Portfolio Evaluation & Scoring Rubrics
Portfolio Scoring Rubrics
For the best viewing experience on MOBILE please rotate your device to landscape (horizontal) mode.
Criteria
Exemplary
Proficient
Developing
Limited
20 points
Landing Page and Communication Excellence Video
Compelling multimedia narrative positioning the student as an exceptional communicator; clear alignment with HKU graduate attributes.
Strong multimedia narrative positioning the student as an effective communicator; generally clear alignment with HKU graduate attributes.
Generic claims of competence; weak alignment with HKU graduate attributes.
Unfocused or unconvincing; lacks specificity.
10 points
Communication Skills Gallery
Sophisticated, media-anchored analysis of growth across written, spoken, visual, and digital literacies; with very concrete examples to evidence mastery and progression.
Clear and generally media anchored analysis of of growth across all four literacies wit concrete examples.
Generic statements of growth with limited or text-only examples; uneven coverage across literacies; examples given are general in nature.
Superficial or incomplete reflection; minimal evidence o progress in relation to the showcased examples.
10 points
Critical Incident
Identifies a very specific critical incident involving feedback on communication performance;
Showcases a compelling analysis of successful implementation that leads to transformative changes
Identifies a specific critical incident involving feedback on communication performance;
Showcases a strong analysis of generally successful implementation of feedback that leads to substantial changes
The critical incident identified is vague;
A general analysis of the implementation of feedback.
Changes vague and unclear.
Superficial description; no evidence of application; absent or broken media.
20 points
CI Experience
Impact (10) — Deep, media-backed analysis showing how communication shaped outcomes with concrete evidence
Leadership (10) — Explicit integration of 2–4 literacies in highlight reels or demos; demonstrates very clear leadership roles and pivotal influence on team/project success
Impact (8) — Reasonably deep, media-backed analysis showing how communication shaped outcomes with generally concrete evidence
Leadership (8) — Uses 2+ literacies effectively; demonstrates clear leadership role and influence on team/project success.
Impact (6) — General analysis, with some media backing. Examples are general.
Leadership (6) — Limited integration; mostly passive role; basic or uneven media.
Impact (4) — Minimal analysis; no tangible outcomes.
Leadership (4) — Literacies not addressed; no leadership context; poor or missing media.
Criteria
Exemplary
Proficient
Developing
Limited
5 points
Relevance & Targeting
Expertly tailored to a specific industry/job; demonstrates deep audience awareness.
Clearly aligned with target role; appropriate tone/style.
Generic content; weak alignment with industry.
Mismatched audience; irrelevant content.
5 points
Conciseness & Impact
Highly memorable, persuasive delivery within 60s; compelling narrative arc.
Clear key messages;
structured and engaging.
Rambling or unclear focus; lacks impact.
Disorganized; exceeds time limit.
5 points
Vocal/Visual Presence
Professional polish (pace, tone, eye contact); creative visuals enhance message.
Clear audio/visuals; confident delivery.
Basic production; uneven presence (e.g., monotone).
Distracting technical issues (audio/visual).
5 points
Persuasion
Positions student as an exceptional candidate; evidence based value proposition.
Convincing pitch of skills/experience.
Generic claims; lacks supporting evidence.
Unconvincing or overly boastful.
Criteria
Exemplary
Proficient
Developing
Limited
10 points
Structure & Clarity
Seamless flow; intuitive navigation; sophisticated synthesis of media.
Logical organization; cohesive narrative.
Disjointed sections; weak transitions.
Confusing structure;
inaccessible content.
5 points
Engagement
Creative multimedia use; compelling storytelling for public audience.
Appropriate media choices; engaging tone.
Overly academic/dry; minimal creativity.
Inappropriate tone; disengaging.
5 points
Technical Quality
Flawless execution (links formatting, captions); accessible design.
Minor technical flaws; generally polished.
Persistent issues (e.g., broken links).
Major technical errors; inaccessible.