Teach and learn · teaching draft 0.1
Start with an instructor-hosted lesson, adapt a seminar or develop a faculty-owned course through the university’s own process.
An existing class
An instructor in ethics, economics, public policy, nonprofit studies or another relevant field can judge whether the 50-minute case fits. Offer goals, readings, a worksheet and worked notes, then ask what guest-speaker or teaching approvals apply. This is our proposed starting route, not a documented shortcut to permission.
A new or changed course
A willing instructor and department can assess curricular fit, workload, assessment and the applicable approval route. As one local example, Mason CHSS describes department, college and university review. The process and any general-education designation remain institutional decisions.
A student-led reading group is another option: use the club guide and current campus guidance. A syllabus download, guest session or self-study completion record does not create course credit or a recognized chapter.
Sample syllabus · untested teaching draft
This proposed seminar pairs chapters in two meetings and leaves the existing ten-unit course intact. The suggested format is eight 90-minute meetings. A host sets the actual contact time, prerequisites, reading load, access arrangements and assessment; no credit value is assigned here.
Meeting 1
Reading: Chapter 1 · Chapter 2
Exercise. Map Riverbend through givers, signals, channels, work and outcomes. Mark unknown stages and a missing feedback link. Separate a proposed systems claim from a recorded fact.
Reviewable output. An annotated causal map and a testable hypothesis.
Meeting 2
Reading: Chapter 3
Exercise. Describe five fictional activities at different depths. Defend a boundary case and explain why several levels may be needed together. Treat the six-source framework as a hypothesis.
Reviewable output. Activity-level descriptions, an uncertainty note and a challenge to one proposed causal link.
Meeting 3
Reading: Chapter 4 · Chapter 5
Exercise. Use cards A and B. Explain what a fair comparison requires. Add a fictional alternative funder and trace how its response could change a gift’s effect. Explain why neglect alone does not establish a tractable opportunity.
Reviewable output. A claim table separating recorded values, assumptions and unknowns, plus a proposed design and its limits.
Meeting 4
Reading: Chapter 6
Exercise. Consider workshops, immediate help and accessible information. Represent two moral lenses fairly. Identify an empirical question and a value disagreement; no single score is required.
Reviewable output. Two defensible recommendations with assumptions and an unresolved disagreement.
Meeting 5
Reading: Chapter 7
Exercise. Draw when a fictional benefit begins and might stop. Separate uncertainty about occurrence from the moral weight assigned to later benefits. Label any discount rate as an assumption and compare alternatives.
Reviewable output. A timeline, an explicit timing assumption and a sensitivity note; no universal rate.
Meeting 6
Reading: Chapter 8
Exercise. Design who can disagree, who responds, what can change and how a response returns. Compare consultation with shared authority. Use no real personal data.
Reviewable output. A decision-rights diagram and an accessible feedback plan.
Meeting 7
Reading: Chapter 9
Exercise. Write a measure, comparison, review date and revision rule before opening an invented results card. Report an inconclusive result or possible harm. Explain why one forecast score cannot establish calibration.
Reviewable output. A prereview rule and a short report retaining uncertainty and an unfavorable result.
Meeting 8
Reading: Chapter 10
Exercise. Present a fictional decision brief using the checklist. A peer identifies the weakest link, an alternative explanation and a missing voice. Revise and record what changed.
Reviewable output. A capstone, peer questions and a revision note; no donation or public publication.
Ask for a short fictional decision brief: a choice and alternative, causal map, costs and missing costs, observations versus assumptions, two moral perspectives, a feedback plan and a revision after peer challenge. Accept an equivalent diagrammatic or spoken response.
The proposed feedback rubric can be used without points, or with 0–3 per criterion, up to 15. It is not a credential or a validated measure of professional competence. Do not reward a chosen cause, a higher depth number, agreement with the facilitator, donating or personal disclosure.
| Criterion | 0 · Missing | 1 · Emerging | 2 · Clear | 3 · Well supported |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Causal clarity | 0: No usable chain. | 1: Some stages, but output and outcome are confused. | 2: Distinguishes stages, output and outcome. | 3: Also identifies a weak link and a plausible alternative explanation. |
| Quantitative care | 0: No interpretable calculation. | 1: A calculation or its units are unclear. | 2: Arithmetic, units and denominators are correct. | 3: Also distinguishes cash and full costs, proxy limits and a zero denominator. |
| Evidence and counterfactuals | 0: Treats a result as proof. | 1: Notices uncertainty but leaves the comparison implicit. | 2: Separates observations, assumptions and unknowns. | 3: Also explains a credible comparison and its remaining limits. |
| Moral reasoning and voice | 0: Gives a verdict without reasons. | 1: Names a lens or stakeholder without explaining it. | 2: Fairly represents two lenses and a missing voice. | 3: Also identifies unresolved disagreement and explicit decision authority. |
| Learning and revision | 0: No follow-up. | 1: A vague intention to learn. | 2: Defines a review and revision step. | 3: Also retains unfavorable or inconclusive results and documents a response to criticism. |
Learn from existing practice
These official-source examples offer different models. Charitology is not a partner or a substitute for their programs. Our teaching pack uses fictional decisions and supplies no grant budget.
University-based experiential philanthropy
Its published model places student grant decisions inside university courses and connects participating instructors.
Charitology is not a partner and cannot promise the program’s funding, course status or access.
College and university student grantmaking
Its contact page describes funding that students direct to nonprofits in their own communities.
New partnerships and current grant availability are unconfirmed; no request should ask students to consider Charitology for funding.
Higher-education community engagement and faculty development
Provides resources for engaged faculty and staff on civic/community teaching, partnerships and assessment.
Not an approval body for Charitology classes, and not represented here as a philanthropy grantmaking program.
Official-source examples
These source notes describe particular institutions or programs. Their rules do not grant permission elsewhere, and none is presented as a Charitology partner.
A Mason CHSS example separates department, college and university review for new or changed courses.
An internal curriculum submission is not an outreach route. Other institutions set their own requirements.
CECiL describes support for faculty developing community-based courses and working with community partners.
Support and course designations do not approve an external teaching proposal or provide automatic access to classes.
The Philanthropy Lab describes university courses with experiential grantmaking and instructor resources.
Its institution-led model does not supply Charitology with course credit, grants or a partnership.
Learning by Giving describes undergraduate student grantmaking with independent student choices.
It refuses personal grant requests and requests to steer awards to a nonprofit. Current campus intake and funding are unconfirmed.
Campus Compact offers resources for faculty and staff working on community-engaged teaching and assessment.
It does not approve academic credit for another institution. Individual linked resources were not all reviewed.