Interview scorecard template

eLearning Developer interview scorecard

Evaluate eLearning Developer candidates across 4 weighted areas: portfolio, craft and rationale, feedback and iteration, and working with the brief. Portfolio leads at 35%, so ask for published course links or Storyline, Rise, Captivate or Lectora source files, and check whether they built interactions, assessments and branching scenarios themselves rather than reskinning. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
design visual communicationarticulate storylineinstructional designlms deploymentscorm xapi
TL;DR
For portfolio, look for evidence the candidate shows several live modules with named clients, explains their role in each, and can open source files including variables and triggers. For craft and rationale, look for evidence the candidate justifies packaging, tagging and accessibility choices with reference to the LMS, the learners and completion or bookmarking behaviour. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework

What to assess and how to score it

Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.

01
Evaluation factor

Portfolio

35% weight

Ask for published course links or Storyline, Rise, Captivate or Lectora source files, and check whether they built interactions, assessments and branching scenarios themselves rather than reskinning templates.

Evidence to listen for

  • Work exists and can be looked at, not just described
  • States what they made versus what the team or a template made
  • Shows range rather than one repeated style
  • Can walk through a piece from brief to final

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No portfolio, or work that is unattributable or clearly templated.

2
Needs Improvement

Thin portfolio; unclear what they personally made.

3
Satisfactory

Real work with adequate range; contribution mostly clear.

4
Very Good

Strong varied portfolio with clear personal ownership.

5
Excellent

Shows several live modules with named clients, explains their role in each, and can open source files including variables and triggers.

02
Evaluation factor

Craft and rationale

25% weight

Probe technique: responsive layouts, accessibility to WCAG 2.1 and Section 508, SCORM 1.2 versus xAPI packaging, audio sync, and why they chose a given interaction pattern.

Evidence to listen for

  • Explains why a layout, type choice, or colour decision serves the brief
  • Knows typography and hierarchy as craft, not decoration
  • Works to a brand system without either breaking it or hiding behind it
  • Names the tools they are genuinely fast in

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Cannot explain any decision; work is arbitrary.

2
Needs Improvement

Talks in taste terms only; no link between choice and brief.

3
Satisfactory

Sound craft with some ability to justify decisions.

4
Very Good

Articulate about why each choice serves the brief.

5
Excellent

Justifies packaging, tagging and accessibility choices with reference to the LMS, the learners and completion or bookmarking behaviour.

03
Evaluation factor

Feedback and iteration

25% weight

Test how they handle SME review cycles and pilot feedback: tracked review tools, revision logs, and evidence they changed a module after learners struggled with it.

Evidence to listen for

  • Takes critique without treating it as an attack
  • Distinguishes a subjective preference from a real problem, and says so politely
  • Iterates fast rather than defending version one
  • Delivers files correctly and on time

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Defensive about critique; will not revise.

2
Needs Improvement

Accepts feedback passively; iterations do not improve the work.

3
Satisfactory

Revises willingly; struggles to push back on weak feedback.

4
Very Good

Iterates quickly and can argue for the work when the feedback is wrong.

5
Excellent

Cites specific revisions driven by pilot data or SME markup, and describes how they closed out conflicting reviewer comments.

04
Evaluation factor

Working with the brief

15% weight

Look for how they turn a raw request into scope: learning objectives, storyboards, seat time estimates, Bloom or Kirkpatrick framing, and negotiation with stakeholders on timelines.

Evidence to listen for

  • Asks about audience and goal before opening the design tool
  • Works with marketing, product, or clients rather than in isolation
  • Flags an impossible brief early
  • Hands over files and assets others can actually use

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Designs in isolation; ignores the brief's purpose.

2
Needs Improvement

Starts designing before understanding the goal.

3
Satisfactory

Asks the right questions when prompted.

4
Very Good

Interrogates the brief up front and hands over cleanly.

5
Excellent

Converts vague requests into measurable objectives and a storyboard, pushing back where content did not need a course at all.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a eLearning Developer

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    What kinds of eLearning programmes have you created?

  2. 02

    Can you provide examples of interactive content you have created?

  3. 03

    What is your experience converting in-person training into online courses?

  4. 04

    Can you explain your approach to course design and development?

  5. 05

    Do you have a background in instructional design or teaching?

See the complete eLearning Developer question set
Put this rubric to work

Score every candidate against the same standard

Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.

Explore AI Scorecards