In (First Person)2, Day and Eodice offer one of the few book-length studies of co-authoring in academic fields since Lunsford and Ede published theirs over a decade ago. The central research here involves in-depth interviews with ten successful academic collaborators from a range of disciplines and settings. The interviews explore the narratives of these informants' experience—what brought them to collaborate, what cognitive and logistical processes were involved as they worked together, what is the status of collaborated work in their field, and so on—and situate these informants within the broader discussion of collaboration theory and research as it has been articulated over the last ten years.

As the study develops, Day and Eodice become most interested in the affective domain of co-authorship, and they find the most promising explorations of that domain in the work of feminist theorists in composition. Against a background of feminist theory, the reflections of these informants and authors not only provide a window into the processes of current scholarship in writing, but also come to stand as a critique of traditional practice in English departments. Throughout the book, the two co-authors interrupt themselves with reflections of their own, on the rejection long ago of their proposal to co-author a dissertation, on their presuppositions about their research, on their developing commitment to the framework of feminist theory to account for their findings, and on their own processes and challenges in writing this book. The result is a well-centered volume that is disciplined and restrained in its presentation of research, but which is layered and multivocal in presentation, and which ends with some provocative conclusions.

As budgets tighten for school districts, a sound understanding of just how teaching and administration translate into student learning becomes increasingly important. Rebecca Barr, a researcher of classroom instruction and reading skill development, and Robert Dreeben, a sociologist of education who analyzes the structure of organizations, combine their expertise to explore the social organization of schools and classrooms, the division of labor, and the allocation of key resources.

Viewing schools as part of a social organization with a hierarchy of levels—district, school, classroom, instructional group, and students—avoids the common pitfalls of lumping together any and all possible influences on student learning without regard to the actual processes of the classroom. Barr and Dreeben systematically explain how instructional groups originate, form, and change over time. Focusing on first grade reading instruction, their study shows that individual reading aptitude actually has little direct relation to group reading achievement and virtually none to the coverage of reading materials once the mean aptitude of groups is taken into consideration. Individual aptitude, they argue, is rather the basis on which teachers form reading groups that are given different instructional treatment. It is these differences in group treatment, they contend, that explain substantial differences in learning curricular material.

Peer response in which students work together to provide feedback on one another's writing in both written and oral formats through active engagement with each other's progress over multiple drafts, has been discussed in L2 writing literature since the early 1980s. While peer response activities have now become a common feature of L2 writing instruction, much of the research in peer response studies presents conflicting data. There is a need for a comprehensive survey of it in an effort to help teachers sort out what may or may not be useful to them in the classroom. Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classrooms was written to fill that void.

Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classrooms will provide teachers with practical guidelines for making peer response effective in the classroom and will offer a theoretical grounding on the purposes and importance of peer review, or feedback, as it relates to current writing instruction pedagogy.

Expressing ourselves well in written communication is important to many areas of our lives, and essential in the working world. Many courses that seek to prepare students for professional writing, however, overlook the fact that most real-world writing is produced by and for people working within groups. Teaching Writing That Works offers composition instructors an alternative to the conventional composition course in which one individual (a student) writes in isolation for another isolated individual (the teacher). The result of Rabkin and Smith's innovative, non-hierarchical approach to composition learning is Practical English, a course developed at the University of Michigan. In this successful and popular course, the choice and execution of writing tasks are the responsibility of students working together in groups rather than working alone as individuals. The crucial rhetorical issues of audience and purpose are focused by having students use their writing to do real work, both within the classroom and beyond it. The writing that evolves from this collaboration is then edited and evaluated by the group. In this emphasis on students' authority over and responsibility for the learning process, Teaching Writing That Works reflects current pedagogical concerns and philosophy. The busy teacher looking for fresh approaches for the composition classroom but with no time to develop a whole new course from the bottom up will appreciate the book's full descriptions of the Michigan course. The authors provide an outline of the curriculum and thorough explanations of teaching techniques for the course, as well as a detailed discussion of the workshop practicum and its application. Much of the practical advice and theoretical discussion can be imported into existing courses as self-contained units. Selections from students' comments on the course enhance the text and offer glimpses into the reasons for the course's popularity among students—and teachers.