← Back to competition briefing
Reference · RISE Scenario Development Competition 2026

The RISE Framework

RISE = Resilience and Integrity through Scenario-based Engagement. Six core competences, exercised across five interconnected domains of life. This is the framework your competition scenario must be built on — and the vocabulary the judges score.

6 competences 5 domains Dynamic · contextual · multidirectional Up to 4 competences · up to 2 domains
Official source

Watch the framework video

The definitions on this page are transcribed from the official video shown on the competition site (123 s, visual-only).

If the video does not load, open it from the competition site — it streams from the HKBU server.

01 · How it is modelled

Dynamic, contextual, multidirectional

Three ideas govern how the pieces relate. Read them carefully — they are the reason there is no fixed answer key.

🔄 Dynamic model

The 6 competences and 5 domains operate as an integrated, non-linear system. This reflects both the importance of core competences for resilience and integrity, and the variation in their involvement across different scenarios — giving a framework for design while allowing flexibility.

🧭 Contextual alignment

Competences are not statically mapped to specific domains. Any combination of competences can be deployed within any domain, depending on the context or scenario.

↔️ Multidirectional application

The arrow in the illustration shows the competency plane can be turned in both directions, allowing different competences to be applied within any domain.

What this means for you: choose the domains and competences your scenario genuinely activates, then justify each code against a specific line or action. There is no "correct" pair to look up.
02 · The 6 core competences C1–C6

What each competence means

Click a card to open the official definition and our scene-design guidance. Selecting a code also highlights it in the matrix below.

03 · The 5 domains of life D1–D5

Where the scenario can be set

04 · Contextual mapping

Any competence × any domain

Every cell is valid. Click a competence column or a domain row to see how the mapping lights up — the framework deliberately leaves it open so your scenario's context decides.

● = the combination can be activated in a scenario. There is no inherent, fixed pairing.

05 · Applying it in your submission

Selection rules & script conventions

Selection limits

  • Choose up to 4 competences as most relevant.
  • Choose up to 2 domains as most relevant.
  • Aim to cover most competences and at least two domains — a strong entry maps 3–4 competences across 2 domains.
  • Optionally tag a specific discipline if the scenario is discipline-focused.

Code conventions

  • Put codes in brackets right after the evidence: (C1, C2)
  • Mark a lacking/missed/misused competence with a minus: (-C1, C2)
  • Reference each clip by exact filename: [Play: Video_Filename.mp4]
Topic: Group Assignment Dilemma

(Scene 1: The Dilemma) — Video [Play: Scene1.mp4]
Alex: "…that's… not really our work. It feels like cheating."

Level 1 · What is Alex's immediate action?
 Option 1 · Go along with it, acknowledging the GenAI tool   (-C1, C2)
 Option 2 · Challenge it directly                            (C1, -C2, C5)
 Option 3 · Ask for a pause to think                         (C2, C3, C5)

Outcome (ideal) · Take collective responsibility            (C1, C3)
 "Honesty and self-awareness turn a failure into a learning experience."
Why negative codes matter: they show the judge exactly where a competence was not used — which is what makes the debrief teach. A scenario with only positive codes usually reads as telling, not showing.
06 · Worked mapping

The official example, decoded

The official "Group Assignment Dilemma" is tagged D1 Academic/Professional + D5 Relational/Social, with C1, C2, C3, C5. Notice the negative codes doing the teaching:

(-C1, C2)Go along with the GenAI text to keep the peace — ethical judgement missing, relationship maintained.
(C1, -C2, C5)Confront Ben directly — integrity upheld, relationship damaged.
(C2, C3, C5)Ask for a pause to think — collaboration, self-awareness, initiative.
(C1, C3)Ideal — take collective responsibility; failure becomes learning.
(C1, C2, C5)Ideal — negotiate a compromise / check the GenAI guidelines.

See the full branch structure in the briefing's branch explorer. Do not copy the example — originality is required.

07 · References

Evidence cited by the framework video

  1. Ang, W. H. D., Shorey, S., Hoo, M. X. Y., Chew, H. S. J., & Lau, Y. (2021). The role of resilience in higher education: A meta-ethnographic analysis of students' experiences. Journal of Professional Nursing, 37(6), 1092–1109.
  2. Borazon, E. Q., & Chuang, H. H. (2023). Resilience in educational system: A systematic review and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Development, 99, 102761.
  3. de Oliveira Durso, S., Afonso, L. E., & Beltman, S. (2021). Resilience in higher education: A conceptual model and its empirical analysis. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 29(August–December), 156.
  4. D'Silva, M. N. (2025). Building resilience and academic success: An integrated framework of multiple intelligences, mentoring, psychological well-being, and AI support in higher education. Journal of Marketing & Social Research, 2(2), 685–689.
  5. Johnson, D. L., Ambrose, S. H., Bassett, T. J., Bowen, M. L., Crummey, D. E., Isaacson, J. S., … & Winter-Nelson, A. E. (1997). Meanings of environmental terms. Journal of Environmental Quality, 26(3), 581–589.
  6. Maller, V. (1988). The relevance of personal domain satisfaction for the quality of life in South Africa. South African Journal of Psychology, 18(3), 69–75.
  7. Pabst, A., & Scazzieri, R. (2012). The political economy of civil society. Constitutional Political Economy, 23(4), 337–356.
  8. Thomas, J. (2025). Integrity and the purpose of the university: a philosophical comment. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 21(1), 34.
  9. Torstendahl, R. (2005). The need for a definition of 'profession'. Current Sociology, 53(6), 947–951.
  10. Van Kessel, G., Brewer, M., Lane, M., Cooper, B., & Naumann, F. (2022). A principle-based approach to the design of a graduate resilience curriculum framework. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(4), 1325–1339.
  11. Wang, F., Huang, P., Xi, Y., & King, R. B. (2025). Fostering resilience among university students: the role of teaching and learning environments. Higher Education, 1–25.
  12. Williams, K. (2008). Troubling the concept of the 'academic profession' in 21st century higher education. Higher Education, 56(5), 533–544.
  13. Wong, S. S. H., Lim, S. W. H., & Quinlan, K. M. (2016). Integrity in and beyond contemporary higher education: What does it mean to university students? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1094.