12-minute sprint
Best for: single-period lessons
4 minutes silent read and calculation check; 4 minutes structured verbal review; 4 minutes author revision plan.
Interactive evaluation lab
Build your peer review & revision log
Evaluate a peer's experimental comparison and generate a structured audit trail with actionable feedback and author revisions.
Live Peer Review Preview
Direct answer
How should students peer-review a business simulation?
Students should first restate the author's decision question and main claim. They then inspect whether the baseline and comparison changed only one important factor, verify the units and one key calculation, trace the claim to recorded evidence, and look for a missing tradeoff, stakeholder, constraint, or model limitation. The review ends with one precise strength, one question, and one feasible next action.
This protocol separates feedback from grading. A peer does not rewrite the recommendation or assign a score. The author decides what to accept, records why, and owns every correction. That makes feedback useful evidence of revision while preserving individual accountability.
Standardized peer audits
1-Click scenario codes for verifiable peer review audits
When peers audit experimental claims against the C-U-E-R-L checklist, they can launch identical starting conditions using 1-click classroom scenario launch codes. Standardized setups allow reviewers to re-run baselines and independently verify calculations across all 18 business simulators.
What authors bring to the review
Minimum evidence packet
- one narrow decision question;
- a baseline and one comparable changed run;
- the same three or four result measures for both runs;
- one checked calculation with units;
- a provisional claim and important tradeoff; and
- one stated model limitation.
Not ready yet?
If a team cannot show comparable records, pause the review. Use the evidence portfolio to reconstruct settings and results, or run a cleaner comparison. Peers cannot evaluate a causal claim from memory, an unlabeled screenshot, or a final score alone.
Remove student surnames, account details, private messages, or other personal information before exchanging work. The simulations require no student account.
Teacher-ready timing
Choose a peer-review routine
25-minute gallery walk
Best for: multi-team projects
10 minutes rotating evidence review; 5 minutes debrief conference; 10 minutes written revision record.
Pre-defense rehearsal
Best for: presentation preparation
3 minutes presentation; 3 minutes oral defense challenge; 4 minutes revision before final delivery.
Printable student page 1
Peer review evidence check
Author(s) / Team:
Reviewer / Date:
Decision question:
Primary claim:
C-U-E-R-L evidence checklist:
| Check | Yes | Partial | Missing |
|---|---|---|---|
| C: Baseline and test changed only one input; all other settings matched. | |||
| U: Metrics have clear units and spot-check calculations are accurate. | |||
| E: Claim traces directly to recorded run metrics. | |||
| R: A material tradeoff, stakeholder, or constraint is addressed. | |||
| L: The wording acknowledges uncertainty and model limits. |
One evidence-based strength:
One question the author must answer:
One feasible next test or revision:
Printable student page 2
Author feedback and revision decision
Feedback item selected:
☐ Accept
☐ Adapt
☐ Decline
Reason for this decision:
Exact change I will make:
How I will verify the change:
☐ rerun comparison ☐ recalculate math ☐ relabel evidence ☐ narrow claim ☐ add tradeoff/guardrail
Individual accountability check:
My strongest evidence is __________ because __________.
The most important limitation or boundary is __________ because __________.
Teacher facilitation and quality checks
Model useful specificity
Show one vague comment and revise it aloud into a code, location, reason, and action. Require reviewers to point to an artifact rather than judging effort, ability, or personality.
Protect equitable participation
Rotate author, evidence checker, calculation checker, and responsibility challenger. Permit written, spoken, or teacher-scribed feedback. Give students private processing time before a team response.
Resolve disagreement
Ask which evidence or requirement would settle the question. If disagreement concerns law, safety, privacy, accessibility, or another high-impact issue, pause the recommendation and use an authoritative source or qualified review.
Feedback boundaries
- Do not rank teams by profit, net worth, speed, or popularity.
- Do not ask peers to disclose grades, personal circumstances, private account details, or sensitive business information.
- Do not treat a simulator result as legal, financial, safety, hiring, lending, or investment advice.
- If AI or a calculator helped, keep the inputs and verify the output; assistance does not replace author responsibility.
- Keep accessibility, consumer protection, worker welfare, privacy, environmental duties, and fair treatment as constraints even when the simulator does not score them.
Business simulation peer review FAQ
What should students review in a business simulation project?
Review the decision question, comparability of runs, accuracy of calculations, connection between claim and evidence, important tradeoffs, responsible constraints, model limitations, and the proposed revision.
How long does business simulation peer review take?
A checkpoint review can take about 12 minutes. A fuller gallery review with written feedback and revision planning takes about 25 minutes.
Should peer reviewers give a grade?
Usually no. Peers should identify evidence strengths, ask specific questions, and suggest a testable next action. The teacher remains responsible for grading.
What if a peer reviewer finds an incorrect calculation?
The reviewer should name the input, unit, formula, or arithmetic step to recheck without silently replacing the author's work. The author verifies and documents the correction.
Can peer review work with one device or no devices?
Yes. Teams can exchange printed claim-and-evidence records, rotate paper stations, or have a reader present results aloud while a recorder captures feedback.
Use peer review in a complete simulation sequence
Follow the complete assessment and feedback sequence, starting with the copy-ready assignment or three-session project. Set assistance, attribution, and privacy expectations with the academic integrity and responsible AI guide. Organize comparable artifacts in the evidence portfolio, collect individual thinking in the reflection journal, and use the teacher observation and conference toolkit during investigation. Apply the 16-point rubric after students revise.