On Impact in Philanthropy: A Case Study of Research in Education

© Ellen Winner and Howard Gardner 2026 

In ordinary communication, impact has two principal connotations: from physics, the force of a collision of two bodies; from human relations, how words or expressions affect our beliefs and emotions. 

Both of these connotations prove relevant to the philanthropic sector. In philanthropy, an organization, a set of individuals, or a single individual contributes money—or other objects of value—to an entity (usually another organization, but sometimes an individual or a group of individuals). The aspiration: the philanthropic contribution will have a positive impact on the relevant individual, individuals, the organization—or, on rare occasions, an entire sector. 

As researchers in psychology and education, we have long been the beneficiaries of philanthropy—from the government, from private foundations, and occasionally, from generous individuals. We are greatly appreciative of such support. We make efforts to keep in touch with the philanthropic individuals and institutions and to let them know of our success, our progress—but also, on occasion, the obstacles, surprises, problems—and the consequent need to regroup or refashion our enterprise. 

Recently, we were given unexpected roles. A foundation asked us—along with members of other non-profit organizations—to read and evaluate a few dozen applications for funding. We were honored to receive this request and did our best to offer evaluations—wearing a hat quite different from that worn when we are on the supplicant’s end.   

But as we discussed the range of submissions, we realized that we did not really have the expertise to evaluate the potential impact of a good many of them—e.g. organizations working to fend off food insecurity, those working to cut recidivism from prison, or those involved in disaster response. We felt more comfortable considering requests from scholars and practitioners in education. But even within the sector of education, one can find  oneself comparing apples and oranges. The two of us know relatively little about educational policies for special populations, and our knowledge about the financing of education is equally modest. 

Accordingly, in what follows, we reflect principally on our own psychological and educational research at Harvard Project Zero (over a half-century for both of us).  Within the sector with which we have the most familiarity, one can identify various kinds of impact. 

A. Impact of Published Scholarly Research

In academic circles, impact of a published article is determined by the number of its citations (a measure that can take several years to accumulate) as well as the prestige of the journal—Is it peer reviewed? Based, on the journal’s citation levels, does it have a “high journal impact factor?”

Alas, nowadays, with articles co-authored (or even solo-authored) by AI, this task is challenging. 

B. Impact of Publications Designed for a Lay Audience

The impact of publications aimed at a popular audience is assessed by the prestige of the press, the number and quality of reviews, number of sales, whether the publications remain in print, and whether they are translated into other major languages. Much of Project Zero's publication output has aimed at a lay audience—several hundred books in the last half century. 

These kinds of impact just mentioned do not tell us about the impact of educational research on the practices of educators. Nor do they tell us about the impact of educational research on student outcomes. These two kinds of impact prove much more difficult to ascertain. 

C. Impact on Practices of Educators

One cannot assess impact of educational research on practice in a straightforward quantitative way. Such impact, we maintain, is best assessed qualitatively—by observation of educators at work and by educators’ self-report.  

In 2022, a three-year investigation of the impact of Project Zero on teacher practice was initiated by one of us (Ellen Winner), culminating in a report called Project Zero and its Impact: A Enigmatically Named Little Think Tank that Endured and Grew (now available online and also via Amazon—Volume 1 here, Volume 2 here). Project Zero has developed many frameworks and tools designed to help teachers who want to teach “progressively” do so more rigorously, with the goal of prompting deeper thinking and understanding in their students. 

Over 200 in-depth interviews were carried out with educators all over the world who had come into contact with one or more of Project Zero’s various projects. The goal was to determine whether—and if so, how—teachers believed their practices were changed, and to determine the conditions most likely to lead to whole-school change. The impact report documents deep changes in practice attributed to Project Zero’s professional development (and sometimes just via Project Zero’s publications) in educators and schools in all continents except Antarctica.  

Such changes were reported in both resource-rich and resource-poor schools. Teachers moved away from a more traditional, teacher-centered mode of teaching to a more progressive approach in which students interacted with one another to solve problems and the teacher served more like a coach. Teachers had developed a new mindset and reported with confidence that they could never go back to teaching the way they had before. 

A key finding was the importance of groups of educators meeting on a regular basis, sometimes weekly, sometimes monthly. Via such vehicles, teachers could reflect with one another on their changing practices, showcase what was working, and get suggestions on what to change for better outcomes.   

Less happily, even when individual educators are affected, leadership changes in their schools may result in cancellation of new programs, causing individual educators to move on to other schools or, regrettably, to other careers. Noted educator Theodor (Ted) Sizer commented on this phenomenon, saying that programs and institutions may die but the educators who have mastered new practices are forever changed.   

D. Impact on Student Learning

Of course, what is most important is that new teacher practices lead to improved student learning, both in the short-run and over time. The Project Zero and its Impact report includes numerous observations about improved student engagement and deepened student thinking. But we were not able to assess student impact in a systematic way. Assessment of student impact depends on the development of authentic measures of student outcomes. We would not be content to use standardized test scores as such a measure. Rather we would insist on measures that demonstrate that students can apply what they have learned to new contexts. Measures would need to be developed separately for each of the frameworks being investigated—some are designed to help students use thinking routines to deepen their thinking, others to help them reason and act ethically, still others to develop artistic habits of mind, etc. Once measures were agreed upon, one would need to compare the same students before and after an intervention, or compare students in classes that received the intervention with those that did not. Given the current effort to abolish the federal Department of Education, such impact will be increasingly difficult to assess in the United States.  

But it’s still possible to acquire relevant data. In work currently undertaken by Howard, Wendy Fischman, and their colleagues at Project Zero, researchers are investigating the extent to which programs associated with particular institutions of higher education have longer-term effect (beyond the completion of a course). The research team is ascertaining both the differences between incoming and graduating students, as well as longer-term effects on alumni. 

We invite colleagues—whether at Harvard or elsewhere—to suggest other venues where impact can be ascertained, and as well, instruments and measures that can be used, cited, shared. 

More generally, as recipients of research support from various institutions for over half a century, we want to reiterate our gratitude, try as much as possible to document the impact of our research, and encourage educational researchers to exchange “best practices” and “good measures” with colleagues in various sectors of our society. 

For support of this work, we thank Susan Noyes and the Make it Better Foundation.