Aggie Review
Client
CodeLab
Role
UX/UI Designer
Timeline
5 months
Team
3 designers, 2 product managers, 5 developers
Aggie Review: RMP Redesign
Enhancing your academic education with the appropriate courses
CodeLab is a student-run software and design agency at UC Davis working to provide students with real-world experience in the tech industry. Members develop their technical skills by working in interdisciplinary teams.
During the fall of 2021, I joined Codelab’s first year-long UX design team to design Aggie Review.
Rate My Professors (RMP) is the leading platform utilized by students to select their instructors by accessing insights about the course material and peer experiences with the professors. However, professors believe the lack of security allows students to leave unproductive reviews, while students feel that reviews don't accurately reflect courses.
Over the course of 5 months, our team built Aggie Review, a platform that increases the productivity, credibility, and accuracy of reviews for both students and professors.
Context
Problem Statement
UC Davis students can’t find a reliable platform to select appropriate courses for their academic journey as the primary source of information, i.e., Rate My Professor, lacks credible evaluations.
How might we create a student-based platform where students can accurately and objectively learn and discuss the course structure?
Defining Business Goals + Metrics
Sign up
Security and verification within the current UC Davis rating site
Student Engagement
Increase student engagement each quarter
User Loyalty
Increase the average repeat of users coming back to leave reviews
User Retention
Number of students making an account (NPS score)
Reviews
Number of students leaving reviews and comments (measured in survey)
Task Completion
Ease of use (success rate measured in usability testing)
My Design Process
Collecting Data
Discovery
Our team focused on interviewing professors and students, with a larger emphasis on the professor's credibility and reputation. However, we began our research phase by sending out a survey to learn about and measure users' satisfaction levels with Rate My Professor. We received over 55 responses from UC Davis students. Here are the major highlights from our survey:
Research Takeaways
The survey revealed that students use RMP as the primary tool but are cognizant of the discrepancies within reviews; however, I delved deeper by interviewing 5 UC Davis professors and 7 students.
We formulate two research goals:
Professors: Understand professors' thoughts when using RMP.
Students: Understand student preferences when searching for a professor and evaluating reviews.
Student Survey Takeaways
Only 22% of students write reviews
Over 55% of students look up professors on RMP
Students are more comfortable discussing class structure with students rather than with professors
Persona
After synthesizing our research, we categorized our points into problem spaces. Not only would this help us identify features for the site, but generate 4 questions that serve as goals for the whole project:
How might we make the application student-driven, incentivizing them to write reviews for all types of professors?
How might we make "negative" feedback more suggestive of the professor's course?
How might we engage different forms of feedback that fit a variety of students' needs?
How might we restructure questions to shift the perspective from professor to course, reducing unaware biases and improving the quality of reviews?
Based on the research, I advocated redirecting our focus to students to improve effectiveness and reliability, ultimately resulting in an enhanced experience for professors.
Our team found students fall within four groups: reviewers who provide numerical feedback, reviewers who provide descriptive feedback, viewers who read numerical feedback, and reviewers who prefer descriptive reviews. These users allowed us to build empathy for our end-user.
Customer Journey Map
To identify gaps in the customer experience, such as points of frustration or confusion, we mapped the current user journey within RMP. This analysis helped our team identify opportunities for success in UC Davis' exclusive rating site.
This allowed our team to narrow down our concept to
Student Interviews Takeaways
Students want more objective reviews
A lot of biases exist in the current reviews
Half the students preferred looking at stats while the other half preferred reading descriptive reviews
Professor Interviews Takeaways
Wanted to humanize the professor in the application
Have more suggestive feedback instead of negative feedback
Would like to see the context of the review such as year, major, and how many units they took, etc
Reviewer
Viewer
Numerical
Descriptive
Definition
Affinity Mapping
A platform that incentivizes students to leave unbiased reviews in a constructive format while accommodating various learning and viewing preferences
Refined Problem + Solution
Search Feature
Interchangeable search options for courses and professors
Profile Creation
Building of a profile to contextualize student reviews + verification
Reflective
Reflect back on the course's highlights and drawbacks
Reaction
The react and comment function to encourage engagement
Ideation + Sketches
My teammates and I sketched out solutions that would help create a productive forum. I explored this by shifting from the professor to the course structure through a breakdown of questions that discuss positives and negatives and by building context based on the students’ backgrounds.
Architecture Diagram
In collaboration with the lead developer, we established an architecture diagram to receive feedback on the hierarchy of the information, optimize the flow and areas that weren’t achievable to develop due to time constraints.
by: Gen Hom
by: Jenny Diaz
Low-Fidelity: Profile Screen
I found that the screen’s content felt overwhelming and difficult to digest. Our users stated that the layout in place provided 0 navigation support when scanning the information, causing users to dismiss student backgrounds. In addition, users were curious to know where they’d create a profile, and what that process would look like.
Design & Testing
Iteration Breakdown
Mid-Fidelity: Profile Screen
For the second round, I found that users were not engaging with the content by skipping over the text; as a consequence, many felt unsure of why they were creating an account. Many contributed the lack of engagement to breaking down the screens into various steps, prolonging the experience.
Low-Fidelity: Filtering Professors
The primary information was changed to courses in order to redirect the focus away from professors. However, users provided feedback that filtering professors based on courses didn't feel intuitive.
Mid-Fidelity: Filtering Professors
The mid-fidelity incorporated a search bar so that students could search for a course with professors being the secondary information; however, the two-step procedure that the search bar required confused our users. Users also brought up limitations, such as difficulty accessing other courses that professors teach.
Low-Fidelity: Evaluating a Course
Course-focused questions were provided to give a more comprehensive view of the course structure. Users, however, were confused by the Likert scale’s significance; many asked, “how should I respond to these questions based on the bar.”
Mid-Fidelity: Evaluating a Course
When evaluating a course, I discovered that the single question per screen made the process seem lengthier. Additionally, users struggled with responding to the questions, with many stating they needed more detail.
Low-Fidelity: Reviewing Course Evaluations
Two screens were tested for reviewing course evaluations. I found that while both screens had layout issues, users preferred when the content was presented vertically because it was easier to follow. However, users explained that the content could be better mapped out.
Mid-Fidelity: Reviewing Course Evaluations
Users expressed that the second version felt cleaner and easier to navigate, but the UI of the screens were unengaging and felt disconnected from other screens.
Final Solution
Writing a Review
Improve the process of writing a review by:
Tracking your progress when completing a review.
Reflecting on the course structure and discussing what worked and what could improve.
Giving individual scores to determine the overall score.
Submission
Reviews change the narrative by focusing on the course and:
Having a mixture of numerical and descriptive information.
Building background information on the reviewer.
Filtering to streamline type of information.
React and comment on reviews.
Receive feedback from designers and mentors
Search Bar
Redirect the focus on rating course structure by:
Search up courses + professors who teach the course, professors + courses they teach, or course + professor.
Informing students which quarter courses are taught.
Account Setup
Verify your account with your UC Davis account to:
Anonymously and openly disclose your experience.
Build context by filling out information about your academic experience (major, minor, activities, etc.).
Key Takeaways
Results
Sign up
Our test participants reported the site was "extremely user-friendly and digestible," with 100% saying they'd recommend the site.
Engagement
100% of our testers would move from RMP to Aggie Review
60% of our testers said they would submit reviews.
Reflection
Next Steps
Test the site flow to determine if the adjustments made help bridge the user's understanding of setting up a profile.
Measure user behavior to predict how product engagement will expand after the launch.
Research and implement gamification to motivate users to write reviews.
Documenting your process for designers and developers outside the original team will clarify the decisions made.
Involving developers in the design process creates constraints that require design adaptation. However, these limitations broadened a designer's ability to solve problems.
