by Patrick G. Love and Anne Goodsell Love
The title of this book indicates quite clearly what it is about, and what it calls for: a greater integration of the intellectual, social and emotional dimensions of student learning and student experience in higher education. The authors are current or former student personnel professionals; among other points made here are that student personnel staff at colleges and universities need to pay more attention to the students' intellectual needs and the faculty need to be more thoughtful about their emotional and social development. It is a sort of "Two Cultures" diagnosis, arguing for building bridges between those cultures in the interests of students.
The report suggests that doing as the authors suggest can lead to increased educational impact on students; increased student retention; greater social harmony; and decreased social deviations (i.e. drinking, crime). These are worthy goals and there is not much doubt that increased integration, or holism, in student development could produce progress toward meeting them.
Moreover, much of the advice provided here echoes the recent discussion of the importance of the co-curriculum; Alexander Astin's finding that the most important determinants of student change in college have nothing to do with what is being taught and much to do with the nature, extent, and quality of interactions between students and faculty and between students and peers; and the Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education (1987).
And yet . . . and yet there is something troublingly unsatisfying about this book. Perhaps it is the jargon, illustrated by a passage like this:
We have chosen to use the term holistic student learning to reflect both an emphasis on the intellectual dimension of students' educational experience and a conscious recognition that learning takes place in the context of social processes and emotional influences. It also recognizes the concurrent nature of development in the cognitive, social, and affective realms of students' lives.
Perhaps it is the feeling that, though there are one hundred and one pages here not counting a very full bibliography, the authors linger too long on a level of generality which is unlikely to persuade (if anybody really needs persuading--does anybody really disagree with a proposition like the one just quoted?) and give far too few specifics. Of course, it is with the specifics that disagreement is going to arise. Faculty members who readily grant that social and emotional development are important parts of the whole educational process may become more skittish if told to think of themselves as part of a partnership with the counseling staff and residence advisors. Again, most faculty will concur with the suggestion that they "Reflect on your relationship with students and the role social and emotional elements play in your teaching." One implication that follows--faculty should eat in the campus cafeteria--will be less popular.
In general, though, this book is short on specifics. This is a shame. I wanted to learn much more about ways to operationalize the theories underlying the book.
Perhaps the most promising route to the kind of integration the authors are calling for is the learning communities movement, of which they provide a short discussion. Their discussion is unusual in being more focused on the role of student personnel staff in learning communities; the bibliography points to well-known and fuller treatments of this important topic.
Overall, Enhancing Student Learning is a worthy, well-intentioned treatment of a topic any educator ought to recognize as important. And yet . . . it is impossible not to wish the authors had done more justice to their subject.
Merritt Moseley
University of North Carolina at Asheville