This article presents a case study on Giving Games (GG), which are single-session experiential philanthropy lessons where students learn about, deliberate, and decide which of a set of pre-planned nonprofit organizations should receive smaller sums of sponsored money. Findings reveal that participants’ prioritized considerations for giving changed between pre-GG and post-GG surveys, and that their considerations changed to align with pre-planned learning outcomes. Reflection on open-ended responses from the survey led to an emergent observation: that some learning outcomes in experiential philanthropy are general to the experience of researching any set of nonprofit organizations, and that some learning outcomes are specific to the nonprofits included in the experience. This observation supports the notion that experiential philanthropy can flexibly teach learning outcomes specific to different academic fields, settings, and philosophies. I also discuss backwards learning design and student-centered learning theories considering these findings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhmedS., & OlberdingJ. (2007). Can student philanthropy help to address the current nonprofit identity crisis? A case study of a multiyear, multidisciplinary project at Northern Kentucky University. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 13(3–4), 593–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2007.12001500
BenensonJ., & MoldowE. (2017). Paying it forward: The role of student philanthropy course activities on civic outcomes. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 23(3), 885–902. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2017.12002294
4.
BorkoH. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033008003
5.
CampbellD. A. (2014). Practicing philanthropy in American higher education: Cultivating engaged citizens and nonprofit sector professionals. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 20(2), 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2014.12001783
6.
CaviolaL.FaulmüllerN.EverettJ. A. C.SavulescuJ., & KahaneG. (2014). The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives?Judgment and Decision Making, 9(4), 303–316.
CordingleyP. (2015). Developing great teaching: lessons from the international reviews into effective professional development. Teacher Development Trust. http://tdtrust.org/about/dgt
9.
FinkL. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. John Wiley & Son.
10.
FredricksonB. L.CohnM. A.CoffeyK. A.PekJ., & FinkelS. M. (2008). Open hearts build lives: Positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build consequential personal resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1045–1062. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013262
11.
GoreJ.LloydA.SmithM.BoweJ.EllisH., & LubansD. (2017). Effects of professional development on the quality of teaching: Results from a randomized controlled trial of Quality Teaching Rounds. Teaching and Teacher Education, 68(01), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.08.007
12.
HutchersonC. A.SeppalaE. M., & GrossJ. J. (2008). Loving-kindness meditation increases social connectedness. Emotion, 8(05), 720–724. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013237
KennedyM. M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching?American Educational Research Journal, 86(4), 3–36. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800
16.
LauerP. A.ChristopherD. E.Firpo-TriplettR., & BuchtingF. (2014). The impact of short-term professional development on participant outcomes: A review of the literature. Professional Development in Education, 40(2), 207–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2013.776619
LeibergS.KlimeckiO., & SingerT. (2011). Short-term compassion training increases prosocial behavior in a newly developed prosocial game. PLoS ONE, 6(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017798
19.
LiH.XuC., & McDougleL. M. (2019). Philanthropy can be learned: A qualitative study of student experiences in experiential philanthropy courses. Philanthropy & Education, 2(2), 29–52. https://doi.org/10.2979/phileduc.2.2.02
20.
LiH.McDougleL. M., & GuptaA. (2020). Experiential philanthropy in China. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 26(2), 205–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2019.1667185
McDougleL.McDonaldD.LiH.McIntyre MillerW., & XuC. (2017). Can philanthropy be taught?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(2), 330–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764016662355
24.
OlberdingJ. C. (2009). Indirect giving to nonprofit organizations: An emerging model of student philanthropy. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 15(4), 463–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/15236803.2009.12001572
25.
OlberdingJ. C. (2012). Does student philanthropy work? A study of long-term effects of the “learning by giving” approach. Innovative Higher Education, 37(2), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-011-9189-5
SingerP. (2016). Famine, affluence, and morality. Oxford University Press.
31.
SuttonN. (2019). Altruistic accounting: Teaching effective decision-making through charitable giving report. University of Technology Sydney Business School.
32.
WeimerM. (2002). Learner-Centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. John Wiley & Sons.
33.
WigginsG., & McTigheJ. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
34.
WigginsG. P., & McTigheJ. (2012). The understanding by design guide to advanced concepts in creating and reviewing units. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
35.
WrightG. B. (2011). Student-Centered learning in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(1), 92–97.
