Training & Development Specialist

$40–75/hrrate as listed

micro1 is contracting instructional designers and training professionals to produce learning-design artifacts — objectives, module pathways, content, quizzes, and rubrics — that are used as training and evaluation data for AI models. The work is remote, contract-based, and priced in the $40–75/hr range as observed on the platform.

Summary, eligibility guidance and screening preparation are prepared by Sidequest from the platform's posting. Check the source listing before applying.

What the work actually involves

You write and evaluate the kind of material a competent L&D professional produces on the job, but for a model rather than a classroom. A typical task set might ask you to take a rough audience brief and produce measurable learning objectives, then map those objectives to a module sequence with activities and a matching assessment. Other tasks flip the direction: you review a model's attempt at a training plan or rubric and explain, specifically, where the objectives are unmeasurable, where the assessment doesn't test what the objective claims, or where the activity sequence assumes prior knowledge the audience doesn't have. Expect to write rationale, not just verdicts — the reasoning is often more valuable to the customer than the score.

What the platform screens for

micro1 runs an AI-led interview before any task access. It probes for real practice rather than vocabulary: whether you can distinguish an objective from a topic, whether you can name the assessment method you'd choose for a given outcome and defend it, and whether you can talk concretely about programs you've built and what you'd change about them. Follow-up questions go deeper on whatever you volunteer, so specific examples with real constraints (audience size, delivery mode, compliance requirements, timelines) hold up better than framework name-dropping.

Depth in adult learning, instructional design, or corporate training — degree, certification, or a documented portfolio
Written clarity under a word budget; much of the deliverable is prose
Consistency: applying the same standard across many samples without drifting

Logistics

Fully remote, fully async, contractor status with no minimum commitment stated. Most contributors work 10–25 hours a week and pick up task batches as they're released, which means availability is uneven — periods of steady volume alternate with gaps between customer projects. Pay bands are as observed on the platform and vary by task type, review tier, and assessed depth; nothing here is guaranteed.

What they look for

Defining learning/program objectives
Designing basic assessment (quiz/rubric)
designing learning programs
creating educational content
strong communication in a remote environment

Before you apply

Would you pass this screen?

Drawn from what this listing actually requires. Answered in your browser — nothing is sent to us, and we do not store your answers.

Have you designed or delivered a formal training program, course, or structured learning experience?
Training, instructional design, or adult learning experience · required
Have you written learning objectives or created assessments (quizzes, rubrics, performance tasks) for a learning program?
Learning objectives and assessment experience · required
Have you authored educational materials such as lesson guides, module content, presentations, or instructional documents?
Educational content creation · preferred
Have you designed or delivered training in a remote, hybrid, or entirely digital format?
Remote or digital delivery experience · preferred

0 of 4 answered

Included with this listing

Interview prep — 12 questions

Matched to what this platform's screening actually measures. Answer each out loud in 60–90 seconds: claim → concrete example → implication.

What it tests: Whether the candidate can articulate the full instructional design process: defining measurable outcomes, selecting activities that build toward those outcomes, and choosing assessments that genuinely evaluate achievement rather than just knowledge recall.
A strong answer: A strong answer names a specific program, states the measurable learning objectives (e.g., 'learners will be able to X by the end'), describes the activities or modules designed to build that capability, and explains how the assessment checked whether learners could actually do the thing, not just regurgitate information.
Where people lose it: Candidates often describe training they *delivered* rather than programs they *designed*, or they list activities without tying them to measurable outcomes. Saying 'we ran a workshop on X' without explaining the learning objective or how success was measured signals weak instructional design thinking.