Syllabus language, grading rubrics, LMS setup guides, and a department approval template — all right here, ready to copy and use.
Need the full professor walkthrough first? Start with the Instructor Overview and come back here when you are ready to launch your section.
Copy and paste into your course syllabus
Required Simulation Assignment — MISsimulation
This course includes a multi-week competitive business simulation (MISsimulation) in which students manage a competitive market scenario. Students will purchase and analyze market research data sets, execute strategic actions across geographic regions, manage budgets, and craft social media strategy — all while competing against other teams in a simulated election.
Learning Outcomes Addressed
The simulation includes the following components: Campaign Actions, Market Research Data Sets, Critter Social Media, Financial Management, Geographic Strategy, and Surveys. Your instructor will configure the number of turns and competitive structure for your section.
Grading Weight
The simulation counts for [X]% of your final course grade, broken down as follows: AI strategy score ([X]%), simulation performance ([X]%), financial management ([X]%), and participation & collaboration ([X]%). See the grading rubric below for detailed criteria.
Academic Integrity
Each student section operates on a unique simulated market. Sharing decision data, outputs, or strategic reasoning across sections is considered academic dishonesty and will be handled per the course and university policy. AI writing tools may not be used to produce strategic memos without instructor-approved disclosure.
Per-turn scoring guide for strategic decisions and analysis
| Criterion | Excellent (4) | Proficient (3) | Developing (2) | Beginning (1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data Analysis Depth | Cross-references multiple data sets (demographics, media consumption, issue preferences) to identify high-value voter segments with clear geographic targeting | Uses two or more data sets to inform targeting; reasonable segment identification | References one data set superficially; limited geographic or demographic analysis | Decision made without meaningful data set reference |
| Resource Allocation | Effectively balances budget across strategic actions, data set purchases, social media (Critter), and geographic targeting with clear trade-off reasoning | Budget spread across most categories; some trade-off reasoning present | Budget concentrated in one area with minimal justification | No evidence of deliberate budget allocation strategy |
| Strategic Integration | Decisions across strategic actions, social media, geographic strategy, and data analysis form a coherent, mutually reinforcing competitive strategy | Most simulation components are aligned; minor inconsistencies | Strategic decisions made in isolation with limited strategic coherence | No evidence of integrated strategic thinking |
| Competitive Awareness | Adapts strategy based on competitor intelligence and turn-over-turn results; anticipates rival moves | Acknowledges competitor actions; partial strategy adjustment between turns | Minimal competitor consideration; strategy unchanged across turns | No evidence of competitive analysis or adaptation |
| Criterion | Excellent (4) | Proficient (3) | Developing (2) | Beginning (1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strategic Clarity | Targeting rationale is specific (which segments, which regions, which issues) and demonstrates clear strategic focus | Targeting rationale is mostly specific; minor gaps in voter/region/issue detail | Vague targeting; lacks specificity on segments or geography | No clear targeting rationale; generic or off-topic |
| Data Evidence | Strategic decisions clearly informed by purchased data sets; targeting matches data-driven insights | Decisions mostly consistent with available data; minor gaps between analysis and execution | Noticeable gaps between data available and strategic decisions made | No evidence of data set utilization in decision-making |
| Expected Results | Projections are quantified and tied to specific data sources | Some quantified projections; data source connection is partial | Vague projections without quantification | No expected results stated |
| Professional Tone | Business-appropriate, concise communication suitable for executive briefing | Mostly professional; occasional lapses in tone or brevity | Inconsistent tone; some informal or verbose language | Informal or unclear writing throughout; not suitable for executive audience |
| Component | Weight | Artifact |
|---|---|---|
| AI Strategy Score | 35% | AI-evaluated action plan quality, reasoning & justification |
| Simulation Performance | 25% | Action effectiveness scores, data utilization, targeted vs. non-targeted results |
| Financial Management | 20% | Budget allocation efficiency, spending ROI |
| Participation & Collaboration | 20% | Turn completion rate, peer review scores, team contribution |
The simulation dashboard shows each team's effectiveness scores, spending reports, and performance trends automatically. You can review action effectiveness results and data set usage directly from the instructor dashboard.
Canvas · Blackboard · D2L Brightspace · Moodle
Subject: Turn [N] closes [DAY], [DATE] at [TIME]
Hi everyone — a quick reminder that Turn [N] of the MISsimulation closes on [DAY, DATE at TIME]. Log in at missimulation.com and submit both your strategic decisions and any required submissions before the deadline.
Late submissions cannot be accepted because the market resolves for all teams simultaneously. If you have any technical issues, email support@missimulation.com and copy me so we can resolve it before the deadline.
Use this to get chair / curriculum committee sign-off
To: [Department Chair / Curriculum Committee]
From: [Your Name]
Re: Course Tool Addition — MISsimulation for [Course Name / Number]
I'm writing to request approval to incorporate MISsimulation into [Course Name] beginning [Semester/Year]. MISsimulation is a web-based business strategy simulation used at 35+ accredited universities with over 13,000 students to date. A peer-reviewed study published in the Journal of Statistics and Data Science Education (2023) confirmed statistically significant gains in student engagement and analytical skill development.
Pedagogy: Students run an MIS simulation set in an election context, making sequential data-driven decisions over [N] weekly turns. Each turn requires analysis of market research data sets, execution of strategic actions across geographic regions, budget management, and social media strategy — directly addressing our program's analytical thinking and data-driven decision-making learning outcomes.
Cost to students: $29 per student for semester access. There is no cost to the institution or instructor.
Academic integrity: Each section runs on a unique simulated market, making answer-sharing impossible. The platform maintains full audit logs of all student activity for grade appeals or academic misconduct inquiries.
AACSB alignment: The simulation generates direct-measure evidence for Analytical Thinking, Data-Driven Decision Making, and Technological Agility — suitable for inclusion in our AoL documentation. The platform generates AACSB-ready Assurance of Learning evidence exports (per-student, per-turn CSV with effectiveness scores and spending patterns) and supports objective tagging aligned to your program's AOL rubric.
I'm happy to provide a demo or a sample instructor walkthrough. Please let me know if you need any additional information.
Start with the Instructor Overview if you are still evaluating fit, or open free instructor access when you are ready to build a sample section for your course.