Case Study: How One Teacher Used Smoothie Wars to Transform Business Education
TL;DR: Louise Jenkins, a business studies teacher at Riverside Academy (London), integrated Smoothie Wars into her Year 9 curriculum over 12 weeks. Results: 87% improvement in practical application test scores, 92% student engagement (vs. 64% baseline), and zero behavioral incidents during game sessions. This case study documents her approach, challenges, adaptations, and measurable outcomes.
Background: The Challenge
School: Riverside Academy, Tower Hamlets, London Teacher: Louise Jenkins (8 years experience, business studies & economics) Class: Year 9 (ages 13-14), mixed ability, 28 students Duration: September – December 2024 (12 weeks, one 90-minute session weekly)
Louise contacted us in August 2024 with a familiar frustration:
"My Year 9s switch off the moment I mention supply and demand. I've tried videos, worksheets, even guest speakers. They endure it but don't engage. And when assessed, they regurgitate definitions without understanding. I need something different."
She'd heard about game-based learning at a conference but was skeptical. "Won't it just be playtime? How do I justify it to my head of department?"
Fair questions. Here's how she answered them.
The Planning Phase (Weeks -4 to -1)
Getting Administrative Buy-In
Louise didn't ask for permission to "play games." She pitched a pilot learning intervention with measurable outcomes.
Her proposal (one-page summary):
- Objective: Improve Year 9 understanding of core business concepts (supply/demand, competition, resource management, pricing strategy)
- Method: 12-week structured game-based learning module using Smoothie Wars
- Assessment: Pre/post tests, observation rubrics, student self-assessment
- Success criteria: 20%+ improvement in practical application scores; maintain or improve engagement
- Fallback plan: If outcomes don't improve by Week 6, revert to traditional teaching
The head of department approved it as a one-class pilot.
Key insight: Louise framed it as research, not entertainment. That mattered.
Curriculum Mapping
Louise mapped game mechanics to required learning objectives:
| Curriculum Requirement | Game Mechanic | Assessment Method | |------------------------|---------------|-------------------| | Understand supply/demand dynamics | Location choice, demand variation | Observation during play, post-game debrief quiz | | Apply pricing strategies | Player-set prices, competitive effects | Written reflection on pricing decisions | | Analyze competitive positioning | Multi-player location competition | Case study analysis after Week 6 | | Evaluate resource management | Budget constraints, inventory decisions | In-game performance tracking |
Every game session connected to formal curriculum. This wasn't enrichment—it was the curriculum, delivered differently.
Baseline Assessment
Week 0 (before game introduction), Louise administered a practical application test:
Sample question: "You run a café. Three competitors open nearby. Describe three strategies you could use and explain the likely outcome of each."
Scoring: 0-10 scale (quality of strategic thinking, understanding of business concepts, real-world application)
Class average: 4.7/10
Students could define terms ("competition means other businesses selling similar products") but struggled to apply them strategically.
Implementation: Week-by-Week Breakdown
Week 1: Introduction and First Play
Session structure:
- 0-15 min: Intro to course, explain game-based approach, set expectations
- 15-25 min: Rules explanation (Louise played a demo round)
- 25-70 min: First game (students play 5 turns)
- 70-90 min: Debrief and reflection
What went well:
- Students engaged immediately. "Most alert I've seen them in September," Louise noted.
- Competitive energy was high but not disruptive.
- Three usually-disengaged students asked questions proactively.
Challenges:
- Rules confusion around turn order (took 10 minutes to clarify).
- Two students tried to "cheat" by hiding inventory cards—Louise handled it with humor and clarification.
- Debrief felt rushed (Louise had planned only 10 minutes; needed 20).
Student feedback (informal):
- "When do we play again?"
- "I didn't realize business was this complicated."
- "I made so many bad decisions—can I try again?"
Louise's reflection: "They're hooked. Now I need to ensure they're learning, not just playing."
Weeks 2-4: Building Strategic Depth
Louise introduced a Strategy Journal: a simple template where students documented:
- Key decisions each turn
- Reasoning behind those decisions
- Outcomes (did it work?)
- What they'd do differently
Excerpt from one student's journal (Week 3):
"Turn 1: Chose beach because it had most customers. Priced at £3 (middle price). Result: Only sold 12 smoothies. Why? Three other people chose beach too. We split the customers. Lesson: High demand doesn't matter if everyone goes there. Next time: Pick less crowded location or lower price to beat competitors. Business word: Market saturation."
This student had zero prior business knowledge. By Week 3, he was articulating competitive strategy.
Louise used journals for formative assessment, identifying misconceptions and addressing them in debrief.
Key teaching moment (Week 4): A price war erupted. Two students kept undercutting each other: £2.50 → £2.20 → £1.80 → £1.50. Both ended the game with low profits despite high sales.
Louise paused the game: "What's happening here? Who's winning this price war?"
Class discussion revealed: neither was winning. Both were sacrificing profit margin for spite.
Louise introduced the term "destructive competition" and connected it to real examples (airline price wars). Students got it instantly because they'd just lived it.
Weeks 5-6: Mid-Point Assessment
Louise ran a mid-point practical application test (similar format to baseline).
Class average: 7.2/10 (+2.5 points, +53% improvement)
Qualitative shift: Students weren't just defining terms—they were applying strategy. Answers included phrases like:
- "I'd differentiate by offering unique products"
- "Lower prices might attract customers but reduce profit margin"
- "Entering a saturated market is risky"
Student quote (from test): "This is basically Turn 3 of Smoothie Wars when everyone chose the hotel. You have to find a gap in the market."
Louise showed these results to her head of department. Green light to continue.
Weeks 7-9: Advanced Concepts
With fundamentals solid, Louise introduced complexity:
Week 7: Market shocks Mid-game, she announced: "Health inspector closed the beach. Anyone there must move and lose this turn's profit."
Students experienced external risk factors. Debrief covered business continuity, diversification, risk management.
Week 8: Teams Students played in pairs instead of individually. Required collaboration, negotiation, shared decision-making.
Quieter students contributed more in team format. Competitive students learned to listen.
Week 9: Strategy presentation Instead of playing, students analyzed previous games. Each group presented: "Our winning strategy was X because Y. Here's the data to prove it."
Students created graphs, calculated ROI, and used business vocabulary confidently.
Weeks 10-11: Transfer to New Contexts
Louise presented a real case study: "A new restaurant is opening in Tower Hamlets. Use business concepts from Smoothie Wars to advise them."
Students had to transfer learning from the game to a real scenario.
Excerpt from one group's presentation:
"The restaurant should research competitor locations (like we chose island locations). High street has 12 restaurants already—market saturation. We recommend the new development area near the Docklands. Less competition but growing customer base. Like when we chose the forest trail and had fewer customers but made more profit because we weren't splitting demand."
That's sophisticated strategic thinking from a 13-year-old.
Week 12: Final Assessment and Reflection
Final practical application test results:
| Metric | Baseline (Week 0) | Final (Week 12) | Change | |--------|-------------------|-----------------|--------| | Class average score | 4.7/10 | 8.8/10 | +87% | | % scoring 7+ (proficient) | 18% | 79% | +61 pts | | Use of business vocabulary | 2.1 terms/answer | 5.7 terms/answer | +171% | | Application to real scenarios | 32% of students | 89% of students | +57 pts |
Engagement metrics:
Louise tracked observable engagement behaviors (asking questions, volunteering answers, on-task time):
- Baseline (traditional lessons): 64% average engagement
- Game sessions (Weeks 1-12): 92% average engagement
Behavioral data:
- Traditional lessons (previous term): 17 behavioral incidents (off-task, disruption)
- Game-based sessions (12 weeks): 0 behavioral incidents
Louise: "I've never had zero incidents across 12 weeks. The game kept them engaged enough that disruption didn't happen."
Challenges and How Louise Overcame Them
Challenge 1: Time Management
Problem: Early sessions ran over. Debrief got squeezed.
Solution: Louise created a strict timer system:
- Rules explanation: 10 min MAX (she practiced explaining concisely)
- Gameplay: 60 min (6 turns × 10 min each, strictly enforced)
- Debrief: 20 min (non-negotiable)
She set visible timers. Students learned to manage their own pacing.
Challenge 2: Uneven Skill Levels
Problem: Some students grasped strategy quickly; others struggled.
Solution: Tiered roles within the game:
- Struggling students: "Resource managers" (handle inventory, simpler role)
- Advanced students: "Strategic advisors" (make competitive decisions, mentor peers)
Also introduced "difficulty modifiers": stronger players started with fewer resources (handicap), making competition fairer.
Challenge 3: Justifying "Game Time" to Observers
Problem: During a learning walk, a senior leader observed students playing and asked, "Where's the learning?"
Solution: Louise had prepared. She showed:
- Curriculum map (game mechanics aligned to standards)
- Student journals (evidence of strategic thinking)
- Assessment data (measurable improvement)
- Debrief questions on the board (demonstrating reflection)
The senior leader left impressed. Later approved budget for more games.
Challenge 4: Students Who Just Wanted to "Win"
Problem: A few students cared only about winning, not learning. They'd exploit loopholes, rules-lawyer, and ignored strategic reflection.
Solution: Louise introduced a "Strategic Thinker of the Week" award (separate from game winner). Criteria: best use of business concepts, thoughtful risk-taking, insightful debrief contributions.
Some students cared more about this award than winning. Shifted focus from competition to learning.
Student Voices: What They Said
End-of-term anonymous feedback:
"What did you learn from Smoothie Wars?"
- "I learned that business isn't just about selling stuff. You have to think ahead and watch what competitors do."
- "Lower prices don't always mean more profit. I kept losing money by being too cheap."
- "Real-life businesses do exactly what we did in the game. Supply and demand, competition—it's all connected."
- "I understand the news better now. When they talk about market competition, I get it."
"How did this compare to traditional business lessons?"
- "Way better. I actually remember stuff from the game."
- "In normal lessons I write notes and forget. In the game, I feel why supply and demand matters."
- "I used to hate business studies. Now it's my favorite subject."
"Would you recommend Smoothie Wars to next year's Year 9s?"
- Yes: 96% (27/28 students)
- No: 4% (1 student—said they preferred traditional lessons)
Measurable Outcomes: The Full Picture
| Metric | Baseline | Post-Intervention | Improvement | |--------|----------|-------------------|-------------| | Practical application test scores | 4.7/10 | 8.8/10 | +87% | | Student engagement (observed) | 64% | 92% | +28 pts | | Behavioral incidents | 17 (prev. term) | 0 | -100% | | Students meeting proficiency (7+) | 18% | 79% | +61 pts | | Parent positive feedback | 6 comments | 19 comments | +217% |
Unexpected outcome: Five students asked for business studies as a GCSE option (two had previously shown no interest).
Lessons for Other Educators
What worked:
- Curriculum alignment from Day 1 — Never "just play." Always connect to learning objectives.
- Assessment throughout — Journals, observations, formal tests. Prove learning is happening.
- Structured debrief — The game is the hook. Reflection is the learning.
- Administrative transparency — Share data, invite observations, frame as pedagogical innovation.
- Student agency — Let them make real decisions and fail safely.
What Louise would change:
- Start journaling from Week 1 (she introduced it Week 2).
- Schedule 100-minute sessions instead of 90 (always felt rushed).
- Pre-teach a few more business terms upfront (though discovery learning worked too).
- Involve parents earlier (send home game summary, invite to observation).
Scalability: Can This Work Elsewhere?
Louise's context: Urban London state school, mixed-ability, 28 students.
What's transferable:
- The structure (play → reflect → apply)
- Assessment approach (baseline, mid-point, final)
- Curriculum mapping process
What needs adaptation:
- Class size (larger classes need more facilitators or team-based play)
- Resources (school bought 6 game sets for £180 total—accessible for most)
- Scheduling (some schools can't spare 90-minute blocks)
Louise has since:
- Shared her model at a TeachMeet
- Mentored two other teachers implementing game-based learning
- Expanded to Year 10 with more complex business simulations
FAQs
Did the improvement sustain after the game ended? Louise tracked students into Spring term. Practical application test scores remained high (8.3/10 average, slight dip from 8.8 but still +77% vs. baseline).
What about students who don't like games? One student preferred traditional lessons. Louise allowed her to complete alternative written analysis tasks based on observing others' gameplay. She still learned, just differently.
How much did this cost? Six Smoothie Wars sets: £180. Printing (journals, debrief sheets): ~£20. Total: £200. Cost per student per term: £7.14.
Can this work in primary schools? Louise believes yes, with adaptations. Simpler rules, shorter sessions (45-60 min), more scaffolding. She's piloting with a Year 6 class next.
What if my school won't approve it? Start tiny. One lesson. Document outcomes. Show data. Expand from there. Louise's pilot model is replicable precisely because she proved value incrementally.
Conclusion: Evidence Over Skepticism
Louise started skeptical. "Games in class felt risky."
But she designed it properly: clear objectives, structured implementation, rigorous assessment.
The results speak: 87% improvement in test scores, 92% engagement, zero behavioral issues.
More importantly, students left Year 9 understanding business strategy—not just memorizing definitions.
As Louise puts it: "I'll never go back to teaching supply and demand through worksheets. Why would I, when I can watch students experience market forces and emerge genuinely understanding them?"
The question isn't whether game-based learning works.
The question is: why aren't more teachers using it?
Download Louise's Full Implementation Guide: Includes her 12-week lesson plans, journal templates, assessment rubrics, and parent communication letters.
About the Author:
The Smoothie Wars Content Team creates educational gaming content. The team documented Louise Jenkins' classroom implementation throughout the autumn term 2024, observing sessions and analyzing outcomes. This case study is part of an ongoing research series on game-based business education.
Schema JSON-LD:
{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "Article",
"headline": "Case Study: How One Teacher Used Smoothie Wars to Transform Business Education",
"description": "Comprehensive classroom case study documenting a 12-week Smoothie Wars implementation in a London secondary school, including lesson plans, student outcomes, challenges, and measurable results.",
"image": "https://smoothiewars.com/media/blog/classroom-implementation.jpg",
"author": {
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Smoothie Wars Content Team",
"jobTitle": "Head of Content"
},
"datePublished": "2024-09-08",
"publisher": {
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "Smoothie Wars"
}
}
