Building Partnerships for Service-Learning (review)

The reciprocal and synergistic relationship of campus and community is the framework for Jacoby's text on service-learning. As she posits in the preface, community-based learning efforts at colleges and universities have gained substantial energy from the movement of "undergraduate education toward active learning and the call for civic renewal of higher education" (p. xvii) via the engaged campus. Juxtaposed are two complementary forces. On the one hand is the reconceptualization of traditional teaching and learning methods by integrating innovative pedagogical strategies (e.g., problem-based learning, interdisciplinary thematic learning communities, and reflection in action service-learning experiences). On the other hand are increased accountability pressures from public and politicians alike for campuses to develop civic-minded graduates with the skills, knowledge, and abilities to create positive social change. Jacoby's preposition is that, at the center of this powerful intersection, is the opportunity to develop symbiotic interactions between academe and neighborhoods—in other words, truly democratic partnerships.

Each of the 15 chapters echoes the premise that building partnerships is a sound educational practice and, indeed, societal need. In the first chapter, Jacoby traces the evolution of service-learning over the last decade. Obvious is the shift made by colleges and universities from emphasizing merely service to emphasizing learning. The idea of the "engaged campus" has progressed from potentially patronizing notions of "serving" the community to a new vision of communities as sites of knowledge, discovery, and mutual benefits. Jacoby asserts that service-learning is a pedagogy, as well as a program and philosophy. As such, if "democratic" learning is to occur, student experiences must be grounded in intentional reflection that examine the nature of collaboration between classroom and community. The chapter ends by outlining three frameworks as possible guidelines for developing and sustaining effective partnerships.

In chapter 2, Enos and Morton distinguish between transactional and transformational relationships. The authors ask two simple but provocative questions: Is the institution a good neighbor? And does the community perceive the college or university as a part of, or apart from, the community identity?

They define transactional relationships as "instrumental, designed to complete a task with no greater plan or promise" (p. 24). In contrast, transformational relationships are deep commitments with openness to emerging developments. Enos and Morton argue that the result of such organizational relationships is the transformational learning of students. For instance, rather than seeing homelessness as a result of poverty, students may come to view the issue as a problem of wealth.

Creating transformational relationships is no easy task. Concepts of expertise, neutrality, accountability, power, and assessment must be addressed. Gelmon asserts (chap. 3) that collective definitions of impact are critical to determining goal achievement. In offering a community-level assessment matrix, she highlights the multiconstituency approach of including "multiple voices in assessing impact on a particular population" (p. 50). Thus in identifying evidence of effect, one is simultaneously gathering evidence of community assets.

Chapters 4 through 7 examine inter- and intra-campus collaborations as frameworks for connecting with the community: Engstrom discusses student affairs and academic affairs partnerships; Fisher and Huff Wilson look at the role of students; Pigza and Troppe identify institutional infrastructures necessary for supporting community engagement, and Birge, Beaird, and Torres note the exponential capacity for developing extended knowledge communities when institutions form collaborations. Each chapter presents sensible principles and illustrative examples to guide the reader.

Jones, in chapter 8, challenges us to move from rhetoric to reality in putting our ideologies to work in sustaining authentic partnerships. Refreshingly, the partnership profiles describe and illuminate reciprocity from the community perspective, instead of from the institutional point of view. For example, an act as straightforward and yet profound as sponsoring a "learning circle" dialogue for community members, faculty, and students opens new avenues for understanding and connectedness.

Reciprocal partnerships are explored in more depth in...