Question
State a decision question that names the changed input and the outcomes to compare.
Direct answer
What is a business simulation evidence portfolio?
A business simulation evidence portfolio is a short, ordered record of what a student or team tested, what the model reported, how calculations were checked, which claims the evidence supports, and how feedback changed the work. It prevents a polished final slide deck from hiding weak comparisons or undocumented decisions.
Use this portfolio for a multi-session investigation, capstone, or team project. For a single lesson, the shorter reflection journal may be enough. Neither resource should be graded on simulated profit alone; assess the quality of the question, evidence, reasoning, responsibility, and revision.
Build the portfolio around five proof points
Run record
Keep the scenario, time horizon, constants, input change, outputs, and contributor together.
Calculation
Show one worked difference, rate, margin, break-even, or other relevant check with units.
Claim
Link each conclusion to a run and note confidence, tradeoffs, and rival explanations.
Revision
Record feedback, the response, and what changed instead of silently replacing earlier work.
Use evidence codes students can apply themselves
| Code | Evidence is ready when... | Common repair |
|---|---|---|
| C — Comparable | The scenario, time period, and all non-tested settings match the baseline. | Repeat the run with only one intended input changed. |
| L — Labeled | Values include measure names, units, run numbers, and contributors. | Add context; do not submit an unexplained number or screenshot. |
| V — Verified | A calculation can be repeated from the recorded values. | Show the formula, substitution, result, rounding, and unit. |
| B — Balanced | The record includes a financial or operating result and a stakeholder, quality, capacity, safety, or responsibility result. | Add the important tradeoff, not just the winning metric. |
| R — Revisable | The claim names uncertainty, a model boundary, and evidence that could change it. | Qualify certainty and propose a test that could challenge the idea. |
These codes are feedback shorthand, not a substitute for comments. A teacher might write “Run 3: C, L; repair V and B” and ask the team to return with a worked calculation and one non-financial outcome.
Run three short progress conferences
Launch check: 2 minutes
Ask: What is the decision question? Which one input changes? Which two or three outcomes will you record? What must remain a non-negotiable guardrail?
Ready signal: the baseline and first comparison can be repeated by another student.
Evidence check: 4 minutes
Ask: Show the strongest table and one worked calculation. Which claim does it support? What else could explain the pattern? Who or what absorbs the tradeoff?
Ready signal: the team has comparable evidence and a controlled next test.
Final audit: 5 minutes
Ask: Which claim changed after feedback? What is the model unable to establish? Which contribution can each student explain? What would change the recommendation?
Ready signal: the conclusion is specific, qualified, traceable, and responsibly bounded.
Printable page 1
Project map and evidence inventory
Student / team:
Course / due date:
Simulator and scenario:
Teacher / class:
Decision question: How does changing __________ affect __________, while keeping __________ within a responsible limit?
Baseline settings and time horizon:
| Artifact / run | Purpose | Owner | Location or page | C L V B R |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | ||||
| Run ___ | ||||
| Run ___ | ||||
| Calculation | ||||
| Feedback / revision |
Non-negotiable constraints: safety law/policy privacy fairness accessibility other: ________
Model limitation we will remember throughout:
Printable page 2 — duplicate for additional runs
Comparable run and calculation record
Run number:
Date:
Operator / recorder:
Prediction made before the run:
One intended input change:
Conditions held constant:
| Measure and unit | Baseline | This run | Absolute / % difference | Tradeoff or note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Worked calculation — formula, substituted values, result, rounding, and unit:
Observation (what the output shows, without explaining why):
Data-quality concern, surprise, or repeat needed:
Printable page 3
Claim, feedback, and revision register
| Claim | Supporting artifact / value | Confidence and alternative | Tradeoff / boundary |
|---|---|---|---|
Feedback received, from whom, and date:
Our response: accepted partly accepted not accepted, with evidence
What changed and why:
Sources and assistance used: list teammate data, outside sources, calculators, teacher help, and permitted AI assistance. Note what was independently checked.
Final submission audit
Every claim points to evidence. Units and run numbers are visible. Calculations can be repeated.
Tradeoffs and constraints remain visible. Feedback and revisions are documented. Contributors are named.
Assistance is disclosed. No private or confidential real-world data is included. The recommendation states model limits.
Limited devices or no devices
Project teacher-run scenarios, rotate one operator, or distribute printed outputs. Students can still label records, calculate changes, audit claims, and conduct conferences. Evidence quality does not depend on owning a screenshot.
Accessibility and learner support
Provide a partly completed baseline, vocabulary bank, calculator, oral conference, enlarged print, digital fillable copy, or speech-to-text. Reduce the number of runs before reducing the expectation that claims be traceable to evidence.
Individual accountability in teams
Name an owner on every artifact and rotate roles. At the final conference, randomly select one claim, calculation, and revision for each student to explain. Shared evidence is acceptable; invisible contribution is not.
Advanced extension
Require repeated trials, sensitivity analysis, uncertainty ranges, a rejected claim, and an evidence map that distinguishes simulator output from outside research. Ask which omitted real-world factor could reverse the conclusion.
Keep the portfolio honest, private, and responsibly bounded
- Use fictional classroom scenarios. Never enter real customer, employee, child, health, location, financial, login, or confidential business data.
- Preserve failed runs and corrected claims when they explain learning. Do not fabricate results, alter screenshots, hide inconvenient measures, or backdate predictions.
- Identify the person responsible for each artifact and disclose permitted help. A generated explanation or calculator result must still be checked against the recorded inputs.
- Treat simulation output as a simplified learning model, not a forecast, legal conclusion, investment instruction, safety determination, or substitute for qualified professional review.
- Keep law, safety, consumer protection, worker welfare, privacy, accessibility, environmental duties, and fair treatment as constraints even when the score does not measure them.
Business simulation evidence portfolio FAQ
What belongs in a business simulation evidence portfolio?
Include the decision question, baseline, comparable run records, calculations, claims tied to evidence, feedback and revisions, source or assistance notes, model limitations, and a final recommendation audit.
How is an evidence portfolio different from a reflection journal?
A reflection journal captures individual thinking at key moments. An evidence portfolio organizes the artifacts that support a longer project, shows how claims changed, and gives teachers a compact record for progress conferences and assessment.
Can teams share one simulation portfolio?
Teams may share run data and a project map, but every artifact should name its contributor. Each student should also explain one claim, one calculation, one revision, and one limitation independently.
How often should teachers check the portfolio?
Use a two-minute launch check, a mid-project evidence conference, and a final audit. Frequent short checks catch incomparable runs and unsupported claims before students build a final presentation around them.
Should screenshots be required as evidence?
No. A labeled table or teacher-provided result record can be more accessible and easier to compare. If screenshots are used, students should add the scenario, run number, date, changed input, and a written explanation.
Put the portfolio into a complete classroom sequence
Use the assessment and feedback toolkit to choose the right checkpoints. Start with the copy-ready assignment or three-session team project, assign responsibilities with the team role cards, use the teacher observation and evidence-conference toolkit while teams build this portfolio, collect individual thinking in the reflection journal, challenge draft claims with the peer review and revision protocol, discuss conclusions with the debrief guide, and score the finished reasoning with the 16-point rubric. Browse every activity in the complete resource index.