Skills

Design a Marketing Campaign for a Real Organisation

0 milestones · 8 weeks

Design a complete marketing campaign brief for a real organisation — specifying the campaign objective, target audience, channel strategy, budget allocation, key creative direction, KPIs, and measurement plan. The brief must be for a real organisation with a real marketing challenge, not a simulation. Proof requires that the campaign brief be reviewed by a marketing practitioner before execution begins, or formally presented to the organisation's marketing leadership, with documented feedback on whether the strategy is viable.

Lead an Organisational Change Project

0 milestones · 12 weeks

Design and execute a real organisational change initiative — not a proposal — documenting the change rationale, stakeholder engagement approach, resistance encountered and how it was addressed, and measuring a defined outcome at least 90 days after implementation. The change must be real: something that materially altered how people work at a real organisation. Proof requires at least one organisational stakeholder — a manager, colleague, or direct report affected by the change — to confirm that the documented change was implemented and that the described outcomes are accurate.

Engineering Design Review

0 milestones · 4 weeks

Conduct a formal engineering design review of a real software design — either as author defending your own design, or as a reviewer leading the review of a peer's design. The review must follow a structured format: design document distributed at least 48 hours before the review, a written review checklist with specific questions prepared in advance, the review session with documented findings (issues, action items, and their severity), and a revision record showing what changed as a result of the review. Preferred proof: a design review in a professional or team context. Accessible alternative: a peer design review conducted with at least 2 qualified reviewers from an open-source project community, a university engineering programme, or a professional network — the design reviewed must be non-trivial (an architectural decision, a data model, or a protocol specification, not a single function). Proof artifacts: the review checklist and findings (analysis artifact) and the revision record documenting what changed and why (documentation artifact). Verification: one of the reviewers confirms the review was substantive — not rubber-stamping — and at least one finding resulted in a real change to the design.

Play-Based Learning Planning & Delivery

0 milestones · 5 weeks

Plan and deliver a real play-based learning activity for a small group of young children (3–8 children) based on their observed interests and developmental stage. Proof requires: (a) a written activity plan including: the observations that informed it, specific learning intentions for the group, resource list, adult role description, and anticipated play scenarios, (b) a brief post-activity reflection (minimum 300 words) on what happened versus what was planned, one specific moment of child-led learning that emerged, and what would be done differently next time, and (c) setting supervisor or lead practitioner written feedback on the activity and the student's facilitation. This proof documents the STUDENT PRACTITIONER'S planning and facilitation skills. Requires current DBS/background check clearance. No child identifying information in submission.

Early Years Environment Assessment

0 milestones · 5 weeks

Conduct a real assessment of an early years environment against a recognised quality framework (EYFS in the UK, NAEYC Accreditation Criteria in the US, National Quality Standard in Australia, or equivalent national framework). Proof requires: (a) a completed environmental assessment tool against the chosen framework, documenting specific observational evidence for each criterion assessed, (b) a written analysis identifying 3 environmental strengths and 3 areas for development — each supported by specific evidence from the assessment, and (c) the setting manager's or lead practitioner's written confirmation that the assessment was conducted with their knowledge and consent and that it is a fair representation of the environment. If any observation of children occurred during the assessment, current DBS/background check clearance is required.

Parent & Family Engagement

0 milestones · 6 weeks

Design and implement a real parent or family engagement strategy in an early years setting. Proof requires: (a) a written engagement plan with rationale, intended outcomes, and method of measuring whether engagement occurred, (b) documented evidence of the strategy implemented — a newsletter, a stay-and-play session plan with attendance record, a family meeting agenda with notes, or an equivalent real engagement artifact, (c) anonymised documentation of family response or participation (number of families engaged, not identifiable individuals), and (d) setting manager or lead practitioner written attestation that the engagement strategy was genuinely implemented and describing the student's role in planning and delivery. No family names or identifying information in submission. Requires current DBS/background check clearance.

Early Years Professional Portfolio

0 milestones · 12 weeks

Build a structured professional portfolio covering at least 4 documented early years practice experiences in a real setting. Each entry must include: a brief description of the practice experience (anonymised — no child or family names), the child-led learning moment identified and how it was supported by the student practitioner, the practitioner's response and its rationale linked to early years pedagogy or theory (e.g. Vygotsky, Froebel, Reggio Emilia, Montessori principles), and one professional development area identified as a result. Final portfolio reviewed and signed off by the placement supervisor or setting lead with a written assessment of the student's professional growth. Requires current DBS/background check clearance. All entries fully anonymised — no child or family names.

Typography Application Project

0 milestones · 6 weeks

Typographic design project demonstrating command of type hierarchy, spacing, scale, and legibility applied to a real brief. Triad: concept/ideation artifact (type selection rationale: why these typefaces for this brief, what alternatives were considered and why they were rejected — a rationale that could only be written after genuine evaluation), technical execution artifact (typographic system applied to a real brief — display, body, and caption hierarchy resolved — delivered in print or digital specification), critique/documentation artifact (type specimen with complete usage rules for the chosen system: size scales, leading values, tracking decisions, and pairing logic). Studio critique: typographer or graphic designer challenges type choices in real time and asks for justification of each decision — the documented critique exchange is submitted as proof. Proof: type rationale document, type specimen PDF, applied design deliverable, critique notes. Verifier: typographer, type designer, or graphic design tutor.

Usability Evaluation

0 milestones · 8 weeks

Usability evaluation of an interactive system with minimum 5 real participants, conducted and reported to professional research standard. Triad: concept/ideation artifact (evaluation plan: usability methodology selected — cognitive walkthrough, think-aloud testing, heuristic evaluation, remote unmoderated testing, or mixed — with written rationale for the method choice and test scenario or task design), technical execution artifact (usability evaluation conducted with minimum 5 real participants: for moderated testing, recordings or timestamped observation notes from each session; for unmoderated, platform export with session recordings or heatmaps), documentation/critique artifact (findings report: severity-rated usability issues using a recognised scale — Nielsen's 1–5 or equivalent — frequency of occurrence for each issue, prioritised redesign recommendations with rationale, and a summary of implications for the next design iteration — minimum 1,200 words). Proof it is your own work: participant session records — consent forms, video recordings, or timestamped observation notes — are the unfakeable layer. Studio critique: UX lead or senior researcher challenges methodology choices and recommendation prioritisation at a documented session. Proof: evaluation plan, participant records (consent + session evidence), findings report, critique notes. Verifier: UX lead, senior UX researcher, or HCI academic.