Skip to main content
This guide explains how Real Talk Studio scores a session. Share it with client admins, L&D leads, and programme managers when someone asks “How is my score calculated?”
This page covers 1:1 roleplay — the most common session type. Team roleplay and presentation practice follow similar principles but may differ in detail.

​
The short answer

Scoring has two ingredients: 1. What you set up in the scenario
When authoring a scenario, you define a learning objective and up to three skills — each with a name and description. Optionally you can add good/bad examples and specific achievements to look for. This is the foundation: the session is scored against your criteria, not a generic checklist. 2. What happened in the conversation
When the session ends, the transcript is reviewed for evidence that the learner demonstrated those skills and met the learning objective. From that review, learners receive:
  • A rating for each skill — from Novice to Expert, with examples and tips
  • An overall score out of 100 — how well they met the learning objective as a whole
  • Highlighted moments from the conversation — where they did well and where they could improve
Scoring rewards meaningful engagement and demonstrated competence, not length alone. Very short sessions or conversations that never get going will score low or may not receive full feedback at all.

​
Ingredient 1 — Skills and the learning objective

Everything starts with how the scenario is configured.
Write skill descriptions that describe observable behaviour — what someone would actually say or do in the conversation — rather than abstract traits like “good communicator.”
See Scenario creation for the full authoring workflow.

​
Ingredient 2 — Reviewing the transcript

When the session finishes, the conversation transcript is analysed for evidence of the skills in action and progress toward the learning objective. The review looks at what the learner said and did — not what they intended. Strong, consistent demonstration across the conversation leads to higher ratings. One good moment on its own is usually not enough. Learners also see key moments pulled from their conversation — where a skill was demonstrated well, or where there was a missed opportunity. The full transcript is always available for admins and reviewers.

​
What learners receive

​
Per-skill rating (Novice → Expert)

Each skill gets one of five levels: Each rating comes with specific examples from the conversation, strengths, and practical tips for next time.

​
Overall score (0–100)

This is a separate assessment of how well the learner met the learning objective across the whole conversation. It is not a simple average of the skill ratings. In general:
  • Low scores (roughly below 50) — limited engagement, missed the objective, or significant gaps in execution
  • Mid scores (roughly 50–70) — partial success, some skills shown but inconsistent
  • Strong scores (roughly 70–89) — clear progress toward the objective, skills applied well
  • Exceptional scores (90+) — outstanding performance; intentionally hard to achieve
Each score includes a short explanation of why it was given.

​
What affects the score — and what does not

​
What matters

  • Engaging meaningfully with the scenario topic
  • Demonstrating the defined skills through what they actually said
  • Consistency across the conversation, not just one strong reply
  • Appropriate tone and professionalism for the situation

​
What does not automatically help

  • Longer conversations do not automatically score higher. A long but unfocused session can still score poorly. What counts is the quality of engagement, not the word count.
  • The overall score is not an average of skill ratings. A learner could do well on one skill but still miss the broader objective.
  • Very short sessions may not receive full feedback. Scenarios can require a minimum session length, and sessions with almost no content will score at or near zero.

​
Common questions

No. Length gives more to assess, but quality matters more than quantity. A focused session that meets the minimum can score well; a long, unfocused one can score poorly.
No. The 0–100 score and the per-skill ratings are assessed independently. They usually align, but not always — a learner might demonstrate one skill well yet miss the overall objective.
Usually because the session was too short, contained only greetings, or the learner did not engage with the topic. These sessions do not provide enough evidence to assess fairly.
Scores in the 90s are reserved for truly exceptional performance — full mastery of the objective and consistent skill demonstration throughout. Most strong sessions land in the 70s or 80s.
Scores reflect a specific conversation. Like human coaching, two sessions of similar quality may receive slightly different scores depending on the evidence in each transcript.

​
Suggested talking points

When a learner or line manager asks about their score:
  1. The score reflects the learning objective — not attendance, effort alone, or how long they talked.
  2. Skills are defined upfront — the scenario author decides what good looks like for that conversation.
  3. Feedback is evidence-based — ratings and highlights refer to specific moments from the conversation.
  4. Low scores are actionable — learners get concrete next steps and can practise again immediately.
  5. Practise again is the point — a score measures one moment in time; improvement comes from repeated practice.