Plan your academic journey
•
Plan your academic journey •
Project Overview
planNUS intends to integrate information regarding:
degree requirements
course information
study plans …all into one.
It ensures that users do not need to traverse through multiple websites by integrating all these features handily into one page.
Park Youngseo
A0288219R
Our Team
Leon Lim Way Zhen
A0239242H
Michael Cheong Li Fan
A0288400H
Kao Yu Chan
A0234268B
Problem
Full-time Undergraduate NUS students (FUNS) do not have a way to observe their degree requirements in a single view, match courses corresponding to those requirements, and plan out a course schedule towards successfully graduating.
Degree requirements are usually hidden and hard-to-reach on faculty course homepages, especially for senior students who matriculated earlier on with differing degree requirements to their juniors, making the process of planning one’s academic journey all the more difficult.
Solution
A web platform for FUNS to seamlessly plan and manage the progress of their academic journey by:
Viewing all degree requirements based on their academic cohort as a single unified source.
Browsing and selecting courses based on degree requirements, along with reviews.
Creating a study plan with selected courses and mapping them across their semesters at NUS.
Our Process
User Research and Analysis
Recruitment Plan
To recruit current students for our study, we utilized convenience sampling by reaching out to friends from varying backgrounds (e.g., Computing students, non-Computing students, students with diversified degree programs, etc.) to fill out our surveys in the hopes of capturing a diverse set of user feedback.
We publicized our survey to the wider NUS community through class forums and unofficial Telegram group chats composed of FUNS from different faculties and majors. This allowed us to capture the opinions of those who we may not have otherwise considered.
A smaller sample of survey respondents (mostly our friends, for convenience) were given a further semi-structured interview to gather more qualitative data (further details below).
User Research Method: Survey
-
Roughly < 5 minutes to fill the survey.
-
Laptop to review the survey results.
-
Demographic information (age, gender, year of study, primary area of study, other programs taken, devices used)
If the respondent has viewed / tracked their graduation requirements or made a study plan
If so, reason(s) for doing so.
If not, what are the factors preventing them from doing so?
Perceived level of difficulty for viewing graduation requirements or making a study plan.
Tools the respondent would use in viewing graduation requirements or making a study plan
how often they use
how helpful they found it
Positives / negatives of tools
Perceived confidence in graduating on time after making a study plan.
Desired features in a platform solution.
Willingness to use said platform solution.
How long users would ideally spend doing each task.
We decided to use a survey as our primary method of user research due to its:
convenience for both researchers and respondents in time taken
lack of physical venue required
larger reach to obtain sufficient data through convenient sharing of the survey through online channels.
Survey questions were designed together by our group. Through this survey, we aimed to:
determine users’ motivations for viewing graduation requirements and making a study plan
their perceived level of effort and difficulty for these tasks
the tools they used to execute tasks and their evaluations of those tools
possible pain points and design opportunities
possible user interest in a solution to the selected design problem.
Over the course of 7 days (8 September 2024 - 14 September 2024), we were able to disseminate our surveys to our peers on Telegram and collected 30 responses.
User Research Method: Semi-Structured Interview
-
Roughly 15-20 minutes per interview session.
-
Each of us is responsible for conducting the following tasks individually:
Recruiting participants (1-2 per member)
Interviewing participants
Recording participants
Participants are interviewed AFTER they have filled in the survey.
After all interviews are completed, we will discuss the responses together, conducting our own analyses of the data before consolidating conclusions.
-
Laptop to review interview questions and jot notes.
Mobile phone for recording interview audio.
-
Retrospective account / Step-by-step walkthrough of viewing graduation requirements / making a study plan, and the problems they encounter.
Expression and body language during the interview.
-
Walk us through the process of viewing your graduation requirements / making a study plan. Describe your thoughts and feelings on each step.
Any advice for someone (be it a fellow coursemate or junior) that is also tracking graduation requirements / making a study plan.
We decided to use semi-structured interviews as our secondary method of user research to compensate for lack of control over the level of detail respondents would provide in a survey, where we could collect in-depth data on the step-by-step workflow for tracking graduation requirements or making a study plan, as well as identification and explanation of current pain points or emotions users feel throughout such processes.
A semi-structured method of interviewing was specifically selected as we noticed the inconsistency of experiences in finding graduation requirements and making a study plan across FUNS of various faculties during our preliminary research and existing knowledge due to our different academic backgrounds.
We concluded that a meaningful description of their individual experiences would come from having a looser structure to the interview than a set list of questions. This way, we could analyze the different approaches FUNS may take to the tasks, focus on finding common pain points to address in our solution that would address the FUNS population, and gain unique perspectives to the nuances FUNS of different faculties may face that may not have been specified in the survey to further define the constraints of our solution.
Over the course of 7 days (8 September 2024 - 14 September 2024), we were able to conduct interviews on five of our peers.
Data Analysis
An affinity diagram was created to visualise the goals, needs, constraints, and motivations of the respondents during their tracking of degree requirements. The constraints are further categorised in sections that provide a broader perspective of issues faced. Not only does this simplify the open-ended responses, but the number of post-it notes in each section also indicates the critical constraints that should be prioritised later on in the design of planNUS.
Figure 1.2: User Needs and Design Constraints
Figure 1.3: Analysis of Users Currently Making Study Plans
Figure 1: Full Affinity Diagram
Figure 1.3: Analysis of Users Currently Tracking Degree Requirements
Figure 1.1: User Goals and Motivations
Key Observations
One critical observation is the non-uniformity in responses due to different majors and faculties.
Some majors such as Civil Engineering are provided with preliminary time tables that serve to guide on the recommended modules to take while others such as Computer Science lack any semblance of a comprehensive guide beneficial to degree tracking and planning.
Another observation is the lack of clarity or accessibility of crucial information, causing unnecessary complexity for degree planning.
There is currently a need for multiple resources or platforms to be utilized concurrently in order to plan a comprehensive study. Numerous platforms (NUSmods, What-if reports on Edurec) are deployed just to plan and track degree requirements, resulting in an undesirable experience.
User Statements
User statements are obtained from both surveys and interviews, some of which provide valuable insight on the issues.
Some user statements such as:
“NUSMods course page gives course reviews that help me evaluate whether I should take the course or not.”
give an idea on the crucial features that should be included in planNUS while others such as:
“Takes too long to search evaluate courses based on workload /personal benefit, then schedule with other compatible courses”
indicates the need for features in planNUS to streamline the entire process and reduce time spent on degree planning.
Breakdowns
As part of the effort in understanding the reasons behind the feedback given, demographic information is broken down and visualized with pie charts and bar charts. The respondents’ academics are first broken down into:
1) primary majors
2) percentage of FUNs taking additional majors/minors
3) second majors/minors taken
4) various devices used in their degree planning
which helps us better visualize the design of planNUS.
Respondents are also surveyed on their opinion of existing platforms using scales, giving us an idea on the benefits and shortcomings of existing resources.
Questions and Ambiguities
There was little to no ambiguity in the user research.
However, there was a respondent who was unsure on how to use the What-if report on Edurec. As a result, this respondent’s opinion of resources may be less reliable considering he did not fully understand the available resources in the first place.
As seen in both Figures 3.2 and 3.3, FUNS who have not yet tried to track their graduation requirements (20% of respondents) or make a study plan (27% of respondents) predicted that effort required for both tasks (1 - Very high effort, 5 - very low effort) as higher than those who have already attempted to do so.
This may imply that while the most frequently stated reason for not attempting both tasks was a lack of interest or priority in doing so, the perceived level of difficulty may also have deterred them from starting.
As seen in Figure 2.4, a majority of participants stated that the dispersion of information required to find all their graduation requirements and make a study plan was too spread out (at least 60% of those who have attempted each task). Scatter of information across different sites could contribute towards users’ fatigue when trying to plan for their current semester or degree to graduate on time, preventing them from accomplishing the task and leaving the work unfinished.
Another issue respondents commonly encountered was the readability of graduation requirements - while some people appreciated how the commonly found table format of requirements on faculty pages (CDE, CHS) and courses that fulfil such requirements was comprehensive and accurate, they also cited that the volume of information absorbed in this format was too time-consuming to read through, making it difficult to absorb or remember the information provided.
4) FUNS considered the process of making a study plan highly manual and time-consuming, but found the faculty page of program requirements most informative and comprehensive.
5) The access and quality of resources towards making a study plan for one’s programme is highly inconsistent across faculties.
6) Based on the survey, many students found NUSMods and feedback from their own peers (friends & classmates) to be helpful when making a study plan.
Figure 2.6: Helpfulness towards making a study plan when using
(a) NUSMods, (b) friends and/or classmates
Insights and Design Opportunities
1) FUNS’ main goal while tracking graduation requirements and making a study plan is to plan for their current semester - planning early to graduate on time, or to browse courses to take in future semesters, are secondary goals but still very relevant for users.
Figure 2.1: Respondents’ Motivations for
(a) Viewing / Tracking Graduation Requirements; (b) Making a Study Plan
As seen in Figure 3.1, among respondents who did decide to track their graduation requirements or make a study plan, an overwhelming majority (at least 80%) were focused on planning for their current semester in both scenarios, with a slightly less but majority proportion planning early to graduate on time or see courses they make take in the future to fulfil graduation requirements (at least 60%).
Relieving urgency and anxiety may also be a contributing motivation for FUNS in tracking graduation requirements and making study plans, but one that is less prominent at 50% of respondents stating this motivation.
2) Hesitation in finding graduation requirements or making a study plan derives from a preconceived notion that these processes require more effort than they actually do.
DESIGN INSIGHT:
The design needs to not only streamline and consolidate the process of tracking graduation requirements and making a study plan, but also needs to communicate that this process is not as effort-intensive as it seems through our solution so they do not hesitate to use it.
3) Information on graduation requirements are too spread out across multiple pages, making it difficult to access, absorb, and collate necessary information for FUNS.
DESIGN INSIGHT:
The design should focus on helping users plan for their current semester as well as possible, with features helping to plan early to graduate on time or explore future course options being a secondary but equally prominent focus
Figure 2.2: Experience Evaluation of Finding Graduation Requirements of Respondents Who Have VS Experience Prediction of Respondents Who Have Not
Figure 2.3: Experience Evaluation of Making A Study Plan of Respondents Who Have
VS Experience Prediction of Respondents Who Have Not
Figure 2.5: Recommended study plan for Civil Engineering
Figure 2.4: Problems Faced By Respondents When
(a) Tracking Graduation Requirements, (b) Making a Study Plan
Users’ desire to have a platform that automates the two processes was a prominent theme throughout the survey and interview responses. To quote a user story from a survey response,
“I would like something to automatically map my courses to the graduation requirements of my degree programme and my cohort and determine the requirements that I have not satisfied in my study plan. Right now, I have to manually cross check against the graduation requirements.”
DESIGN INSIGHT:
The design must limit the number of pages used, possibly down to a single page, without having to navigate off to any other sites to gather necessary information. This implies our design may have to be quite compact, and we will have to pay extra attention to layout the interface to a clear, readable format while fitting all information the user requires.
DESIGN INSIGHT:
The design should offer features that automate both tracking graduation requirements, making a study plan, and validating study plans to ensure they allow the user to graduate on time based on programmes entered by the user.
Various majors or faculties have vastly different approaches in providing resources on top of the usual platforms such as NUSmods and Edurec. Some majors such as Civil Engineering are provided with a preliminary study plan of recommended modules to take (Figure 2.5) while others such as Computer Science lack any semblance of a comprehensive guide beneficial to degree tracking and planning. This may be attributed to the nature of the majors, with Computer Science being a much broader subject as compared to Civil Engineering. However, the fact that there exists a disparity in provided resources and quality of resources still stands.
DESIGN INSIGHT:
The design should aim to provide an equally convenient experience for all FUNS, so that the problems caused by lack of resources (having to manually find a platform to make a study plan, visually organise the study plan) no longer burdens the user and allows them to make more meaningful decisions towards their goals of planning for their current semester and beyond.
Our survey has shown the significance of NUSMods and feedback of fellow peers as most respondents find both to be beneficial when creating study plans (Figure 2.6).
In the case of NUSMods, users considered the platform to contain accurate and updated information on several criteria that students take into account when deciding whether to take the course and keep it in their study plan: course content, assessment method, workload, lesson schedule, and reviews. Thus, our design solution should include comprehensive information on par with NUSMods.
However, said details will not be beneficial, if users are unaware of the existence of the module. In this scenario, the spread of information is done through word of mouth. Such discussions enable exploration of alternative modules, providing even more flexibility in study plans.
DESIGN INSIGHT:
The design should incorporate more visual indications of progress or categorisation, for instance through the use of progress bars showing users’ progress towards completion or customisable colour-coding of requirement categories for personalised readability for each user.
DESIGN INSIGHT:
The design should include information from NUSMods and platforms that facilitate discussion across faculties and academic years.
The Persona was created based on the responses and demographics of those who responded to the survey. Jimothy’s goals and frustrations reflects the findings of the analysis of survey data.
Persona and User Journey Map
Task Flows
•
Task Flows •
Key User Task #1
Users should be able to easily view the entirety of their degree’s graduation requirements based on their academic cohort as a single unified source.
Before even accessing the necessary information for graduation requirements, there needs to be a function to save the information and progress on the platforms across any device. A typical method is through the creation of accounts. Though it would be inconvenient to sign in to all devices, the hassle is short-lived and more time will be saved since any changes made while planning the courses and requirements will be reflected on all devices.
A: Users can select their desired degree programme(s) to load their corresponding graduation requirements.
B: Users can log in and load saved data on degree programmes, mapped requirements, and study plans associated with their account.
New users can start off by choosing their primary Area of study, which is their major. Subsequently, they can input their diversified programmes, including additional degrees, majors or specialisation.
Having a clear and concise visual presentation enables users to view as much information as possible while keeping navigation to the minimum. One such way is through the use of tabs. PlanNUS utilises three main tabs: homepage, requirement and study plan. Key task 1 is achieved in the requirement tab where all module requirements and the progress of fulfilling the requirements are reflected. For better space utilisation, each category of requirement (i.e. major, minor, specialisation) starts to collapse and has the option to expand when more details are required.
Key User Task Flow Diagrams
Please zoom in for full view.
Key User Task #2
Users should be able to browse and select courses that fulfil said requirements.
Once the degree requirements are set in stone, the next would be to list out all the required modules under each requirement in separate sections. Modules, also started out in a collapsed state, which are prerequisites will be auto generated under each requirement. The rest of the hundreds of modules will be sorted in alphabetical order or faculty and can be dragged into each section in the planning phase.
As such, this provides more convenience to users for extensive planning. Unrestricted electives can be planned more easily and users can ensure that prerequisites are fulfilled before taking subsequent modules. More importantly, any overlaps of modules can be tackled to prevent users from taking redundant modules or worse, missing out on the crucial ones that can double count for multiple requirements.
A: Users can view a course’s details without leaving the platform.
One possible method is by creating a pop-up when double clicking on each module code. The pop-up shows more crucial details such as the number of module credits, faculty and the prerequisites. Additional details such as timetables and module reviews can be accessed by scrolling or clicking a “more details” button.
Key User Task #3
Users should be able to create a comprehensive study plan based on their degree’s graduation requirements in an efficient and timely manner.
The two main restrictions when choosing modules are their availability and prerequisite, i.e. some modules are only available in the first or second semester and some need to be taken before the more advanced ones. As such, the study plan tab is required to visualise the best sequence of modules to be taken. With the required modules decided through the previous 2 key tasks, the main task for Key Task 3 is to plan out the timetable for the entirety of university life.
With both availability and timetable available in NUSmods, sample study plans can be generated. Flexibility is ensured by allowing users to make modifications to the study plan, for example users can choose to take certain modules earlier to clear or later if he or she faces issues in coping with workloads. More importantly, warning messages or advice can be generated when module timetables clash, or degree requirements and prerequisites are not fulfilled. Additional features such as GPA input can be included to provide a better understanding on the amount of effort required in the pursuit of a degree.
Brainstorming
•
Wireframes
Brainstorming • Wireframes
Pros
Progress clear cut and obvious at the top
tabs are clear cut at the top.
An exhaustive list of degree requirements is present, which allows the user to be certain that nothing is missing
Clear navigation in header
Gives all information on requirements in a single page
Key Task #1 Wireframe
by Leon
Internal Review
Internal Review
Pros
Visual representation of prerequisites of each course
Sorting of graduation requirements into those necessary for a major, and those necessary for other reasons
Drag and drop feature is likely to be intuitive
Intuitive and simple login screen and programme selection UI.
Searching for modules and populating study plan looks easy to use.
Modular design for requirement tab, re-usable for consistency in Task 3
Adaptation of NUSMods Prerequisite Tree design, more intuitive and familiar to users
Intuitive sign-in/log-in procedures
Internal Review
Key Task #2 Wireframe
by Yu Chan
Cons
In some cases, courses could apply to more than one category (e.g. CS major and Math minor), which could result in duplicates
Students with more than 1 major and 1 minor might find the UI stretching beyond the screen boundary a bit hard to use.
Missing Study Plan Tab in header
Pros
Convenient drag and drop feature
Horizontal scroll for each academic year also shows progression
Customisation of colours
Cards show only necessary info for understanding and planning for requirements
Progress to programme completion is clear and also shows the percentage completion of each sub-requirement.
Integration of NUSMods-like UI makes the usage of our app more intuitive
Requirements tab clearly shows which modules count for which requirements
Subtly shows the user how to use the study plan maker (“Drag and drop” message)
A visual representation of how close the user is to finishing their study plan can motivate the user
Pros
Being able to see the overall requirements and switch between programmes might be useful for students intending on dropping a minor
Clear message on missing requirements from a programme.
“Missing” page makes it clear cut of the modules required
Provision of alternatives ensures flexibility during planning
Missing from clarifies modules required
Reuse of NUSMods UI makes module information more intuitive
Clear status indicators to each requirement
Cons
FUNs may find it a hassle to scroll down in order to see if all the requirements are fulfilled rather than seeing it on one screen.
having both quick start and sign up may be redundant since more time may be wasted if data is not saved
having the right 2 tabs on one page may be a good idea to have a more holistic view
Might be better to have a tabular representation of the degree requirements
Perhaps a greater level of segregation between primary major and other programs would be useful
Might cause scroll fatigue when all requirements expanded
Perhaps a way to color code the different requirements to distinguish them later during Task 3?
Cons
Slightly clattered in the total MCs and GPA portion (perhaps smaller icons)
Too much white space under Exemptions
Might be unclear as to which requirements the Exemptions account for.
Size of some elements could be changed (progress bar does not need to be so big)
Internal Review
Key Task #3 Wireframe
by Youngseo
Key Task #2 Wireframe
by Michael
Cons
Too much unused space under each requirement, requiring the user to scroll horizontally which could be a pain.
Size of cards can be adjusted and scroll bars can be introduced to better utilize the space
missing modules can also be designed into cards that provides crucial info to help with planning
Font size for each module could be too small
Prototyping
〰️
Prototyping 〰️
User Review
Pros
Purpose of design choices is clear.
Aesthetically pleasing.
Potential function is novel and useful.
Already shows better promise than existing resources. (What-If Report)
Cons
Process of checking requirements is a little unintuitive.
Process of marking courses as complete is unclear.
May need a horizontal scroll bar to indicate that the course list can scroll.
User Review
Pros
Clear progress indicators
Visual course arrangement
Colour coding customisation
Validation and completion feedback
Responsive to completion status
Customization for specialization tracks
Integration with NUSMods
Cons
Initial interface might feel sparse
Overreliance on colour, not accessible for colour-blind
Validation flow feels disconnected
Unintuitive drag-and-drop
No warnings for overloading
User Review
Pros
“Pretty cool”
Overall purpose and functionality is clear
Cons
Some interactions breaks the website
Aesthetics lacking
Legends can be included for better clarity
Total modular credit selected can be shown
Can be made more intuitive
User Review
Pros
Good color scheme
Good functionality due to showing all graduation requirements on one page
Aesthetically pleasing
Does not have too much bloat (e.g. unneeded elements)
Cons
Text is slightly small in some places (e.g. popups)
Would rather not have to scroll so much.
Should include the number of units for each course in more areas (instead of only in the more detailed areas)
Initial Combined Interactive Prototype
Evaluation
-
Evaluation -
Usability Testing with Maze
We decided to use Maze as our primary method of user evaluation due to its convenience for both researchers and respondents in terms of time taken, lack of physical venue required, as well as the efficiency in allowing users to experience the prototype first hand and provide their feedback promptly.
We conducted user evaluation on 12 target users by creating two separate studies on Maze: planNUS User Evaluation Pt. 1 and Pt. 2. In total, the studies consist of user tasks that aim to test the experience of interacting with our prototype functions. We agreed as a group that making target users perform all of our intended user tasks would prove to be too heavy and ran the risk of losing user retention. Hence, we separated the user tasks among the two studies and disseminated them separately amongst potential testers.
Maze Test Pt. 1 (Link)
Time: Roughly 5-10 minutes to test the Maze.
Roles:
Yu Chan (Conductor)
Leon (Conductor)
Procedure:
Each of us is responsible for inviting 4-8 friends to test the Maze.
Users will access the combined prototype via Maze and perform various user tasks, with accompanying short response questions to gather their opinions.
After a sufficient number of responses have been received, we will discuss the responses together, conducting our own analyses of the data before consolidating conclusions.
User Tasks:
Users will access the prototype and provide their opinions on the user experience of:
1) Signing up to planNUS for the first time.
2) Editing user details.
3) Adding a course to the study plan.
Task 1 - Signing up to planNUS for the first time.
Task 2 - Editing user details.
Task 3 - Adding a course to the study plan.
Task 4 - Adding a course to user requirements.
Task 5 - Loading the sample study plan.
Maze Test Pt. 2 (Link)
Time: Roughly 5-10 minutes to test the Maze.
Roles:
Youngseo (Conductor)
Michael (Conductor)
Procedure:
Each of us is responsible for inviting 4-8 friends to test the Maze.
Users will access the combined prototype via Maze and perform various user tasks, with accompanying short response questions to gather their opinions.
After a sufficient number of responses have been received, we will discuss the responses together, conducting our own analyses of the data before consolidating conclusions.
User Tasks:
Users will access the prototype and provide their opinions on the user experience of:
4) Adding a course to user requirements.
5) Loading the sample study plan.
Findings
Based on the results of the Maze survey for both parts, participants generally found the layout and navigation of the prototype to be intuitive and easy to understand. They were able to accomplish the required tasks with the statistics as follows:
Some potential areas of concern are highlighted in the table on the right. Both Task 1 and Task 3 took a maximum number of 12 steps. However, it was later found out that both were due to issues with Maze study service itself, such as showing the wrong starting page as well as performance glitches in the features that were uploaded.
Nevertheless, these issues seem specific to Maze and as such should not impact our prototype significantly.
Improving on Findings
Naming and Grouping of Elements
Some found that better naming and grouping of elements may allow the platform to be even more intuitive. One concern raised is the “Edit Details” button on the User Page screen. It caused some confusion as to which details are edited, be it the user details or course details.
As such, we can provide more clarity especially in the tutorial overlay to reduce the chance of user confusion by making it clear that both user details and course details can be changed.
Lack of Spacing, Cluttered Layout
Some users also found the layout to be potentially overwhelming with its numerous ways to interact with design elements and information density.
A potential solution is to evenly spread out the different sections of elements, allowing a less claustrophobic view of the webpage.
Final Interactive Prototype
Conclusion
Throughout this project, we gained hands-on experience in the entire design process, starting with user research and analysis to understand the needs and pain points of our target audience.
By conducting surveys and interviews, we gathered valuable insights that informed our design decisions. We then moved on to wireframing, creating low-fidelity prototypes to visualize the layout and flow of the user interface. Using interactive prototyping tools, we brought these wireframes to life, enabling us to test the user experience in a more dynamic way.
Usability testing allowed us to refine our designs based on real user feedback, helping us identify issues and improve the overall functionality and user satisfaction. This process not only taught us about design principles but also highlighted the importance of iteration and collaboration in creating effective, user-centered solutions.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Professor Bimlesh, the CS3240 teaching team, and our teaching assistant Farhana for their guidance throughout this project.