Alokito Teachers is a program aimed at empowering educators, particularly in the context of developing countries like Bangladesh. The core idea is to cultivate a mindset of enlightened, holistic, and empathetic teaching. In terms of use case, it is a platform for teachers to learn, plan, and share educational resources with their peers.

Make the platform more engaging and easy to use for the users.

The goals were:

1. Make the signup process less complicated.

2. Empower users to find what they want and make the ordeal less daunting.

3. Encourage them to explore different features and use them in a regular basis.

I led the research and design process with developers, managers, and education experts. Worked closely with old users of the platform and new ones to understand their platform usage, and conducted interviews and analyzed the data of previous FGD (Focus Group Discuss) sessions.
Based on the research, I made responsive wireframes, high-fidelity designs, and two sets of prototypes of the platform.

From the FGD sessions data, we came across insights that allows us to have a peek at the problems that current users are facing. We have made a User Journey Map based on the interactions and video footage. Click here to see the details.

Based on the interviews, our users are facing these main challenges:

1. Hard to find materials.

2. Name of the options are too similar.

3. Lack of suggestions.

4. Language barrier.

I selected the Design Thinking process, emphasizing a user-centered, iterative approach. This method focuses on users’ needs, identifying effective solutions, prototyping, testing, and gathering feedback. I figured best course of action for this specific problem would be to stick with this framework—it would allow to address specific challenge and solve it before going to the next phase.

We user surveys, interviews, competitive market analysis to figure out what were the underlying needs of the user pools who are both old and new.

For the users who didn't have learning curves, a different survey was assigned to figure out their demographic, where were the friction points they thought they had, and what other education platforms they use or consider using.

As for the new or potential users, we set different KPIs to learn about their interactions with the existing platform.

We also conducted unmoderated usability tests to have a clear idea about what features are the users actually using and what are the features they struggle with.

Here are the outcomes that we found from the research:

1. Through HMW, we identified the pain points.

2. Competitive analysis showed which type of design and experience are the users used to.

3. SWOT analysis helped us figure out the focal points of the flows.

4. We had our user persona.

5. The first iteration of the Information Architecture (IA) was built as well. Click here to see details.

Based on Shamima's characteristics, we found our problem statement:

Shamima is a high school teacher who needs a solution that provides easy access and learning opportunities because she wants to excel in her career.

The problem statement served as a crucial anchor for the entire design process. It defined the specific challenges users faced, guiding the project’s focus and ensuring that design efforts were aligned with genuine user needs. By clearly identifying the obstacles that teachers encountered in accessing resources and navigating the platform, the problem statement provided a foundation for developing targeted solutions.

Starting with paper sketches to capture initial ideas and insights, I translated these into digital wireframes using Figma. These low-fidelity wireframes allowed us to prototype and iterate early, so that the first usability test can be conducted before we go deep down with the brand identity and aesthetics. The first usability tests were done on these low-fidelity prototypes. Click here to see the wireframes.

Here's the scope of the first usability test:

1. I interviewed ten participants.

2. The interview sessions were remote and unmoderated.

3. We prepare a questionnaire to figure out their thought processes.

4. We wanted to gather insights and iterate if we found any flaws in the user flows.

These are the insights we gathered:

1. 8 users they wanted to explore the site and wanted to dive deep on features that had low interactions previously.

2. 6 users told they would upload their own resources to share with the community.

3. The NPS score was 6.5 on average, which was previously 3.

We also found out had instances where the low detailed wireframed prototype was just not enough—the users wanted more: specially guidance to navigate the site.

For the high-fidelity design phase, I refined the aesthetic and brand identity, incorporating insights that we found in the first round of testing. These high-fidelity prototypes were created in Figma, with a focus on improved visuals, interactive elements, and a responsive layout that worked seamlessly across devices. Click here to see the prototype in action.

We make these arrangements for the second round of usability testing:

1. Ten users from the initial group were re-engaged (6 mobile, 4 desktop/laptop).

2. Remote, moderated testing sessions.

3. Evaluate the design’s objective, ease of navigation, and effectiveness of added interactions.

Key Insights we got from this round of usability testing:

1. Eight out of ten users found the new navigation flow smoother and more intuitive.

2. Nine users found the navigation intuitive.

3. The errors were all time low.

4. NPS score was almost perfect.

User engagement increased for almost all of the features.

Overall user satisfaction metric increased by 33%.

All of user participated in the usability tests, delighted with the introduction of the profile dashboard.

My key takeaways:

1. Plan, plan, and plan before remotely executing anything.

2. If the design is user-centered, it will resonate with the users.

Future steps:

1. Filter out the unnecessary features.

2. The ‘Need Assessment’ feature should be more interactive than a Likert Scale.

3. Distinguishable differences between different types of IDs (Teacher/Student/Institution).