In-service Learning

In Nepal, we often speak about producing capable, responsible young people who can contribute to society. We talk about leadership, innovation, and nation-building. But when we look closely at our classrooms, we see students still memorising chapters they will forget a week after the exam. The education system remains locked in theory. The country around those classrooms is full of real problems, real gaps, and real learning opportunities. This is where service learning becomes important.

Service learning is often misunderstood as simple volunteering, but the two are very different. It is commonly defined as an approach that integrates meaningful community work with academic instruction and guided reflection, allowing students to apply what they learn while contributing to a real need. In practice, this means students connect theory with lived experience, observe how concepts function in the real world, and develop a stronger sense of purpose. 

Research shows that this kind of coursework strengthens empathy, communication, and teamwork. It teaches students how to enter communities respectfully, analyse problems, and think beyond memorised content. It makes education feel rooted in daily life rather than detached from it, which is especially meaningful in Nepal, where social issues are visible in every ward and municipality.

The way Nepal currently approaches “community service” is too shallow to have any real impact. Schools often organise one-day clean-ups or charity drives. Colleges ask students to complete a short report after a brief placement. These activities are not harmful, but they are not meaningful forms of learning. They do not challenge students to think critically or to link their studies with community needs. Most of these activities are done out of obligation, and the learning ends as soon as the event is over.

If we take service learning seriously, the picture looks very different. A science class could spend a semester studying local water quality and presenting their findings to the community. Psychology students could assist counselors and write reflective journals on emotional well-being in schools. Management students could support small businesses with real tasks like bookkeeping or social media planning. Education students could design simple learning materials and test them in rural classrooms. These kinds of projects do not require heavy funding. They require planning, partnership, and the willingness to connect curriculum with community.

Nepal is actually better positioned for service learning than we assume. Most schools and colleges already maintain informal relationships with local wards, health posts, youth clubs, and organisations that run small community projects. These groups are always looking for extra hands, and students are always looking for practical exposure. The gap is not a lack of opportunity. It is the absence of structure. If educational institutions set clear objectives, create partnerships that last beyond a single event, and assign faculty members to supervise field activities, service learning can be implemented without large budgets or major reforms. 

The larger question is what kind of citizens we want to shape. Nepal needs graduates who understand the realities of their own country. Students should be able to recognise how social issues appear in daily life, not only in exam questions. They should learn to listen, to communicate, and to participate. Service learning is one of the simplest ways to nurture these qualities.

If Nepal wants an education system that truly prepares young people for the future, service learning must be given real space inside our coursework. A classroom alone cannot teach students how their society works. The community around them is an equally important teacher, and our curriculum needs to acknowledge that.