Innovative Pitch Event 2023 (Shark Tank)
Teaching team: Varpumaria Jeskanen, Stephan Plat and Ilse de Wit
University and degree programme: Karelia UAS, International Business & HAN UAS, Business Management
Course: Project Management, 3 ECTS (Karelia UAS,1st year students) & International Business, 2,5 ECTS (HAN UAS, 3rd year students)
Timing: December 2023
CLIL pilot type: Moderate
CLIL assignments: Pitching event inspired by Shark Tank
Language: English
We played the Shark Tank simulation with the students of Karelia University of Applied Sciences (UAS) and HAN University of Applied Sciences on December 4th, 2023. The event was called Innovative Pitch Event 2023 in which the student teams of Karelia UAS pitched their innovative project ideas online over MS Teams to the sharks that were played by the students and teachers of HAN UAS. Learning objectives for the Karelian students were to learn how to deliver a short and targeted project presentation to a management board or investors and how to convincingly interact with them concerning the project’s key points.
Introduction of the CLIL implementation with 10 CLIL parameters
Sequence:
Karelian students were prepared in advance with a rehearsal pitch. The content of the pitch itself is derived from multiple lectures that supported the students to scope their project idea, build a functional project management model and consider project outcome vs. investment and customer value. The project management course ran from October to December 2023 and the final pitches took place on 4 December.
Concept and Task > Language:
The CLIL tasks required students to apply business terminology and concepts in their communication. Karelian students had to develop their pitching skills to present their ideas to a potential investor audience. HAN students, in contrast, sharpened their questioning techniques to evaluate the viability of the entrepreneurial proposals.
Guided multimedia input:
Multimedia had a key role, since the interaction was online. Therefore we made a set-up within MS TEAMS, multiple screens, and business style lay-out of classroom. Instructions were given in both of the campuses verbally and in a written format. Evaluation criteria was informed to everyone, and the evaluation criteria in paper was shared with the sharks.
Key language:
The importance of English as a common language was evident to all participants, as it was the only shared medium of communication. Additionally, due to their respective roles, the students were not permitted to resort to their native tongues, as this would have diminished the professionalism of their pitches or their perceived credibility as potential investors.
Instructions:
The Karelian students were well briefed in advance, while the HAN sharks were given the necessary information just before the start of the Shark Tank. The length and pitch structure were also instructed to ensure that the sharks had similar experience to ensure the objectivity of the judging.
Interactions:
Student-student interactions were facilitated per location, meaning Karelian students got to practice amongst themselves in preparation for the final pitch.Also read ‘sequence’.The HAN students were not specifically prepared to play the role of shark, but they are used to giving peer feedback and asking questions.
Thinking:
Karelian students needed to consider the target audience and how to sell their project idea for them. What would be the project value, how they would create revenue and how much the investors would be investing in it? With the instructions and tools they used to construct their idea they needed to create an appealing presentation and prepare to answer the questions from the sharks.
Students were engaged physically and mentally to perform in this learning process. In both cases Karelian and HAN students had to be physically present and also use their body, posture, movements etc. as part of the pitching and investing process.
Supported output:
The Karelian students got support in both written and oral outputs. During the pitch the focus was on oral output, but also written aspects like reports and the content of the presentation were included. For HAN students there was also a focus on oral outputs and in a minor way on written outputs (written feedback in the assessment forms).
The following evaluation criteria was given to the sharks to support their assessment process:
Example 1: Evaluation criteria used by the sharks:
Sharks were asked to evaluate the pitches and ability to answer the questions with the following criteria:
1. Logical Structure:
Consider the flow of the pitch. Does it follow a logical structure? Assess how effectively the team has presented their project in a coherent and organized manner.
2. Feasibility of the Project Idea:
Dive into the practicality of each project. Do you believe the proposed ideas are feasible? Consider the resources required, potential challenges, and the overall viability of turning these concepts into reality. Did the team convince you to invest? If so, is their request for the investment in line with their targets and outputs?
3. Innovativeness:
Innovation is at the heart of these pitches. Reflect on the uniqueness of each idea. Does it bring something new to the table? Consider the creativity and originality that each team has infused into their project. Look for that spark of innovation that sets them apart.
4. Acceptability:
To gain acceptance, innovations must resonate with stakeholders, align with Sustainable Development Goals, and contribute to overall societal well-being. By addressing the needs of beneficiaries, fostering sustainability, and promoting positive change, innovations can earn widespread recognition and support. Ultimately, acceptability is the hallmark of impactful innovation and does it have a need and place in the markets.
5. Clarity:
Clarity is key in communication. Evaluate how well each team has conveyed their message. Are the concepts easy to understand? Consider the clarity of their presentation, the simplicity of their language, and their ability to work as a team to present their project proposal in an accessible manner.
6. Attractiveness of the Pitch:
Lastly, consider the overall attractiveness of the pitch. Did the team engage you to listen? Was there enthusiasm and passion in their presentation? Evaluate the charisma and appeal that each team brought to the stage. A compelling pitch can leave a lasting impression.
After each 5 min pitch the sharks at HAN UAS asked questions to the teams in Karelia UAS to define and detail the project ideas. With the given assessment criteria, the sharks voted for the winning pitch by filling the points in the score card (template available in ch 5.5).
Feedback methods after the Innovative Pitch Event:
Karelia students gathered for the feedback sessions. We went through some good examples from the pitches and also some improvement points concerning presentation skills, contents, ability to answer the questions, etc. We also made a survey to examine their perception of the event, how they reached the learning objective and how they experienced this joint task with another university. According to their responses (total 50 responses), they felt that the Shark Tank pitching task improved their
- intercultural teamworking skills (48/50 agreed or strongly agreed)
- spoken communication skills in English (48/50)
- verbal comprehension skills (47/50)
- verbal expressions skills (to express ideas or opinions) (45/50)
- presentations skills (44/50)
The students’ feedback concerning the feedback discussion after the event was mainly positive and most of the students felt that this discussion helped them to understand how to improve (figure 2). Overall, 94% felt the feedback session was very beneficial or beneficial for their personal development.
Figure 2: Students’ perceptions of the Feedback session (Karelia UAS)
Here are some written observations from the students:
“An excellent final step involving outside observers for evaluation.”
“This feedback form is really good and useful because this is my first time when I experience this kind of feedback format and is comfortable to give my ideas. Thank you.”
“I learnt more skills in collaborating with others especially from different nationalities. moreover, I can handle project effectively in a professional manner.”
Team teaching:
Doing joint projects with other partners demand clear vision of the students’ tasks, learning objectives and assessment. In events like this, good preparation with clear timing and instructions are the key to success. When all the teachers on board understand the idea and their role in the event and assessment, there is a good atmosphere and co-operation present that also makes the students feel more confident of their presentations. Based on our experience, we encourage the team of teachers to create in advance a clear event timetable, assessment criteria to follow and instructions for the students to prepare for the event. Check the technical implementation prior to the event and leave room for potential problems. Have a teachers’ feedback session after the event to discuss and document the key takeaways and improvement ideas for the next implementation.
Further development ideas:
Overall, this pilot project was a valuable experience. However, there are several areas where improvements can be made for future iteration.
Key Language:
The language proficiency level of the students significantly influenced the quality of their pitches and the depth and nature of the questions posed by the ‘sharks’. One potential solution is to practice and assess the language skills of the participants earlier in the process, allowing for additional practice and preparation. This enhancement is closely linked to the improvement of interactions discussed below.
Interactions:
To enhance communication and rehearsal opportunities, we can introduce more student-to-student interactions in future scenarios. By connecting students from both institutions earlier in the process, they can collaborate and develop their pitches together. However, the dynamic of presenting to the ‘sharks’ for the first time is distinct from a scenario where the students have already worked together. Therefore, the peer review teams should be separate from the ‘sharks’ group.
Instructions:
For the HAN participants, more detailed instructions on the role of a ‘shark’ should be provided. This communication should occur earlier in the process to allow for better preparation and understanding. Additionally, to alleviate the ‘cold feet’ anxiety that can arise when presenting, students could be given a few general opening questions that could be assigned to specific teams or individuals.
Supported Output:
From the HAN perspective, requiring students to write written feedback to the pitching teams could provide valuable constructive criticism and insights. This feedback could be used to further refine the pitches and enhance the overall presentation experience. From the Karelia’s perspective, the students could have a rehearsal with other teams before the event. This way they could practice the delivery of their pitch and also argumentation skills when they receive questions from the investors.
The following evaluation criteria was given to the sharks to support their assessment process:
Example 1: Evaluation criteria used by the sharks:
Sharks were asked to evaluate the pitches and ability to answer the questions with the following criteria:
1. Logical Structure:
Consider the flow of the pitch. Does it follow a logical structure? Assess how effectively the team has presented their project in a coherent and organized manner.
2. Feasibility of the Project Idea:
Dive into the practicality of each project. Do you believe the proposed ideas are feasible? Consider the resources required, potential challenges, and the overall viability of turning these concepts into reality. Did the team convince you to invest? If so, is their request for the investment in line with their targets and outputs?
3. Innovativeness:
Innovation is at the heart of these pitches. Reflect on the uniqueness of each idea. Does it bring something new to the table? Consider the creativity and originality that each team has infused into their project. Look for that spark of innovation that sets them apart.
4. Acceptability:
To gain acceptance, innovations must resonate with stakeholders, align with Sustainable Development Goals, and contribute to overall societal well-being. By addressing the needs of beneficiaries, fostering sustainability, and promoting positive change, innovations can earn widespread recognition and support. Ultimately, acceptability is the hallmark of impactful innovation and does it have a need and place in the markets.
5. Clarity:
Clarity is key in communication. Evaluate how well each team has conveyed their message. Are the concepts easy to understand? Consider the clarity of their presentation, the simplicity of their language, and their ability to work as a team to present their project proposal in an accessible manner.
6. Attractiveness of the Pitch:
Lastly, consider the overall attractiveness of the pitch. Did the team engage you to listen? Was there enthusiasm and passion in their presentation? Evaluate the charisma and appeal that each team brought to the stage. A compelling pitch can leave a lasting impression.
Overall score sheet for the sharks to evaluate the pitches.
(rate each criterium from 1_insufficient to 5_outstanding)
| Criteria | Team 1 | Team 2 | Team 3 | Team 4 | Team 5 |
| Logical structure | |||||
| Feasibility, convincing to invest | |||||
| Innovativeness | |||||
| Acceptability | |||||
| Clarity | |||||
| Attractiveness of the pitch | |||||
| Total score | |||||