# Student worksheet: what changed?

Version 0.1 · review: draft · untested editorial teaching proposal

These original, AI-assisted materials are for educator review and adaptation. The activities, timings and rubric have not been tested with learners. They supply no accreditation, academic credit, recognition or evidence of teaching effectiveness. Correct classroom arithmetic is not measured charitable impact.

Use paper and fictional examples. No donation, payment, account, public post or personal story is required. Do not ask learners to disclose finances, giving history, beliefs or experiences of receiving help. This pack does not rank named charities or judge people’s motives. It does not change the existing ten-unit course, stored progress or completion criteria.

## Fictional case: The Riverbend journey-planning project

All details are fictional. Riverbend is an invented town. A community project wants adults who choose to attend to find usable journey information. Its workshops aim to help people plan future journeys. It has not measured whether people reach appointments, find work or experience better wellbeing.

| Recorded item | Fictional record |
| --- | --- |
| Recorded cash spent | $600, including space, printed materials and facilitation |
| Workshops held | 6 |
| People at each workshop | 5 |
| Unique attendees | 30; each attended exactly one workshop |
| People completing both checks | The same 30 attendees |
| Passed the check before the workshop | 12 of 30 |
| Passed the check one week afterward | 21 of 30 |

### Limits of the fictional record

- Unpaid preparation time was not recorded. The $600 is recorded cash spending, not the full economic cost.
- There is no comparison group. A before/after change does not establish how much the workshops caused.
- The check uses a printed fictional timetable. Its accuracy as a measure of practical journey-planning ability has not been established.
- No actual journeys, employment or wellbeing outcomes were measured. Classroom numeracy is not measured charitable impact.
- Invitations were available only in small print. Organizers do not know who wanted to attend but could not access the invitation or session. The figures describe the participating group, not everyone in Riverbend.
- No personal journeys or private difficulties are needed for the exercise. A particular gift’s effect is not identified; other funders and other actors’ responses have not been modeled.

### Card A: an assumption, not evidence

Suppose 18 of these same 30 people would have passed the later check without the workshops, perhaps through other practice or information. This is an imagined alternative, not an observed comparison group. Calculate what follows only if the assumption were true.

### Card B: an assumption, not evidence

Suppose 21 of these same 30 people would have passed the later check without the workshops. This is another imagined alternative, not an observed comparison group. The case gives no basis for choosing A or B as correct.

Neither card establishes what a donor’s gift caused. Do not choose an assumption because its answer looks useful.

## Working definitions

- **Input:** A resource used, such as cash or staff time.
- **Activity:** Something the project does, such as running a workshop.
- **Output:** A count of delivered work, such as workshops held or people attending.
- **Outcome:** A change in a specified condition or ability. A check result is closer to the activity than an outcome such as being able to make a real journey.
- **Counterfactual:** What would have happened to the same people, over the same period, without the program or decision being considered. It is not directly observed for those people.
- **Impact claim:** A claim about the difference made compared with that counterfactual. An observed outcome alone does not establish it.
- **Proxy:** A measured stand-in for something we care about. Passing a timetable check is not the same as successfully making a journey.
- **Percentage point:** The difference between two percentages: 70% minus 40% is 30 percentage points.
- **Moral lens:** A way of asking what matters and why. The project uses editorial sketches of welfare, rights, justice, care, faith and tradition, future generations, all life and flourishing. These are prompts, not complete accounts of every tradition.
- **Depth:** A description of where an activity aims to act: relief, repair, prevention, structure or source. It is not a grade. A larger number does not mean better or more effective; every level may be needed.
- **Six-source hypothesis:** Story, coordination, vision, attention, status and gatekeepers are proposed sources adopted from Humanity’s Checklist. Their explanatory and practical reach remains a hypothesis, not an established causal map.

## Student worksheet

Work alone or with a partner. Write, draw or explain answers aloud. You do not need to put your name on the sheet. You may keep it; no account, public submission or personal example is required.

### W1. Draw the chain

Use the Riverbend case to complete givers → signals → channels → work → outcomes. Write “unknown” where the case does not tell you something.

1. Label $600 recorded cash spending as input, output, measured outcome or not measured.
2. Label six workshops and 30 unique attendees.
3. Label 21 attendees passing the later check.
4. Label attendees making more successful real journeys.

Answer: ______________________________________________________________

### W2. Count the cash costs

Calculate the recorded cash costs. Keep the units visible.

1. $600 ÷ 6 workshops = ______ per workshop.
2. $600 ÷ 30 unique attendees = ______ per attendee.
3. Does either calculation include the unrecorded unpaid preparation time?

Answer: ______________________________________________________________

### W3. Describe the observed change

Use the same 30 people for the before and later denominators.

1. 12 ÷ 30 = ______% before; 21 ÷ 30 = ______% later.
2. 21 − 12 = ______ more people passing.
3. The pass rate changed by ______ percentage points.
4. Does this before/after change by itself show how much the workshops caused? Explain.

Answer: ______________________________________________________________

### W4. Make the assumptions visible

Treat both counterfactual cards as assumptions, not additional observations.

1. Card A assumes 18 later passes without workshops. Calculate 21 − 18 and $600 divided by that conditional additional number.
2. Card B assumes 21 later passes without workshops. Calculate 21 − 21. Can a cost-per-additional-pass ratio be calculated with this denominator?
3. Name one design or evidence need that could support a more credible comparison and one limitation it would still have.

Answer: ______________________________________________________________

### W5. Repair a headline

An invented report says: “Nine people benefited because of our workshops, proving that the project worked.” Rewrite it in two sentences. Keep the observed result and say what the records do not establish.

Answer: ______________________________________________________________

### W6. Describe the work and a disagreement

The workshops aim to prevent future missed journeys. Describe the intended mechanism and compare two assigned perspectives. You need not disclose your own beliefs.

1. Which depth description might fit that aim? Explain why it is not proof or a moral grade.
2. Write a welfare question about additional practical benefit.
3. Write a rights/justice question about access and decision authority.
4. Propose one next step, explaining its evidence, values and limits. More than one recommendation can be well reasoned.

Answer: ______________________________________________________________

### W7. Close part of a feedback loop

Design a fictional route to disagree and a decision that could change. No private story is needed.

1. How could a participant disagree in an accessible way?
2. Which role would read and respond?
3. What decision could change?
4. How would participants learn what changed or why no change was made?
5. Write one rule for pausing or revising the next workshop before seeing its results.

Answer: ______________________________________________________________

### W8. Exit prompt

Write one output, one measured outcome and one sentence beginning “We still cannot conclude…”. Add the next piece of evidence or feedback you would seek.

Answer: ______________________________________________________________

## Attribution and reuse

Credit: [Charitology (charitology.org)](https://charitology.org/). Original editorial content and authored data are [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). You may share and adapt them with attribution and a note of changes. Cited sources retain their own rights.

Teaching hub: https://charitology.org/learn/
Existing ten-unit course: https://charitology.org/programs/principles-course/
Textbook: https://charitology.org/record/principles/

The chapter links are reading routes. This pack does not claim an independent review of every chapter’s external citations. Educators should read the selected chapter and check cited originals before teaching its empirical examples.