Conceptual Distinctions, Design Logics, and Practical Comparisons between University Social Responsibility Courses and Social Practice Courses in Taiwanese Higher Education

ABSTRACT: This article examines the conceptual positioning, design logics, and practical differences between “University Social Responsibility (USR) courses” and “social practice courses” in Taiwanese higher education. In recent years, USR has increasingly been incorporated into higher education governance, curriculum development, and talent cultivation. In practice, however, USR courses and social practice courses are often used interchangeably, obscuring their differences in curricular nature and educational purpose. This article argues that USR courses primarily concern how the university, as an institutional actor, responds through curriculum to local needs, public issues, and policy tasks. They therefore tend to exhibit stronger institutional, policy-oriented, and task-driven characteristics. By contrast, social practice courses emphasize how students develop social understanding, ethical judgment, and the capacity for public action through observation, participation, action, and reflection in real-world settings. They are thus more educational, process-oriented, and reflective in nature. The article further suggests that USR courses can provide the institutional resources and field-based foundations required for social practice courses, while social practice courses can bring educational depth and learning transformation to USR. Only by clearly distinguishing the two conceptually, enabling mutual support in curriculum design, and avoiding instrumentalization in practice can social engagement courses in Taiwanese higher education move beyond outcome-oriented task implementation toward socially meaningful and educationally substantive social practice.

KEYWORDS: Community Engagement, Curriculum Design, Learning Transformation, University Social Responsibility, Social Practice.