Download PDFChallenges
Though I have described some of the ways that SL can enhance FYC courses, there are numerous challenges that instructors should be aware of and ready to face. First and foremost are the “ethical complexities” (Hammersley, 2012, p. 179) of SL, namely its potential for reinforcing harmful power dynamics, including a perceived division between haves and have-nots (Asghar & Rowe, 2017; Salter & Halbert, 2019; Santiago-Ortiz, 2019). Without persistent critical reflection by both students and instructors, SL can quickly devolve into a hierarchical activity resembling little more than charity. This is especially true of SL in a university classroom, as “the mere option of being able to take part in service-learning in a university context already creates a hierarchical relationship that places knowledge, power, and choice of service site with those who possess university resources” (Santiago-Ortiz, 2019, p. 45). And even the word “service” itself is laden with assumptions about the division of power (Hammersley, 2012). Those engaged in SL must therefore be willing to question their own agenda so that their work remains non-exploitative (Asghar & Rowe, 2017; Salter & Halbert, 2019; Santiago-Ortiz, 2019). Who/what am I doing this for? Is everyone benefiting? Am I respecting the agency of the community partner or undermining it? As Erin Brock Carlson (2023) urges, adopting an “embodied philosophy” (p. 177) of comradeship—i.e., a commitment to valuing all voices/perspectives/needs—is the deciding factor as to whether nonprofit work benefits all parties rather than just those with institutional leverage.
One possibility for encouraging critical reflection among students is incorporating it into one’s course design (Asghar & Rowe, 2017; Everhart, 2016; Jacoby, 2015). Outside of my students’ core assignments, they also maintained reflection journals that they added to biweekly. These journals were graded based on volume and completion to encourage honest responses, and each entry was preceded by a prompt consisting of one to two open-ended questions. (I do not recommend posing more than that, otherwise students may feel like their reflections are too instructor-driven.) For example, one question I asked my students was: “How have your prior views about writing education been challenged, if at all, by your service-learning experience?” While the measurable value of reflection in SL is a matter of debate (Chong, 2014), I have found that this practice creates a cognitive space wherein students can tie their personal experiences to their learning, exercise their critical voices, and continue polishing their writing skills. For any instructors who may consider assigning reflection journals for their SL students, a helpful collection of sample questions can be found in chapter two of Barbara Jacoby’s (2015) Service-Learning Essentials: Questions, Answers, and Lessons Learned.
Ethical concerns over SL apply to the volume of labor, as well. The life of a college student is busy enough as is, and loss of time for other schoolwork can negate the benefits of service (Chong, 2014). While I care deeply about the work in my FYC course, I respect that my students have numerous academic commitments and factor this into how much they are asked to do. While any teacher worthy of the title shares this concern, I argue that it is felt most acutely in FYC courses, which are largely populated with first-year students who are still adjusting to college life while managing heavier workloads than they have had before. Put simply, while SL allows students to exercise autonomy in their education, if they are saddled with too much work, the negatives of their SL experience can very quickly outweigh any positives.
The question of labor does not apply only to the students, though. While involving community partners in the actual work of an SL project is key for reciprocity and respect (Shumake & Shah, 2017), instructors should remember that these partners have their own workloads. ER, for example, is a program run mostly by teachers, all of whom have their own students to teach, lesson plans to create, and assignments to grade. My students provided updates to ER and received crucial feedback on their work, but we mostly operated independently. Overburdening community partners can undo much of the goodwill in SL (Shumake & Shah, 2017), so instructors should carefully discuss expectations and responsibilities with community partners to ensure “openly negotiated, reciprocal, mutually beneficial relations” (Cushman, 1999, p. 332) between all involved. Students should be included in these negotiations, providing yet another opportunity to directly shape the project they are engaged in.
Finally, whether an instructor pursues SL pedagogy depends partly on the institution in which they work. I am fortunate that Clemson University has the infrastructure in place to support such endeavors. This includes Adobe Creative Cloud accounts created for all students, which make multimodal SL projects that much more feasible by removing potential resource barriers. (However, even at schools that offer ample creative/learning resources, it bears repeating that instructors should be wary of potential gaps in general digital literacy across different demographics.) Additionally, as a past recipient of the Pearce Center Service-Learning Fellowship and current member of the university’s Client-Based Program, I have often benefited from a healthy support system of like-minded colleagues. I do not presume that all universities similarly value service-learning, and further research must be done as to how this dynamic impacts not only instructor efforts but student preconceptions about SL education.
However, institutional support goes beyond funding and resources, as “[university] environments that offer and appreciate the nuances [my emphasis] of engaging in service-learning activities are better equipped to match the individual readiness” (Caspersz & Olaru, 2017, p. 696). Specifically, it is important to support SL without imposing rigid institutional designs. Public engagement that depends solely on institutionally formed initiatives increases the chances that “adolescents will be tamed and disciplined rather than empowered and skilled” (Amnå, 2012, p. 612). In short, supporting instructors and students also means allowing them to work without being subjected to strict institutional oversight. Only then will it be possible for students’ transformations to be earned rather than dictated to them from above.