Instructional design documentation

Intended learners

• First- and second-year undergraduates in BUS 101 Introduction to Business, University of Nevada, Reno.
• Many are entering their first independent living situation, managing student loans, part-time income or a first credit card.
• Mixed prior knowledge: some have budgeted before; many have not calculated interest or compared trade-offs numerically.

Learning need

• Students can often define budget, APR and emergency fund but struggle to apply them under constraints and uncertainty.
• Lecture alone rarely builds the habit of quantifying a trade-off before deciding.
• A low-stakes, repeatable simulation lets learners experience consequences without real financial risk.

Constraints

• Must run on personal phones and laptops; no accounts, payments, banking connections or personal data.
• Fits a single 50–75 minute class session or a take-home assignment.

Learning objectives

• LO1 Construct a monthly budget within a fixed income.
• LO2 Calculate how spending, debt payments and savings affect financial position.
• LO3 Evaluate trade-offs when unexpected expenses arise.
• LO4 Defend a financial decision using numerical evidence.

Simulation mechanics

• Six months at $3,500 take-home; starting checking $500, savings $300 (4% APY), card debt $4,000 (22% APR).
• Seven allocation categories with realistic minimums (rent $1,150; minimum card payment greater of $100 or 2%).
• One event per month: baseline, vehicle repair, career opportunity, income interruption, medical expense, discretionary social choice.
• Deterministic, documented rules. No randomness, hidden penalties or points.

Assessment alignment

• Diagnostic (4 items) → baseline for LO1–LO3.
• Monthly budgeting → performance evidence for LO1 and LO2.
• Event decisions → LO3.
• Final scenario assessment (4 items, transfer to new contexts) → LO1–LO4.
• Written reflection requiring numerical evidence → LO4.

Feedback strategy

• Immediate: live projected balances and validation while budgeting.
• Formative: after each month, a 50/30/20 comparison, interest cost, credit use and resilience explained in plain language.
• Transparent: a full cash-flow statement and reconciled debt/savings equations every month.
• Summative: a personalized report with strengths, improvement areas, pre/post scores and a decision log.

Functional prototype features

• Intro with outcomes and starting position; progress indicator across all stages.
• Decision cards for each event; slider and numeric-entry budget controls.
• Live month-end projection, cash-flow dashboard, debt and savings trackers, interactive charts.
• Restart at any time; progress saved locally on the learner's device.
• Printable learning report.
• Automated tests verify the calculation engine across the six-month sequence.

Content structure

• Diagnostic → Months 1–6 (Event → Budget → Review) → Final assessment → Reflection → Report.
• All data fictional; experience labeled educational, not personalized financial advice.

Classroom integration

• Before class (10 min): read a short primer on budgeting and APR.
• In class (35 min): students complete the simulation individually or in pairs.
• Debrief (15 min): compare decision logs; discuss who financed the Month 2 repair on credit and why.
• After class: submit the printed report and reflection to the LMS.

Facilitation guidance

• Emphasize there is no single correct path; evaluate the quality of reasoning.
• Use the 'How calculations work' panel to model interest calculations aloud.
• Prompt: 'What number convinced you?' to reinforce evidence-based justification.
• Offer the take-home option for students who need more time or accessibility accommodations.

Usability testing

• Think-aloud sessions with 5–8 BUS 101 students on mobile and desktop.
• Measure task completion, time per month, and System Usability Scale (SUS) scores.

Learning assessment

• Compare diagnostic vs. final assessment scores across a section.
• Score reflections with a 4-level rubric: decision identified, numerical evidence, trade-off acknowledged, conclusion.
• Review aggregated (anonymous) decision patterns to identify misconceptions.

Improvement process

• Revise event wording and feedback where students misinterpret consequences.
• Consider additional scenario sets for replayability and LMS grade passback in a future version.
• Re-evaluate each semester and document changes.