Shark Tank Solutions: A Data-Driven Business Pitch
Inquiry Framework
Question Framework
Driving Question
The overarching question that guides the entire project.How can we, as innovative entrepreneurs, use data-driven logic and evidence-based storytelling to convince a panel of investors that our business solution is a risk worth taking?Essential Questions
Supporting questions that break down major concepts.- How can we use data and logic to prove that our business solution actually works?
- What makes a piece of evidence 'reliable' when trying to convince an investor to take a risk?
- How does the relationship between different variables (like price, demand, or time) determine if a business succeeds or fails?
- How can we clearly communicate the 'why' behind our problem-solving strategies so that others trust our process?
- How do we use critical feedback and the ideas of others to transform a 'good' idea into a 'great' one?
- In what ways can interpreting charts and tables help us predict the future success of our product?
Standards & Learning Goals
Learning Goals
By the end of this project, students will be able to:- Construct persuasive arguments by selecting and justifying evidence to support a business solution's market viability for a specific audience.
- Explain mathematical relationships between business variables (such as price, demand, and profit) by interpreting data from charts and tables.
- Analyze cause-and-effect relationships within a business model to predict success or failure based on changing market conditions.
- Engage in collaborative discussions to interpret peer feedback and refine business pitches through iterative communication and critical thinking.
- Deliver a coherent multi-modal business pitch that uses precise technical language to communicate problem-solving strategies and strategic choices.
WIDA ELD Standards (2020 Edition)
Entry Events
Events that will be used to introduce the project to studentsThe Business Autopsy: Investigating the $1M Failure
Students enter to find a 'crime scene' of a failed business: a desk covered in misleading charts, 'scam' products, and letters from angry investors. Working in 'audit teams,' they must identify the specific math errors and logical fallacies (independent vs. dependent variables) that led to the company’s bankruptcy.The Influencer Debunk: Hype vs. Reality
A 'local influencer' (guest or recorded video) pitches a product that sounds amazing but uses 'fake news' data and unreliable evidence. Students are challenged to use their laptops to verify the claims, evaluate the influencer's problem-solving, and provide a written 'Burn Report' detailing exactly why the pitch is invalid.Portfolio Activities
Portfolio Activities
These activities progressively build towards your learning goals, with each submission contributing to the student's final portfolio.The Pain Point Prospector
In this introductory activity, students identify a real-world problem (the 'pain point') and analyze the cause-and-effect relationship between the problem and its impact on consumers. They will then propose a business solution and justify why this specific strategy is the most effective way to address the issue.Steps
Here is some basic scaffolding to help students complete the activity.Final Product
What students will submit as the final product of the activityA 'Problem-Solution Blueprint' document featuring a cause-and-effect flow chart and a 1-paragraph justification of the chosen business strategy.Alignment
How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsAligns with: 'I can explain cause and effect writing or verbally' and 'I can explain why I chose to solve a problem using a certain strategy.' (ELD-LA.6-8.Argue; ELD-SS.6-8.Argue)The Reliability Radar
Students transform into researchers to find 'hard proof' that their business idea is viable. They must find data, statistics, or expert testimonials that prove there is a market for their product, while filtering out unreliable or biased information.Steps
Here is some basic scaffolding to help students complete the activity.Final Product
What students will submit as the final product of the activityAn 'Evidence Portfolio' containing at least three cited sources, each with a brief annotation explaining why the source is reliable and how it supports their claim.Alignment
How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsAligns with: 'I can identify valid and reliable evidence that supports a claim' and 'I can use data to solve problems.' (ELD-LA.6-8.Inform.Interpret)The Variable Venture Lab
Students dive into the 'math of business.' They will define their independent variable (e.g., the price they charge) and their dependent variable (e.g., how many units they might sell or their total profit). They will create a visual representation of this relationship to show investors their financial logic.Steps
Here is some basic scaffolding to help students complete the activity.Final Product
What students will submit as the final product of the activityA 'Financial Forecast Table' and a corresponding line graph that predicts profit or demand based on varying price points.Alignment
How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsAligns with: 'I can identify independent and dependent variables,' 'I can interpret charts or tables,' and 'I can predict (hypothesize) the relationship between variables.' (ELD-MA.6-8.Explain)The Logic & Language Scriptwriter
Students draft the actual script for their Shark Tank pitch. The focus is on clarity and the precise use of language to explain their business logic and the mathematical operations used to calculate their startup costs or profit margins.Steps
Here is some basic scaffolding to help students complete the activity.Final Product
What students will submit as the final product of the activityA 'Pitch Script' draft that highlights technical math terms and provides a step-by-step breakdown of their business's financial logic.Alignment
How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsAligns with: 'I can identify key terms that tell me what math operation to use' and 'I can explain the steps I used to solve a problem.' (ELD-MA.6-8.Explain)The Shark Tank Simulator
Before the final pitch, students participate in a 'Peer Review Circle.' They will present their draft to another team, act as 'Sharks' for their peers, and use critical thinking to provide and receive constructive feedback.Steps
Here is some basic scaffolding to help students complete the activity.Final Product
What students will submit as the final product of the activityA 'Feedback Reflection Log' documenting the advice received and the specific changes made to the final pitch as a result.Alignment
How this activity aligns with the learning objectives & standardsAligns with: 'I can evaluate someone else’s problem solving,' 'I can explain why someone else’s problem solving is correct or incorrect,' 'I can use feedback to improve my thinking,' and 'I can interpret other people’s ideas to improve my own.' (ELD-SI.4-12.Inform)Rubric & Reflection
Portfolio Rubric
Grading criteria for assessing the overall project portfolioShark Tank Entrepreneurship: Data-Driven Pitch Rubric
Argumentation & Evidence Selection
Focuses on the student's ability to construct persuasive arguments using vetted, data-driven evidence.Evidence & Reliability Assessment
Measures the ability to find, evaluate, and use high-quality data and research to support a business claim.
Exemplary
4 PointsSynthesizes evidence from multiple highly reliable, diverse sources. Claim-Evidence-Reasoning (CER) shows a sophisticated link between market data and the business solution, anticipating potential counter-arguments regarding data validity.
Proficient
3 PointsSelects valid and reliable evidence from at least three sources. CER paragraph clearly explains how the data supports the business claim. Source evaluation effectively identifies bias and author expertise.
Developing
2 PointsIdentifies some relevant evidence, but sources may have inconsistent reliability. The connection between data and the business claim is present but requires more logical depth or clearer reasoning.
Beginning
1 PointsIncludes minimal evidence or relies on unreliable/biased sources. CER structure is incomplete, and the link between data and the business idea is unclear or missing.
Quantitative Reasoning
Focuses on the mathematical logic behind the business model, including predictive modeling and data visualization.Variable Analysis & Data Interpretation
Evaluates the accuracy and depth of identifying variables and interpreting the mathematical relationships between them in a business context.
Exemplary
4 PointsFlawlessly identifies independent and dependent variables. Hypothesis provides a nuanced prediction of complex relationships. Table and graph demonstrate advanced data visualization with insightful trend analysis.
Proficient
3 PointsCorrectly identifies independent and dependent variables. Creates an accurate table and graph. Hypothesis clearly predicts the relationship between variables using logical reasoning.
Developing
2 PointsIdentifies variables but may occasionally confuse independent and dependent roles. Table or graph contains minor inaccuracies. Hypothesis provides a basic prediction with limited explanation.
Beginning
1 PointsStruggles to identify variables or create a coherent table/graph. Hypothesis is missing or does not reflect the data presented.
Strategic Logic & Problem Solving
Focuses on the logical framework of the business problem and the strategic 'why' behind the solution.Cause-Effect & Strategic Justification
Assesses how well students explain the impact of a problem and justify their chosen solution through cause-and-effect reasoning.
Exemplary
4 PointsProvides a multi-layered cause-and-effect map showing systemic impacts. Strategy statement offers a compelling, innovative justification that clearly differentiates the product from all competitors.
Proficient
3 PointsExplains clear cause-and-effect relationships between the problem and its consequences. Strategy statement justifies why the chosen solution is effective and better than basic alternatives.
Developing
2 PointsIdentifies basic cause-and-effect relationships. Strategy statement describes the solution but offers limited justification for why it was chosen over other strategies.
Beginning
1 PointsCause-and-effect map is disorganized or illogical. Strategy statement fails to explain the logic behind the solution or its advantages.
Communication & Precision
Focuses on the clarity and professional language used in the written and oral components of the pitch.Technical Communication & Math Terminology
Measures the use of precise mathematical and technical language to explain problem-solving steps and financial logic.
Exemplary
4 PointsUses technical and mathematical signal words with exceptional precision. Script provides a masterfully clear, step-by-step breakdown of financial logic that is easy for any 'investor' to follow.
Proficient
3 PointsIdentifies and uses key math operation terms correctly. Script clearly explains the steps taken to solve financial problems and calculate the 'Ask.' Language is professional and persuasive.
Developing
2 PointsUses some math signal words, but they may be repetitive or slightly misused. Explanation of problem-solving steps is present but lacks clarity or detail in some areas.
Beginning
1 PointsScript lacks technical math language or fails to explain the steps used to calculate costs. Communication is vague and difficult to follow.
Collaborative Growth & Metacognition
Focuses on the iterative learning process and the social-instructional aspects of the project.Feedback Integration & Peer Evaluation
Evaluates the student's ability to provide constructive feedback and use external input to improve their own work.
Exemplary
4 PointsProvides highly insightful, specific feedback to peers that identifies deep logical strengths/weaknesses. Reflection log demonstrates a transformative use of feedback to significantly enhance the pitch.
Proficient
3 PointsCorrectly evaluates peer problem-solving and provides actionable 'Glow/Grow' feedback. Reflection log clearly explains how peer ideas were interpreted and integrated to improve the final product.
Developing
2 PointsProvides general feedback that lacks specific evidence. Reflection log shows some evidence of revision, but the rationale for using (or not using) feedback is thin.
Beginning
1 PointsFeedback provided to peers is non-constructive or inaccurate. Reflection log shows little to no improvement based on peer interaction or feedback.