E-learning as Strategy for Philanthropic Organization Focused on Educational Purposes in Thailand

Authors

  • Gilles Bernard

Keywords:

Donors, eLearning, Isaan, Philanthropy, Thailand

Abstract

The objectives of this study were:  (1) To elaborate an eLearning framework integrated into donor’s activities which can fit with philanthropic organization strategies (2) To assess the eLearning framework upon feedback and suggestions provided by donors, recipients, philanthropic organizations, and philanthropic experts (3) To assess opinions of donors and philanthropic organizations running in Thailand toward the framework.

The population for the study consisted of 3 schools in the North East of Thailand, a region called Isaan. The schools were located in the villages of Kudbong, Nadee, and Serm. The sample units included 279 students aged from 13 to 18 years old, 116 donors mainly in Europe and USA who are supporting pupils mainly in Asia, 24 philanthropic organizations which are operating in Thailand, and 10 experts in philanthropy located in Europe.

The data collection instruments were: paper-based questionnaires in Thai language for Thai students and web-based questionnaires in English for donors, philanthropic organizations and experts. The data were analyzed using the statistical analysis package called PSPP and its built-in features to identify cross tabulations, statistics, and reliability test (Alpha Cronbach).

The findings were as follows: (1) On the development of an eLearning as a strategy for philanthropic organization focused on educational purposes in Thailand, it was found that the model fits with on-going trends such as student needs, donor’s mindset and shift from money to time, and philanthropic organizations objectives. The outcomes were specific key components were identified to build an effective and comprehensive eLearning framework as follow (a) social network (b) code of conduct (c) educational goals and motives (d) culture (e) modus operandi (f) eLearning technologies (g) composite capability score computed with Internet and Giving capabilities (2) Based on quantitative data and qualitative feedback, as well as opinions and suggestions from students, donors, organizations, and experts, the model was fine-tuned and updated accordingly (3) On the measuring of opinion of experts and philanthropic organizations in Thailand toward the model the findings were conclusive concerning the benefits of eLearning as a strategy for philanthropic organization focused on educational purposes.

 

 

References

Adams, J., & Defleur, M. H. (2006). The Acceptability of Online Degrees Earned as a Credential for Obtaining Employment. Communication Education, 55(1), 32-45. doi:10.1080/03634520500343376

Apinunmahakul, A., & Devlin, R. A. (2008). Social networks and private philanthropy. Journal of Public Economics, 92(1–2), 309-328. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.07.005

Ball, S. J. (2008). New Philanthropy, New Networks and New Governance in Education. Political Studies, 56(4), 747-765. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00722.x

Boyce, B. A. (2013). Philanthropic Funding in Higher Education: Carrot and/or Stick. Quest, 65(3), 255-265. doi:10.1080/00336297.2013.791873

Clougherty Jr, R. J., & Popova, V. (2013). Crowdsourcing to Assess MOOCs: A Position Paper. In MOOCs FORUM (Vol. 1, p. 10–13). Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 140 Huguenot Street, 3rd Floor New Rochelle, NY 10801 USA. Consulté à l’adresse http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/mooc.2013.0004

Garrett, N., Allala, Y., Garrett, N., & Allala, Y. (2013). MOOCs: Why Low-Cost Will Not Create Equal Access (Vol. 2013, p. 86-94). Présenté à World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education. Consulté à l’adresse http://www.editlib.org/p/114805/

Harbaugh, W. T. (1998). The Prestige Motive for Making Charitable Transfers. The American Economic Review, 88(2), 277-282.

Johnstone, D. B. (2004). The economics and politics of cost sharing in higher education: comparative perspectives. Economics of Education Review, 23(4), 403-410. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2003.09.004

Johnstone, P. D. B. (2006). Cost-sharing and the Cost-effectiveness of Grants and Loan Subsidies to Higher Education. In P. P. N. TEIXEIRA, P. D. B. JOHNSTONE, P. M. J. ROSA, & P. H. VOSSENSTEYN (Éd.), COST-SHARING AND ACCESSIBILITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A FAIRER DEAL? (p. 51-77). Springer Netherlands. Consulté à l’adresse http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/1-4020-4660-X_3

Jr, O. M. A. (1982). Empirical analysis of motives underlying individual contributions to charity. Atlantic Economic Journal, 10(4), 45-52. doi:10.1007/BF02300194

McClintock, C. G., & Allison, S. T. (1989). Social Value Orientation and Helping Behavior1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19(4), 353-362. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1989.tb00060.x

Ostrander, S. A. (2007). The Growth of Donor Control: Revisiting the Social Relations of Philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 356-372. doi:10.1177/0899764007300386

Perlstein, J. (2011). Amplifying social impact in a connected age: A survey of technology-related philanthropy for social benefit. National Civic Review, 100(3), 45-49. doi:10.1002/ncr.20072

Raymond, S. U. (2004). The future of philanthropy: economics, ethics, and management. John Wiley & Sons.

Rilling, J. K., King-Casas, B., & Sanfey, A. G. (2008). The neurobiology of social decision-making. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 18(2), 159-165. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2008.06.003

Sanfey, A. G. (2007). Social Decision-Making: Insights from Game Theory and Neuroscience. Science, 318(5850), 598-602. doi:10.1126/science.1142996

Saxton, G. D., Guo, S. C., & Brown, W. A. (2007). New Dimensions of Nonprofit Responsiveness: The Application and Promise of Internet-Based Technologies. Public Performance & Management Review, 31(2), 144-173. doi:10.2753/PMR1530-9576310201

Schervish, P. G. (2005). Major donors, major motives: The people and purposes behind major gifts. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 2005(47), 59-87. doi:10.1002/pf.95

Stepan, A. (2013). Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) Disruptive Impact on Higher Education. Consulté à l’adresse http://summit.sfu.ca/item/13085

Teixeira, P. (Éd.). (2006). Cost-sharing and accessibility in higher education: a fairer deal? Dordrecht: Springer.

Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 102-106. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.01.006

Woodhall, M. (2002). Paying for Learning: The Debate on Student Fees, Grants and Loans in International Perspective. The University of Wales Journal of Education, 11(1), 1-9.

Downloads

Published

2014-06-15

How to Cite

Bernard, G. (2014). E-learning as Strategy for Philanthropic Organization Focused on Educational Purposes in Thailand. Asian Journal of Education and E-Learning, 2(3). Retrieved from https://ajouronline.com/index.php/AJEEL/article/view/1310

Issue

Vol. 2 No. 3 (2014): June 2014

Section

Articles

License

  • Papers must be submitted on the understanding that they have not been published elsewhere (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, or thesis) and are not currently under consideration by another journal published by any other publisher.
  • It is also the authors responsibility to ensure that the articles emanating from a particular source are submitted with the necessary approval.
  • The authors warrant that the paper is original and that he/she is the author of the paper, except for material that is clearly identified as to its original source, with permission notices from the copyright owners where required.
  • The authors ensure that all the references carefully and they are accurate in the text as well as in the list of references (and vice versa).
  • Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
  • The journal/publisher is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. It is the author's responsibility to bring an infringement action if so desired by the author.