Communication and collaboration styles used by students while working in a team are positively correlated with project performance and success. However, based on our primary research conducted on IU students, we observed that students faced inefficiencies in communicating and collaborating while working within teams. We researched and found a multitude of problems that hampered the productivity of students, namely: use of multiple platforms for communication, diversion of attention, loss of efficiency, no dedicated collaborative platform for team-related work, absence of file organization and synchronization. In our research we also found out that Canvas, the learning management system is a common platform to every IU student and they use it for their academic purpose. It also comes up with a mobile app and tablet version. However, currently Canvas does not support team collaboration and also lacks effective communication feature between students.
Hence we decided on our challenge to redesign Canvas LMS for helping students to communicate and collaborate efficiently while working in teams.
How might we redesign Canvas LMS for helping students to communicate and collaborate efficiently while working in teams?
Low Fidelity Prototype Sketches
High Fidelity Wireframes
High Fidelity Working Prototype - Using Figma
This is the phase where we got the high-fidelity prototype solution evaluated by self, users and experts.
For evaluation we chose to perform following two important tasks:
1. Start a new chat with group members and peers using from Message
2. Create a new folder using Groups under Files inside your project folder
(A) Self cognitive walkthrough:
It helped us to find the usability issues with the app. It made us understand how easy or difficult it is for new users to operate. By this approach, we divided each task into different steps and asked a set of questions to the users and evaluated the user aspect for our app design. Because of this approach, we were able to do step by step analysis of how users completed the assigned tasks.
Key Findings:
1. ‘Search names’ functionality needs to be improved. Users need to be informed using an information icon that only course mates can be searched. Furthermore, it is essential that a course dropdown is introduced for students to quickly find the names.
2. An additional issue we witnessed was when users visit the groups tab, they get to see two ‘message’ icons - one on the top right and one on the left panel. This can create confusion in students about their usage if don’t know about the difference in their functionalities.
3. Not all the displayed options are clickable or selectable which creates confusion of next. Requires error prevention.
4. Information rich UI. It can be overwhelming for users.
5. Navigation is easy.
6. At some points FAQ could be helpful for users.
(B) Expert evaluation:
For expert evaluation, we created evaluation packets and sent it to the known experts in the field. The packet consisted of Instructions on steps to perform, Link to prototype, task error sheet and questionnaire. After completion of their evaluation on product, we conducted short semi-structured interviews with them for validating the concept and getting overall feedback on improvements.
Key Findings:
1. Navigation not intuitive.
2. Need to remove redundancies.
3. Suggested to keep only selectable dummy data.
4. There are no exit points present at some places. Needs error prevention.
5. The new features will be helpful for students and will make their communication efficient and also improve their productivity of teamwork.
6. Screen fit was one particular issue which was highlighted by all the experts.
7. Students will require hand-holding or guidance in the beginning, to understand the new features.
(C) User evaluation:
For user evaluation, we conducted think-aloud with users while they were performing the two tasks and later interviewed them on their overall experience.
Key Findings:
1. Privacy: Four of the users responded saying that the text size was too huge to read, which compromised on their privacy.
2. Need to improve on navigation.
3. Screen fit: Throughout the prototype, a few of the user interface elements were not visible in the designed screen resolution.
4. Action on files: In the files section of the group workspace, the users expected the files to be downloadable or could be edited in some way, which was missing when they interacted with it.
5. Workspace: While going about the second task, we observed the users taking a considerable amount of time in creating group files by connecting their cloud accounts.
After the evaluations, the main problems we found are:
1. Privacy Concern
2. Navigation not intuitive
3. Screen Fit issues
4. Needs error prevention
5. Walkthrough on new changes
Recommendation:
From the evaluation results, we propose certain recommendations for our social computing product.
1. First, rectifying the text size to resolve the privacy concern of the users as well as keeping it consistent with existing messaging systems to ensure familiarity.
2. Our next recommendation is to give the user complete freedom by implementing appropriate navigation and adding exit points, thus making it more intuitive.
3. Further, we aim to resolve the screen fit issue so that users don’t miss out on important elements in the product.
4. We will also eliminate error-prone conditions by checking for them and present users with a confirmation option if required.
5. Our final recommendation would be providing an overview or a tutorial to guide the users about the new features.