Blackboard Learn is a web-based virtual learning environment and learning management system developed by Blackboard Incorporated which is an American Educational Technology (EdTech) company. Around 11,990 companies software of Blackboard Inc. belonging to industries such as Higher Education, Education Management, and Information Technology and Services.
Being a Learning Management System (LMS), Blackboard Learn gives an effective online platform that makes it easy for students to keep track of their coursework. Blackboard also facilitates collaboration among students and teachers and supports remote learning, which is quickly becoming the norm in today’s world.
Initial Analysis — defining Issues on the surface
Gathering information after an initial analysis, our own experience using the platform for a year, and the annoyances we’ve heard from our fellow peers, we dialed down on some notable issues to kickstart the process.
- Hierarchy and Contrast
The Blackboard interface lacks proper hierarchy and contrast, affecting the visibility and usability of available features. The dashboard interface has numerous tiles and textual content with no appropriate structure, which makes it hard to grasp the available content. In addition, there is no way for the user to control the content organization on this page to make use of the dashboard more effectively.
- Lack of reversal-of-action
Despite the availability of Homepage and Refresh actions on the blackboard interface, there is no inherent ‘back-button’ given, which leads to a lack of reversal of action in the UI. The user instead has to rely on the breadcrumbs component to go back which is not reliable in the case of going back to a page that falls ahead in the information architecture flow.
- Poor Learnability
Another critical issue is the poor learnability of the site. Users have difficulty understanding how to navigate and make use of the features. Learnability is an issue for any system and is a significant concern as its effect is apparent at the initial onboarding stage. At this stage, the users/customers are not yet invested in the system, making it easier to consider a competitor, especially if they encounter any issues.
User Interviews — diving in to find issues underneath
After researching the features of Blackboard and how it is used at UMBC, we narrowed down two types of users. The first type of user is a University Faculty Member – Professor, Teaching Assistant, or Grader. The second type of user is a Student who has access to the course-specific information shared by their faculty. In addition to these course specifics, students can also access their digital textbooks, track their group work, and manage their calendars.
User Type 1: Faculty
- 20-30 years old
- Teaching Assistant to their department professor
- Pursuing their Ph.D. in Information Systems
User Type 2: Student
- 19-25 years old
- Background in Computer Science
- Pursuing their Graduate degree in Data Science
For the interviews, we selected a user from each user type. In the case of faculty, we had the opportunity to interview a Teaching Assistant. The questions were designed to cater to a semi-structured format interview. Our goal was to start the interview by understanding the user’s frequency and context in which they use the software. The structured part of the interview had questions that contained specifics of their daily tasks. Based on their responses to these questions, we asked unstructured follow-up questions. The interviews were done virtually on Google Meet and recorded with the interviewee’s permission.
Users reported feeling that Blackboard could be improved in terms of functionality. While effective, there's a learning curve to the interface, requiring initial help from peers. Additionally, users expressed a desire for more customization options.
Specific frustrations
- Teaching Assistants struggle with the assignment grading queue. The random shuffling makes it difficult to track ungraded work and sort efficiently.
- Students find the lack of a "back button" on the course page annoying. Navigating to deeper levels often leads to closing and reopening the entire course window to return to a previous page. Students also overlook the clickable breadcrumbs for navigation within the course.
Interestingly, despite the variety of features offered, students rarely explore them. Additionally, student expectations include some standardized elements on the course homepage, regardless of instructor customization. An example is easy access to instructor and TA contact information.
In conclusion, we gathered valuable information from these interviews to help us improve Blackboard. We plan to tackle the learnability of the site by updating the navigation of the interface. Additionally, we feel a platform serving primarily students should have a more interactive user experience. This can be approached by updating the aesthetics and improving upon the platform's rigidity.
Heuristic Analysis — understanding daily tasks and how they're affected
Conducting a Heuristic Analysis helped us uncover specific features of a page that users were having trouble with. We analyzed it with the participation of five different users. Three users were students, whereas the other two were faculty members. The results from the analysis also helped us narrow down specific user flows to work on for the oncoming prototyping phase. Some of the results are included below -
Navigating to the previous page is difficult
Blackboard Course Modules
"Create Thread" - not visible as a button
Aesthetic and minimalist design
Hard to find user’s own post among others’ posts
Flexibility and efficiency of use
Recognizing item hierarchy in forum posts
Consistency and Standards
Hard to recover from errors when grading
Individual assignment grading
User personas — Stepping into the shoes of users
Taking the insights from interviews, we created user personas with the goal of helping us empathize better with the users we were designing for. We came up with two primary personas, one each for a Student and a Faculty member.
competitor Analysis — What is lacking? what works well?
While performing competitor analysis for Blackboard, we gathered the pros and cons of each competitor with respect to the six usability goals. The assessment was done by going through each platform, which was made possible either by direct access shared by friends/acquaintances from other universities or through demos made available on the platform's website. Analysis of reviews of each platform was also done by going through the information available through Google Reviews and G2 Reviews.
Assessing competitors of Blackboard in terms of Usability Goals
competitor
x
Usability goals
+
Direct messaging for teachers & students
-
No native Announcement feature support
+
Bookmark module contents
+
Can access recent pages through History
-
Large amount of content under Modules requires scrolling
-
Course home page content is just a long scroll
+
Bookmark module contents feature
+
Browse recently accessed pages
-
Inefficient use of space
+
Bookmark module contents feature
-
Unable to edit assignments once posted
-
Lack of official documentation
+
Google suite integration
-
Forum discussion not available
+
History feature shows recent activity
+
Lots of customization possible
-
No separate Assignment page
+
Course tools are easily accessible
+
Module relevant discussions
+
Important Dates page for Assignments
+
Consistent material design
-
Adding announcements is not clear
-
Configuring courses is confusing
+
Intuitive navigation and layout
For the prototyping phase, we decided to focus on three user flows. Prior interviews and analyses informed the factors we considered when choosing these flows. Other factors include frequency of use and usability score from the Heuristic Analysis.
To get started on refining the prototypes, we gathered participants to have them conduct a Cognitive Walkthrough with the low-fidelity prototypes. This exercise was a great way to verify whether the designed prototype helped address the issues we discovered during the Heuristic Analysis. It also gave us an insight into the mental model of the users while performing the specific tasks we defined earlier. Below is the cognitive walkthrough analysis taken from one of the users.
What was the user’s goal?
Does the action or label match the goal?
The user is on the Course Homepage. Their goal is to find a link that will take them to a page where they can submit their due assignment
There are two available actions on the page. One action is part of the ‘To-Do’ tile on the homepage, and another is a link on the sidebar. The user made use of the ‘To-Do’ tile and clicked on the link for the pending assignment.
The relevant link available to the user is in the ‘To-Do’ tile has the assignment name and the second actions is an ‘Assignments’ link on the sidebar.
Once the user selects the relevant link, the page title and breadcrumb on top of the page informs them of their current location.
The user is on the Submit Assignment page. Their goal is to add their content to this page.
The page has relevant signifiers that suggest the user to add text content or attach files. The user attached a file for their assignment.
The components on page have ‘Add Text’ and ‘Attach files’/’Drag and drop’ labels to suggest input actions to the user.
A textual content added is seen in a textbox to the user. If the user attached any files, the respective element shows the file name and possible actions.
Since content is added, the user now wants to Submit their assignment.
The sticky bar has a submit action available for the user. The user clicked the submit button to complete the task.
The button with label ‘Submit’ and a relevant icon makes the action more visible and matches the goal.
After clicking on submit, the user sees a success banner message. They're also redirected to a ‘review submission’ page, which reinforces the idea that their assignment is submitted.
What was the user’s goal?
Does the action or label match the goal?
The user is on the Course Homepage. Their goal is to create a thread on a certain discussion forum.
There is an action available on the course sidebar which is relevant to tasks relevant to the discussion feature. The user found this action easily.
The link on the sidebar has the label ‘Discussions’, which is relevant to the task at hand.
Once the user selects the relevant link, the page title and breadcrumb on top of the page inform them of their current location.
Now on the Discussion Board page, the goal of the user is to select the specific forum they want to create a thread in.
On this page, the user sees a list of forums available for the respective course. They have to select the forum they need. The user selected the required forum.
Each value in the list has the forum’s title and description that informs the user of its contents.
Once they select a forum, the page title and breadcrumb on top of the page inform them of their current location. The description at the top of the page adds to the feedback.
Now on the Forum page, the user’s goal is to create a new thread in the forum.
The action to create a new thread is possible through an action button available on the page. The user clicked on the button.
The action button has the label ‘Create Thread’ and makes use of a ‘+’ icon that makes it easy for the user to recognize the action.
The page title and breadcrumb on top of the page inform the user of their current location.
The user is on the Create Thread page and their goal is to add their content and finish creating a new thread.
The action to add content is available through the textbox and textarea components on the page. The user can then submit using the action button available on the sticky bar. The user clicked on the button.
The textbox components along with the titles signify the user to input their content. The button with label ‘Submit’ and a relevant icon also matches the goal.
Once the user submits the thread, they come across a banner message and see their thread on top the threads table. Their thread has a pin icon and uses a contrasting color.
What was the user’s goal?
Does the action or label match the goal?
The user is on the Grade Center page. Their goal is to grade an assignment.
The user sees a list of assignments on this page. The user clicked on the required assignment.
The list of assignments has each assignment’s title that helps facilitate the user’s task.
Once the user selects the relevant link, the page title and breadcrumb on top of the page inform them of their current location.
Now on the specific Assignment’s page, the user’s goal is to start grading.
The user can either start grading using a generic action button or select a specific student’s assignment. The user clicked on the student of the table.
The action button has the label ‘Grade all assignments’ along with a ‘+’ icon. The table contains a list of students’ assignments with their names.
Once the user completes the action, the page title and the breadcrumb inform them of their current location. The following page also shows the assignment contents.
The user now sees the assignment contents of a student. Their goal is to go through the contents and give a grade to the assignment.
The assignment contents are available on an embed pane. There is also a textbox to input the grade. The user input a grade and noticed the status change.
The embed pane shows the assignment contents. The textbox has the label ‘Grade’ that informs the user of its use.
The status of the assignment changes to ‘in progress’ informing the user their work is recognized. The user also sees the grade they input in the textbox.
Since the grade has been inputted, the user now wants to Submit the Grade.
The action is available through an action button. The user clicked on the button.
The action button has the label ‘Submit Grade’ and uses the checkmark icon to inform its use.
Once submitted, the user sees a banner message informing them the grade was submitted successfully.
High-fidelity prototyping
For the prototyping phase, we decided to focus on three user flows. The factors we considered when choosing these flows were informed by prior interviews and analyses. Some factors include frequency of use and usability score from the Heuristic Analysis.
