by David Williams | Xchanges 19.2, Fall 2025
Download PDFJustification
One possible reason SL is not featured more in scholarship about FYC pedagogy is that “service-learning” itself is not easily defined. Covering the term’s history and myriad interpretations is beyond the scope of this writing, and I acknowledge that this lack of a “unifying framework” (Chong, 2014, p. 349) complicates matters like designing curricula and measuring course success. This can be particularly daunting for GTAs, who face the challenge of balancing their teaching duties with their own coursework and research. Rather than seek a conclusive definition or protocol for service-learning, I echo Cho See Chong’s (2014) position that instructors should approach this form of education from “a philosophical stance” (p. 354), less as a set of rules and more as teaching grounded in ethical and moral concerns.
One description of service-learning I have found useful in this regard is that it is “a pedagogic approach that specifically encourages students as socially responsible and active citizens [my emphasis] to work in and with members of the community” (Asghar & Rowe, 2017, p. 118). This may not seem dissimilar from what FYC instructors are already trying to do. Many of us use community engagement as a framework for teaching composition. Before venturing into the world of SL, my students regularly wrote argumentative essays to tackle controversies ranging from gun violence to gender inequality in college sports. While such work remains vital, what sets service-learning apart is that working with an actual community partner can significantly bolster students’ ability to develop empathy (Everhart, 2016), a worthwhile endeavor given that empathy among American college students has been steadily waning for decades now (Konrath et al., 2011). And if we are to encourage empathy in our students so that they may serve their communities, we must (re)consider what sort of community we promote in the classroom and the university as a whole.