, 1983). Output allows learners
to pay attention to some of their linguistic problems, test their linguistic knowledge, and reflect
overtheir use of the target language and therebyrestructure their knowledge in mind (Swain,
1995). On the other hand, interaction helps to modify difficultinput to the level that learners
can understand, and such comprehensible input promoteslanguage acquisition (Long, 1983;
alsocited in Lightbown &Spada, 1999). Learners will be ableto receive feedback on their output
through interaction. Input, output, and interaction are all important in language learning.
Through collaboration or by working together with peers, learners will be able to have more
opportunities to receive input, produce output, and enjoy and learn from interactions. In ateacher-centered classroom, there are very fewsuch interactions. The teacher talks and students
listen most of the time. The teacher may tell students to read passages aloud or ask questionsof individual students; however, students usually do not receive much feedback on what theysay. A few interactions between a teacher and an individual student may occur, but the number
is much smaller than it is in collaborative learning classrooms,where interactions take place
between all students at the same time. (See "simultaneous interaction" in the section "Moreabout collaboration.") Collaborative learning activities allow students to participate more
actively and interact much more with each other, creating an environment where they receive
comprehensible input, produce output, and learn from each other.
More about How We Learn Language

Language learning consists of complex processes. Not only are various kinds of tools such as
input, output, and interactions, needed in language learning, but also development of various

kinds of competence has to be taken into consideration,such as cognitive and meta-cognitive
development. Social and affective factors also play important roles.
Cummins (1979) described two levels of language proficiency: basic interpersonal com
municative skills (BICS) and cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP). BICS means
language communication competence required to understand rather concrete, low abstractlevel messages as such found in daily conversations, while CALP means language competence
required to engage in higher level cognitive activities that need abstract thinking. Thus
Cummins made a distinction between two types of language competence by focusing on thelevel of learner cognitive activity.

It is true that language learning is determined by cognitive activity and development. Second
language learners will not be able to express cognitivelyhigher thoughts and ideas in theirsecond language than those they have in their first language. Children who have not learned—

More

Autonomy You

Ask; —

52

•

Shimo

to describe certain events elaborately or to explain cause and effect of certain phenomena intheir first language will not be able to do so in their second language. Learners who have notdeveloped critical thinking skills in their first language will find it difficult to express criticalthoughts in their second language.
At the same time, language learning is influenced by social and affective factors, too. We
use language as a communication tool in our society. We expressourselves in order to beunderstood by others; we find out what is happening in the world; we try to understand what
other people think; and we explore our own thoughts to learn more about ourselves—who weare and how we belong to the society (See below "Why do we learn language?"). Considering
these purposes of language use, we can say that languagelearning and use has much to do withsocial and affective factors. In addition, several researchers have claimed that learners use social

and affective language learning strategies (Cohen, 1998; O'Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford,
1999). Krashen's affective filter hypothesis2 also comes from the assumption that language
learning is greatly influenced by affective factors.
In addition, language learning is closelyrelated to meta-cognitive development. Research
has indicated that learners of higher meta-cognitive abilities are more likely to be successful
language learners (e.g., Chamot, Barnhardt, El-Dinary, & Robbins, 1999). These learners
monitor and evaluate their learning processes and make proper choices in learning materials
and strategies. They plan their learning processes. Such abilities help learners to develop theirlanguage competence more effectively.

Thus, second languagelearnerswillbe ableto use their target languagemore successfully if they
develop their language abilities not onlycognitively, but also meta-cognitively, socially, and affectively.
Collaboration is useful in promoting cognitive and meta-cognitive development andinvolving social and affective factors in language learning. Shimo (2005a) indicated thatstudents appreciated collaborative learning activities in their writing classes because they
were able to learn new expressions, topic variations, and new ways of developing and or
ganizing essay content (cognitive development). The study also showed that collaborative
learning activities provided more feedback for learners and allowed them to reflect moreon their learning processes, assess their progress, and therefore (re-)set their learning goals(meta-cognitive development). Many students in the study also reported that they enjoyedcollaborative work and were encouraged to work hard and responsibly because of the roles they
had to fulfill and because of positive peer pressure they received (social and affective factors).
Moreover,Murphey and Jacobs (2000) discussedthe importance of collaboration indevelopinglearner autonomy. They claimed that being autonomous means "having the abilityto
metacgonitively and critically make decisions as to the means one uses to learn and develop" (Murphey &Jacobs, 2000, p.228).In other words,learner autonomy itselfis a meta-cognitive ability.

Murphey and Jacobs (2000) suggested that collaboration and autonomy go welltogether "because collaboration offers a powerful means of promoting autonomy among
L2 learners" (p.236). Learners first join social activities and work on tasks collaboratively,that is, "socialization." Learners then monitor and assess their learning processes throughsuch activities, which is the stage of "dawning metacognition." They go through the stageof "initiation choice" in the collaborative environment and reach the stage of "expanding
autonomy." In short, collaboration can be the start of developing metacognitive abilities andtaking more responsibility for one's own learning. Similarly, Leni Dam (1995) defined learnerautonomy as "capacity and willingness to act independently and in co-operation with others, asa sociallyresponsible person (p.l)." Taking part in social activities or communication activities
with others can be the first step toward greater autonomy.

—

LD

SIG

2006

Anthology —53*Collaborative shadowing activities

HOW DO WE USE LANGUAGE?

Let us look at knowledge and skills that influence learners' language use. Language learning andlanguage use are not easyto separate.Language learners learn the language to use the language,
and they use the language to learn the language. When we take a look at how language is used,
we may be able to find some indications about how languagecan be learned more effectively.
First, linguistic knowledge, such as grammar and vocabulary power, has much to do as
the basis of language use. For example,learners should learn that the past tense of "go" is"went" in order to be able to talk about what they did in the past. Learners should enlarge
their vocabulary in order to deal with extensive input and to be able to produce sentences
as output more smoothly. If a learner knows a fewwords which mean "wonderful," such as"lovely," "admirable," "splendid," "cool,""marvelous," "excellent,""magnificent," "fabulous,"and knows where to use them, the learner will be able to express slight nuance or describe acertain situation in a more accurate or detailed way to others. If a learner knows what the word
"nonproliferation" means, he or she does not have to stop and think when he or she comes
across the word while reading a newspaper article.
Linguistic skills are also important in language use. Learners, for example, should learn listening
skills such as listening for main ideas or noticing changes in intonation. They should learn
skimming and scanning skills and use appropriate reading strategies for the purpose of reading
activities. Moreover, "supra-linguistic"knowledge and skills are important in language use. For
instance, communication strategies, world knowledge, and social identity are influential factors.
Communication strategies help learners participate in or maintain conversations or otherkinds of communication (Rubin, 1987; O'Malley & Chamot, 1990). When learners come acrossunknown words or phrases, for example, in conversations, they may try to guess the meaningfrom the context or from the speaker's facial expressions.

World knowledge influences L2productive and receptive use, too. Most languagelearners probably
know from their experiences that theycan speakmore when theyare familiar with the topic andthat they cannot speakwell if the oppositeholds true. Schematheory in readingactivities is alsoa
goodexample. When learners have their properschema activated, their reading comprehension level
increases. The knowledgeabout the context learnershold has an influence on their L2 use.
In addition, students' social identity can have an effect on L2 proficiency level. Schumann(cited in Ellis, 1997) point out that learners' language proficiency achievement is related to how
they consider themselves related to the target language culture group. I do not argue in detailhere about how exactly socialidentity influences L2 performance, but self-identity, self-esteem,

and self-confidence should be related to their learning performance, as learners' psychologicalstates affect learning processes and outcome.

Thus, language use, as wellas language learning,is very complex,influenced not only by
linguistic but also supra-linguistic factors. Taking into consideration the complexprocesses
and aspects involved with language learning and use, we can saythat language-use practice inauthentic or meaningful situations, in contexts more true to the reality, would be important. In
order to provide such a learning environment, interactions with others in a community should
be key. Collaborative learning activities can then create such a learning community wherestudents can work together to learn together.
Why do we learn language?

I would like to consider why we learn language before going further into the discussion aboutcollaboration.

—

More

Autonomy You

Aski —

54 * Shimo
Many English language learners in Japan may say that they learn the language because
they have to. They may say that they need to learn it in order to pass entrance exams for highschools or universities. Why do we teachers teach language? Do we teach in order for learners
to get high scores on exams? Is that the ultimate goal in language teaching? Such instrumental
motivation is not necessarily ineffectivebecause it does motivate learners, but quite often,
learners stop learning the language when they have achieved a short-term goal with what theyknow. Language learning requires long-term effort and time, and learners have to continuelearning the language. When learners know why they learn language, they can keep on studying
it. So, then why do we learn language? The answer is related to the question of whywe use
language, and for whatpurposes we uselanguage.
As mentioned above, we use language for the following purposes: a) to express ourselves
to make ourselves understood by others; b) to find out what is happening in the world; c) tounderstand more of what other people think; and d) to explore our own thoughts and to learn
more about ourselves and develop our identity—who we are and how we belong to the society.
If we use language for these purposes, don't we also learn language then for these purposes?
Some people may learn an ancient language to find out what happened in the past, andto understand more about what people thought. Even in that case, their purpose can beconsidered variations of purposes b) and c) above. It can be said that they are learning
the language in order to "communicate" with people in the past. For language learners,
communication with others and self-discovery and/or self-development through it shouldbe the main objective of language learning, and this will keep learners engaged in language
learning for a long time.
What can teachers do to meet such objectives? How can communication with others bepromoted in languageclassrooms? Again, collaborative learning activities can help to createsuch an environment where learners have more interactions with each other.

WHY COLLABORATION?

Very fewpeople would disagree that collaborationis important in human societies. One day, I
met a couple from Australia who looked very close and very fond of each other as if they were
newly weds even after beingmarried for a few years. Young as I was, I was simplysurprised by
how nice they wereto each other. I was bold enough to askwhy. They told me that the keyfor
a good relationship is the 3C's: communication, consideration, and cooperation. Cooperation,or collaboration, is one important element for human relationships. Research to date has
also supported the importance of cooperationnot only in language learningbut in general
education fields (Liang, Mohan, & Early, 1998; Murphey &Jacobs, 2000).
Jacobs, Power, and Loh (2002) describedprinciplesof collaborative learning activities, such as"positive interdependence," "individual accountability," "simultaneous interaction," and "equal
participation" (see also Johnson &Johnson, 1998). In collaborative learning activities, groupmembers depend on each other in positive ways. All group members share the same goal andworktogether for it. If one of them does not do his or her work, all group members will fail.
In the end, all group members can enjoy the accomplishment of the work. Each individual
member of the group takes a certain role and responsibility. Since all learners are engaged
with the work, many interactions occur at the same time. Such simultaneous interaction
allows everybody to takepart in learning activities, leading them to equal participation.
These principlesalso explain that collaboration enables learners to have more interactions
with others, take more initiatives in learning tasks, and take responsibility for their learning
processes.

—

LD

SIG

2006 Anthology —55*Collaborative shadowing activities

Murphey also explained the effect of "near peer role models" (e.g., Dornyei 8c Murphey,2003)—"peers who are close to the learners' social, professional and/or age level, and whom
the learners may respect and admire" (Dornyei 8cMurphey, 2003, p. 128). Students can findsuccessful language learners and users among their classmates who they can make ideal and yet
realistic models for themselves. Collaborative learning activities can provide opportunities tofind such models and to learn from them.

The collaborative shadowing activity is one simple social activity that allows learners tocommunicate with others and learn from each other. This activity itself may not promote choice
initiation or autonomy expansion as much as other more complex cooperative learning activities
where learners are encouraged to make choices through group discussions, for example. How
ever, this simply done activity is very useful as a first step in building a collaborative learning
environment. The next section will explain collaborativeshadowing activities.
What is a collaborative shadowing activity?

Shadowing techniques - repeating speech input immediately after hearing it - can be used in atleast two different situations: while listening to spoken words on tapes and CD's, or in movies,
and while communicating with someone in person. I called the former type "individual
shadowing" and the latter "collaborative shadowing" in the sense that learners do the task
individually in the former, and collaboratively with a partner in the latter (Shimo, 2005b). In
individual shadowing, learners often utter exact words or sentences almost simultaneouslywith the spoken text or immediately after a group of words or sentences (sometimes called"overlapping"). In collaborative shadowing, learners can repeat words selectively and use theirown words to express what the interlocutor or the speaker said in the form of dialogues. For
example, when the speaker says "I went shopping with my mom yesterday," the listener says
"you went shopping with your mom yesterday" by transforming in some way what is heard.
If the listener is shadowing the speaker selectively, he or she might say"... shopping yesterday,
O.K." (See Murphey, 1995; Shimo, 2005b). Selective shadowing naturally occurs in daily
conversations and is a very useful skill for L2 learners.

I tried to implement several kinds of shadowing techniques in collaborative shadowing
activities in my classrooms. For example, lecture shadowing, reading shadowing, andconversational shadowing (Murphey, 1995) were integrated in collaborative shadowing
activities. According to Murphey (1995), in lecture shadowing, listeners shadow what they hearin their mind, for example, when they are listeningto someone's lecture. In reading shadowing,
one reads aloud a passage to his or her partner and the partner shadows. In conversational
shadowing, one shadows his or her partner in conversations.

Furthermore, Murphey (2001) explainedthat shadowingcan be done completely, selectively,
and/or interactively. In complete shadowing, listeners shadow everyword the speaker says.
In selective shadowing,listeners select some words and phrases to shadow. In interactive
shadowing, listeners shadow selectively and also ask questions or make comments to what the
speaker says. These ideas were also integrated in the collaborative shadowing activities that I
used in my teaching.

In my class, students would use short essays of about 150 English words they had written

about a certaintopic in collaborative shadowing activities. Students followed the following
procedures with occasional variations:

1) Students formed pairs and one (StudentA) read his or her essay aloud in a pair,while the other (Student B) shadowed in his or her mind, taking notes.

—

More

Autonomy You

Aski

56

•

Shimo

2) Student B made an oral summary of Student As essay. Student B made use of hisnotes. While listening to Student B's summary, Student A shadowed Student B.

3) Students repeated procedures 1) and 2) with a new partner.
4) Students formed new pairs again. Before starting to share each other's essay for thethird round, students made a list of main points of their essays.
5) Students shared each other's story without looking at their essay but only by looking
at their list of main points. Students shadowed each other while listening to the otherperson's story.
Every time students changed their partners, they said hello and briefly introduced themselves to each other. Before they left for a new partner, they said thanks to each other. Students
were also encouraged to ask a couple of questions about the content of their partner's essay.
They were also told to share what their previous partner said from the second round. In
shadowing, students were recommended to repeat meaningful or important words or the lastfew words of a sentence so that learners would focus more on meaning without repeatingwords mechanically, and so that they would not repeat each other's mistakes and errors [see"mention shadowing" (Murphey, 1998)].
WHY COLLABORATIVE SHADOWING?

I have been using collaborative shadowing activities in many of my classes at university. For
example, in the fall semester of 2005,1 implemented them in two kinds of classes: an English
grammar class for freshmen with 30 students and a small seminar class about second language
learning and teaching with only eight sophomores. In both classes, students would use theirshort essays in the activities. In the grammar class,students would often write a passage inwhich they are prompted to use the grammatical feature or expressions focused in the class,and in the seminar class, students would write about a topic related to the seminar content, i.e.,
about language learning and teaching.

In the following sections, I will discuss the benefits of collaborative shadowing activities
while referring to my students' reactions. The student reactions in the regular English class of
30 students were collected through a questionnaire survey (see MAYA website for AppendicesA 8c B) with Likert-scale type questions on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree)
concerning perceived task enjoyment, task difficulty, and task effectiveness. Students werealso asked to write reasons for their responses. Student reactions in the seminar class of eightstudents were collected through written reflectionsabout the activities. The responses were all
written in Japanese. The quotes in this paper all came from these data, free responses in thequestionnaire done in the regular English class [i.e., responses to Wh-questions of Questionl)-(l), (2), and (3), and Question l)-(5)] and written reflections collected in the seminar class.
They were translated by the author. Analysis of the student responses to the Likert-scale ques
tions will not be included in this paper as it is not the purpose of this paper (cf. Shimo, 2005b).
Easily doneFirst, collaborative shadowing is an easy technique usedin pair work,and pair work is the first stepor the basics for collaborative learning activities. The collaborative shadowing activitycan be used
as a warm-up activityat the beginningof a class, a refreshment activity in the middle, or as a majorclassroomactivityto start or facilitate group discussion. Most of my students were not familiarwith
collaborative shadowing, but once they experienced the technique, they becameinterested and eager
to use it more. It is pair work that can be easily applied in language classrooms.
—

LD

SIG

2006

Anthology —57*

Collaborative shadowing activities
Simultaneous interaction—Input and output

As pointed out earlier, collaborative activities realize simultaneous interaction. In collaborative
shadowing activities,all students are engaged in the activity either as a listener or speaker.
In such situations, students have more opportunities to receive feedback and learn from one
another.

Many of my students said that they found new vocabulary or expressions in theirpartner's essays or stories. One of the students actually described "conversational shadowing"as "just at my [learning] level" and another said that "this is an opportunity to learn words andknowledge thatI hadn't known sofar." Collaborative shadowing with learners of similar learning
backgrounds seemed to provide them with comprehensible input ("i + I", Krashen, 1985), fromwhich they could learn.
Furthermore, learners' output produced in collaborative shadowing activities involves all
three functions of output indicated by Swain (1994): a) the 'noticing/ triggering' function, b)
the hypothesis-testing function, and c) the metalinguistic function. Shadowing activities seemto have helped my students to better pay attention to some of their linguistic problems, test
their knowledge of how the target language should work, and reflect on their use of the target
language and thereby restructure their linguistic knowledge (Swain, 1994). The following
quotes from my students indicate how output played its role in their language learning:
I can find my grammar mistakes by speaking; this helps me practice pronunciation; I
have become able to keep in mind that I will have to share my passage with my partnerin speaking while writing the passage.
• I can confirm whether the message was communicated no problem.
I can think over my passage by shadowing my partner's summary of my passage; it's also
fun.

Students often noticed their mistakes in plural "s,"third person singular present "s,"and pasttense forms while reading their passagealoud to their partners. Some students occasionally
noticed the wrong sentence structures and made corrections such as subject and verb
agreement and omission of a subject or a verb.
Repetition

In collaborative shadowing activities, students recycled the same information with slight
modifications or changes repeatedly. Theyfirst spent time organizing ideas when they wrote up
the passage as an assignment. They read aloud the passageto a few different partners, listened
to their partner's oral summary each time, and shadowed the summary each time. In the thirdround, wherethey told the story without looking at the written passage, they were able to speak
rather smoothly.

On the other hand, while listening to their partner'sessays, students internalized what they
had processed more effectively by repeating their partner's essay in their minds first and by
making summaries with their own words afterwards (Murphey, 2004). When students did
not understand the meaning, theywould have to ask questions for clarification. They would
otherwise not be able to make a summary or convey the message accurately.
By repeatingwords, students seemto have increased their comprehensionlevel. They could
tell their partner what they understood and what they did not. A number of positive comments
about repetition of a partner's words were found:• I think the sentencesbecame easierto understand when I repeated them orally.

—

More

Autonomy YouAski58 » Shimo• I can understand my partner's passage better by me actually speaking it out.
• We can check whether we understood each other [byshadowing each other].
Repetition of each other's passage, with or without modification of expressions or sentence
structures, helped them to checkwhether they understood the meaning of the passage or not
and to retain information and knowledge more effectively.
Meaningful communication

I reported in Shimo (2005b) that students enjoyed collaborative shadowing activities because
they found it fun and interesting to speak with classmates and learn about each other. Students
were relatively very favorable about working together with their classmates. It is not easy forstudents to make friends with classmates if they simply remain in their seats, listening to theteacher talk. They can make friends if they do tasks collaboratively with classmates. Talking
about oneself and knowing about others is the first step to making new friends.
In collaborative shadowing activities, students followed certain structures in communicatingwith others by using their written passage and shadowing techniques, but the dialogues they had
were not created for them, but created by them. The language had its meaning for users to express
themselves and to understand more about others. Thus, the language was used for the meaningful
purposes, and students enjoyed talking with their classmates and learning more about them.
Comments that showed how positive students were about collaborative shadowing include
the following:
I can find out what my friend wrote in her journal and have more talks [with her].
It is fun to have communication.

Collaborative shadowing activities also help to promote attitudes to listen to others more
attentively. They also help to create a more comfortable and relaxing atmosphere in class, as
learners share more and more of each other's opinions and thoughts.
Confidence in oral communication

Students of the English language in Japan are often said to be lacking in oral communicationcompetency. Interviews with five Japaneselearners of English conducted for my previous
study (Shimo, 2001) indicated that the learners had not received enough oral communication
practice in English classrooms in Japan,and it seemedto have led to their lack of oral
communication competence and lack of confidence, as well.
It is also often the case that learners of English in Japan are reluctant to speak in English
with peerswho share the samefirstlanguage and with whom they always speakin Japanese.
Teaching English in different contexts in Japan, I have experienced such situations wherestudents became quiet and appeared uncomfortable in the silence. In such cases, oral
communication became like a patience game where learners were very much frustrated, or
students simply started to use Japanese otherwise. Similarly, after failing in his attempts tohavestudents use English with their peers,Murphey (1995) reported several reasons that
his students gave for their refusal. Among the reasons were 1) it was unnatural, 2) it wasembarrassing,3) using the mother language was faster and easier, and 4) some simply refused
to speak in the target language.
In the collaborative shadowing activities that I used, students used their essays as the firststep in oral communication. The written pieces werevery helpful for the students. Students
seemed to be more prepared to communicate with each other. Especially when they shared the
—

LD

SIG

2006

Anthology —59*Collaborative shadowing activities

same essay content with a few classmates, they seemed to be more comfortable sharing it orally
by using expressions from the essay or making new sentences on the spot, rather than simply
reading the passage aloud.

Collaborative shadowing activities provided scaffolding for learners to interact withclassmates smoothly. With small scaffoldings, learners seem to have gained confidence in
speaking in English. Students also seemed to be more relaxed and eager to speak with eachother in English, while they would usually remain rather inactive and look uncomfortable
when they were simply told to discuss certain topics given in English.
English-only environment

Shadowing itself allowed students to say words in English, and they seemed to be happy to beable to speak English in class. Several intriguing comments were found, which indicated thatstudents enjoyed speaking in English or simply saying English words out loud:•

It is more fun to read aloud than read silently.

I am glad that we have more opportunities to speak English.
I can feel more strongly that I am learning the language when I speak it.

Moreover, one student claimed that shadowing was fun because she could enjoy "the feeling of
responding in English." Another said that shadowing was useful because "itgives more timefor us
to be in touch with English by repeating ourpartner's passage."
It is clear that collaborative learning activities can promote simultaneous interactions,bringing about comprehensible input and providing chances to produce output. However,students in classrooms in Japan, where they share their first language, tend to switch to theirfirst language very easily. It is easier and also probably more natural, as Murphey's students
claimed (Murphey, 1995), because they have always done so both in and outside the classroom.
Sometimes, it may be more effective to use Japanese even in English classrooms according to
the situations and to the objectives of the activities. It is nevertheless important to provide anenvironment where students can use English as a communication tool.

In collaborative shadowing, students can easilymove into an "English-only environment"—
or if not, "nearly English-only environment" with a few Japanese words being used occasionally.
When students are given scaffolding structures where using English is the rule, they find it lessembarrassing and more natural to usethe language. Thus, they can easily enjoy "thefeeling of
responding in English" the feeling of using the language on their own.
Collaborative atmosphere

There are many kinds of collaborative learning activities (see Johnson 8c Johnson, 1998; Jacobs,
Power, 8c Loh, 2002, for example.) The collaborative shadowing activity presented in thispaper is a simple pair work and usually requires neither deep discussion on certain issues nor
decision-making processes. In that sense, this activity may not be very helpful in promoting
learners' metacognitive ability and sense of responsibility for learning. However, as suggested
earlier, collaboration is an important element in language learning, and socialization is the firststep in the process of collaboration.

To talk about oneselfand to know about others is an effective first step of collaboration.
When learners learnmore about each other, theycanwork together more effectively. Topics
dealt with in the activities can range from personal interests and hobbies to opinions, ideas,
and attitudes about socialand world issues. Collaborative shadowing techniques can be used toMoreAutonomy You

Aski —

6o

•

Shimo

build a foundation for a collaborative learning environment, because they give learners chances
to listen to others and learn more about one another.

Conclusion

We use language to express ourselves, find out new information and knowledge, try tounderstand others, and explore who we are. Second language learners can keep on learning
language when they study language for such purposes as communication with others and selfdiscovery and/or self-development through it.
Communication takes place in social activities, and collaborative activities are usefulin realizing social activities.Various kinds of collaborativelearning activities in language
classrooms should help to create a community where learners can have communication witheach other, and where they can also go through the stages towards learner autonomy, namely"socialization," "dawning cognition," "initiating choice,"and "expanding autonomy" (Murphey
8c Jacobs, 2000).

Collaborative shadowing activities may often remain as a simple activity for socialization,
but they can help to build a foundation for a collaborativelearning environment. While
providing such a foundation, they can also be used for various other purposes: to increaseinteractions between classmates, to realize meaningful communication, to provide an Englishspeaking environment, and to enhance learner confidence in oral communication competence.

Collaboration is important in language learning. So is communication. When learners work
together to realize mutual understandingby communicating with their partners, they think ofthem and show consideration to them. Communication, consideration, and collaboration: the3 C's, the Australian couple's keys for their warm relationship. We can start small in creating acooperative atmosphere by using collaborative shadowing techniques.
Notes

1 In this paper, I have not distinguishedthe concepts of learning and acquisition, as Krashen
did in the "acquisition-learning hypothesis." Krashen claimed that knowledgelearners
picked up naturally in beingexposed to language input is different from knowledge theygain in the process of conscious study. He called the former process acquisition and thelatter learning (e.g., Krashen, 1985).
2 Krashen explained in the "affective filter hypothesis" that some learnershave difficulty
learning language because they have negative affects suchas unclear motives and negative

emotions (e.g., nervousness, anxiousness, and anger) in or towards language learning (e.g.,
Krashen, 1985).

—

LD

SIG

2006 Anthology —6i • Collaborative shadowing activities
Critical Reader Response i

Mike Guest

Leave it to academics to conjure up a complex term to describe a simple phenomenon, but"ventriloquation" is a term that probably demands more notice from the EFL/ESL community.
After all, this "intramentalizing" process was precisely what I was doing on all those late nighttrain rides home when I first began trying to learn Japanese —internal dialogues summarizing
and reviewing the second-language encounters I had had during the day (input) and picking
out weak spots and points of error and confusion (noticing) so that tomorrow I could react or
respond more appropriately in the language (output).

While the process may be described by academics in esoteric terms, the daily necessity ofacquiring Japanese was real for me. Thankfully, Etsuko Shimo has done a very good job of
connecting the academic threads to the concrete concerns of language acquisition. Of course,
these days no one dares question the primacy of student-centered learning in EFL/ESL, norwould anyone deny the necessity of collaboration for any social or communicative purpose.
The value for the reader is rather found in Shimo's shifting the pedagogical from the cognitive
to the meta-cognitive, engaging the social and affective elements of learning and thus taking
the idea of collaboration a step beyond merely doing "pair activities."
To the uninitiated it may seem that an emphasis on collaboration would not be needed
in a so-called collectivist, group-oriented society like that of Japan. Yet, ironically,language
education is one area in which a dearth of interaction has been widelynoted and a type ofindividualistic distancing holds sway. In fact, interestingly (and paradoxically), Shimo argues
that collaboration actuallyenhances learner autonomy— that the two actually represent thesame sides of a pedagogical coin. Now that's the kind of thinking-outside-the-box that I like!
Shimo's primary example of collaboration, shadowing, can seem to represent a mechanicalprocess in which meaning is not central and a speaker's errors are fully parroted, but Shimo,
via Murphey,provides interesting options. Shadowing selectively, for example by having one
student summarize when using a shadow, or by havingthe "shadower"focus upon particular
aspects of meaning, avoids the likelihoodof mere parroting and engages the participants at a
deeper cognitive level, the kind that allows for deeper internalization.

One can get a little carried away with the virtues of collaborative education. Reading thischapter sometimes gives me the impression that collaboration can also cure cancer and solve

world poverty, but the practical focus Shimo places upon the classroom activityof shadowing
is something anylanguage teacher can readily utilize. We allwant to introduce English content
into our classes, but much of it has an artificial flavour where the students are in a constantstate of pretending. Shadowing provides a real, meaningful place for English input, production,and reflection in the classroom, leading to the same type of "intramentalization" that helped
me take a fewgiant step forwards in acquiring a second language.

Critical Reader Response 2

Denise HaughAchange in attitudeis what took place after reading this paperon Collaborative Shadowing
Activities. Thanks Etsuko!

Originally, I believed shadowing to be anotherlisten-and-repeat (L8cR) exercise that mightput students to sleep—what I call "mechanical response mode." This occurs when students

More Autonomy You

Aski —

62 » Shimo
repeat verbatim with limited cognitive, emotional, or physicalconnection because they are
uncertain as to the purpose of the activity or are not interested in doing it wholeheartedly. One
reason why this happens is that the L8cR exercises are not designed and used with the students'
best interests in mind based on their background, experiences, knowledge, and motivation. I
now have a better understanding as to the purpose and function of shadowing. It is not theteacher-centered L8cR activity I had assumed it to be, but rather a meaningful learning tool toinitiate the development of collaborative learning environments.
I enjoyed reading Etsuko's background discussion (in the first third of her chapter) of how
language is learned. The studies and conclusions of Krashen, Murphey, and Cummins, among
others, and her own work and reflections were organized in a clear and logical manner. Yet,
I would have appreciated reading in her introduction a little on what shadowing is so that
I might form my own opinions about how shadowing enhances collaboration socially andaffectively and furthers cognitive development to make them more responsible learners.
On the other hand, Etsuko's three subsequent sections on "How do We Use Language?,"Why do We Learn Language?," and "Why Collaboration?" created a comprehensible lead into
her following section, "What is a Collaborative Shadowing Activity?"These three sections laid
a foundation on which the benefits of shadowing could be easily understood and potential

problems readily spotted. For example, although I agree on the positive effects of collaborative
shadowing where students "receive comprehensible input, produce output, and learn fromeach other," I need to investigate for myself the effectiveness of collaborative shadowing in thefollowing two scenarios.
1. How might collaborative shadowing overcome poor student motivation? Students who
are non-English majors enrolled in a compulsory English oral communication class may
not be the ideal learners with whom to explore shadowing. As I indicated earlier, correct
motivation is essential for meaningful interaction. Could feelings of resistance and noninterest be over-ridden when pair members "depend on each other in positive ways" andeach member "takes on a certain role and responsibility?" Furthermore, could shadowing"hip hop" songs and simple up-beat lines from popular Hollywood movies be a possible
solution for satisfying the social and affective needs of such students?
2. How would primary or basic-level speakers or even higher-levelstudents of English practice
good communication skills with collaborative shadowing? When students write their own
compositions for reading shadowing, some kind of monitoring system needs to be in place
to ensure the writing and speaking of correct sentence patterns. I wanted to know more
about how students could learn from and avoid repeating other's mistakes as they practiced,

through the following three functions of output—the noticing/triggering function, thehypothesistesting function, and the metalinguistic function. I was also concerned about
the further ingraining of incorrect speaking habits (i.e., katakana pronunciation). Withso much concentrated effort on listening, I still feel that recorded words of native English
speakers, choral reading,or a "one-on-one" with the teacher, would be optimal choicesto
complement collaborative shadowing.

Regardless of these concerns, I do shareEtsuko's positive view of collaborative shadowingas
an effective learningtool for simple and engaged student interactionto foster an "English-only"classroom or a "nearlyEnglish-only" classroom. Used with awareness and enthusiasm, thisactivity could become"meaningful and useful as a social activity in language learning and as asmallstep towards a collaborative learning environment" and "learner autonomy."

LD

SIG

2006 Anthology —