Free teacher resource · printable · no account
Set assistance rules before students play, protect private information, require transparent disclosure, and verify reasoning with evidence instead of guessing who did the work.
Quick answer
A fair simulation policy tells students which assistance is allowed for each stage, requires a short record of permitted support, preserves the original run evidence and revisions, and asks every student to explain part of the work. The goal is not to ban useful support. It is to keep the learning evidence visible and the student's decisions genuinely theirs.
Label assistance as allowed, allowed with disclosure, or not allowed for this task.
Record who or what helped, the purpose, and what was accepted or rejected.
Keep settings, raw results, calculations, notes, drafts, and revision reasons.
Explain a decision, calculation, tradeoff, limitation, and next test.
Do not rely on a single sentence such as “AI is allowed.” Different stages create different learning evidence. Copy this matrix into the assignment and change any row to match school policy, student age, access, and the intended outcome.
| Assignment stage | Usually reasonable support | Evidence students should preserve | Teacher decision to publish |
|---|---|---|---|
| Understand directions | Text-to-speech, translation, vocabulary explanation, teacher or peer clarification | Questions asked and any meaning that needed checking | Allowed / disclose / not allowed |
| Plan a test | Brainstorm possible variables or metrics, then choose independently | Original prediction, chosen variable, constants, and reason | Allowed / disclose / not allowed |
| Operate the simulator | Assigned team roles and accessibility support | Settings, scenario, run order, and unedited results | Allowed / disclose / not allowed |
| Calculate results | Calculator or spreadsheet when named; worked example for method | Formula, substituted values, units, and reasonableness check | Allowed / disclose / not allowed |
| Interpret evidence | Prompts that ask students to compare or challenge their own claim | Student's first explanation, contradictory evidence, and revision | Allowed / disclose / not allowed |
| Write or present | Spelling, grammar, organization, rehearsal, and accessible formatting if permitted | Draft before assistance, change record, sources, and disclosure | Allowed / disclose / not allowed |
“Your team may use the supports marked allowed in the assignment matrix. Disclose any person, AI system, translator, editor, calculator, or other tool that materially shaped the work. Preserve your original simulation settings, results, calculations, drafts, and revisions. Every student must be able to explain the team's evidence and their own contribution. Never enter personal, confidential, or identifying information into an external tool.”
Printable student page
Assistance used: person, tool, AI system, translator, calculator, editor, or “none”
Prompt, question, or request:
Useful suggestion or output, summarized in my own words:
What I accepted, changed, or rejected—and why:
How I checked it against simulation evidence, calculations, instructions, or a reliable source:
Files or evidence preserved:
Student confirmation: I did not enter personal or confidential information, and I can explain the decisions and evidence submitted. Signature/initials: ____________________
Ask the same four evidence questions across students, but let students point to notes, results, formulas, or accessible communication supports. This checks understanding more directly than writing style or an automated authorship score.
Fairness check: assess accuracy, evidence use, and capacity to revise. Do not assess speed, eye contact, accent, confidence, handwriting, or disability-related communication differences. Provide wait time and alternate response modes when needed.
| Criterion | 3 — clear | 2 — partial | 1 — limited | 0 — missing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence trail | Settings, results, formulas, and revisions are traceable. | Most evidence is traceable; one gap remains. | Only final values or fragments remain. | No usable evidence trail. |
| Disclosure | All material help is specific, complete, and connected to changes. | Help is named but purpose or changes are incomplete. | Disclosure is vague or added only after prompting. | Required disclosure is absent. |
| Verification | Student accurately explains and checks decisions, math, and claims. | Explanation is mostly accurate with one supported correction. | Explanation depends on prompts and cannot connect key evidence. | No evidence of understanding yet. |
| Judgment | Recommendation addresses tradeoffs, limits, guardrails, and a next test. | Recommendation addresses most elements. | Recommendation overclaims or misses key constraints. | No evidence-bounded recommendation. |
If evidence is missing or explanations conflict, pause the grade and request clarification under the school's normal procedure. A gap is a reason to investigate fairly, not automatic proof of misconduct.
This classroom guide is not legal advice and does not replace school, district, institution, labor, privacy, accessibility, or academic-conduct policies. Use authoritative local policy when requirements differ.
That depends on the published task policy. Distinguish support such as brainstorming or editing from evidence interpretation and final reasoning students must complete and explain. Require disclosure for any permitted material assistance.
Record the tool or person, date, purpose, relevant prompt or request, what was used or rejected, and how the output was checked. The printable log above provides those fields.
Ask each student to explain one decision, calculation, tradeoff, and limitation using the team's actual evidence. Assess the reasoning rather than confidence, speed, or speaking style.
Do not enter student names, grades, contact details, credentials, private business information, health or disability information, or other personal data. Use fictional or de-identified simulation evidence only.
No automated indicator should be treated as conclusive proof. Review the policy, evidence trail, disclosure, student explanation, and school procedures before deciding.
Publish the rules in the assignment template, preserve settings and results in the evidence portfolio, document individual work with the team contribution record, rehearse claims through the peer review protocol, and use the assessment and feedback toolkit for revision and grading.