The setting
Beacon Learning builds compliance and clinical training for mid-size hospitals. You are the instructional designer on the content team, partnering with clinical subject matter experts.
Every mission on this path happens at the same company, so context carries over the way it does in a real job: the data you cleaned in mission two is the data the finance lead questions in mission four.
The missions
1. learning objectivesstarter
Write measurable objectives for Beacon's hand hygiene refresher
A hospital client renewed and wants its annual hand hygiene module rebuilt. The subject matter expert sent goals like staff should understand hand hygiene, which no assessment can measure. Compliance auditors will check that the training maps to real requirements.
You deliver: A set of measurable learning objectives for the hand hygiene refresher.
Scored on: Observable verbs, Covers requirements, Right level and scope, Assessable.
Working from: sme_goals.md, audience_brief.md.
2. curriculum mapstarter
Map the Beacon hand hygiene module to objectives and time
The objectives are approved and the client needs a curriculum map before any content is written. The map is what the client signs off on, so an orphaned objective here becomes a compliance gap later.
You deliver: A curriculum map linking segments, objectives, time, and activities.
Scored on: Objective coverage, Time sums, Logical sequence, Activities and checks.
Working from: approved_objectives.md, constraints_id.md.
3. assessment designcore
Design the Beacon hand hygiene assessment blueprint
The module needs an end quiz that actually measures the objectives, and the client's compliance team requires a blueprint showing how items map to objectives. A quiz that misses the soiled-hands objective would fail the audit.
You deliver: An assessment blueprint plus compliant sample items.
Scored on: Blueprint mapping, Rule-compliant items, Fixes the flawed item, Quality distractors.
Working from: objectives_for_assessment.md, item_writing_rules.md.
4. content draftcore
Draft the Beacon hand hygiene lesson from the SME source
Content is due and you are writing the learner-facing lesson for the core segment. Because this is clinical training that will be audited, every claim has to trace to the approved source, and inventing a statistic to sound authoritative would be a serious problem.
You deliver: A learner-facing lesson draft grounded in the SME source.
Scored on: Grounded in the source, Correct key distinction, Meets the style guide, Covers the objectives.
Working from: sme_source.md, style_guide.md.
5. review passstretch
Run the review pass on Beacon's draft sepsis module
Another designer's sepsis-awareness module is up for release and you own the review gate. If a factual error or an accessibility gap ships in clinical training, it is on the reviewer. This module also has pilot quiz data, so you can catch bad questions with numbers, not just judgment.
You deliver: A review report with findings by severity and specific fixes.
Scored on: Catches the factual error, Catches the alignment gap, Uses item statistics, Accessibility and fixes.
Working from: draft_module.md, source_facts.md, item_analysis.csv.
How the scoring works
Each deliverable is graded against the rubric written for that mission. Separately, every mission on every path is graded on how you used AI, against the same four criteria:
- Understood the task. The learner framed the goal for the assistant clearly instead of pasting the brief and hoping.
- Grounded in the material. The learner directed the assistant into the provided files and based the work on them, not on invented facts.
- Verified the output. The learner checked claims, numbers, or coverage against the source material before submitting.
- Iterated with judgment. The learner refined weak parts of the draft with specific follow-ups rather than accepting the first answer.
Both scores, with the work behind them, go on your proof profile. That is what makes a claim like "I can use AI for instructional design" something an employer can check.