1 / 41

GPA Progress Monitor

Allen Stauffer Rarihwenhawi LaFrance. GPA Progress Monitor. Part 1: Understanding the Problem. Problem Space. University students often lack time to keep track of grades and monitor progress System would focus on providing a simple way of doing so

redell
Download Presentation

GPA Progress Monitor

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Allen StaufferRarihwenhawi LaFrance GPA Progress Monitor

  2. Part 1: Understanding the Problem

  3. Problem Space • University students often lack time to keep track of grades and monitor progress • System would focus on providing a simple way of doing so • Takes grading schema information as input and outputs a custom form • Students use this form to enter current and future grades to track progress

  4. Usability and User Experience Goals • System must be: • Helpful* • Easily Learnable • Effective

  5. Conceptual Model • User provides program with grading information • Program returns a customized form to accept grades as inputs • Student enters grades as they are received • Hypothetical future grades may be entered to analyze impact on GPA • Metaphor: Meeting with professor to discuss GPA progress

  6. Primary Persona • George • Freshman business major • Hopes to own a company someday • Very active outside of class – CUSA, CEO • Not much free time – loses track of grades during the semester and has trouble knowing where more work is needed • Doesn’t have the knowledge or time to learn how to create such a system for himself

  7. Secondary Persona • Chris • Junior electrical engineering major • Doesn’t have the best GPA, wants to improve for career fair • Spends free time with Formula SAE Speed Team and working on cars • Despite desire to improve grades, doesn’t want to take time to track them, or create a way to track them

  8. Scenario A • Jose, sophomore engineering student receives ES 260 Syllabus • Uses web browser to navigate to application’s home page, and logs in • Clicks “Add Course” and fills out the appropriate grading information, and clicks “Submit” • Exits the program confident that when he starts receiving grades the application will be ready to take them in

  9. Scenario B • Colleen, a junior finance major receives an EC 384 test grade lower than she expected • Uses web browser to navigate to program homepage, and logs in • She enters the new grade and, concerned about her overall GPA, a few hypothetical grades • Colleen learns that if she stays on top of the homework and studies hard for the next exam, she will be in good standing for the final

  10. User Expectations • Students from a variety of majors at Clarkson University identified these as the most important features of such a program: • Easy to Use • Quick to Use • Ability to ‘forecast’ grade progress http://is.gd/3P4gQ

  11. Design Implications • Majority of focus on ridding interface of ambiguity • Simplicity and intuitiveness should be embraced • GPA forecasting prominent feature, must receive emphasis

  12. Part 2: Design Alternatives

  13. Design Process • Created 1 mockup each separately • Ensured different ways of accomplishing same tasks, for a relatively simple interface • Compared/critiqued individual designs • Developed third based on critique of individual designs, while incorporating new ideas

  14. Design Alternatives Design 1

  15. Design Alternatives Design 2

  16. Design Alternatives Design 3

  17. Part 3: Prototyping

  18. Design Flaws and Limitations • Each proposed design had inherent strengths and weaknesses • Potential users were surveyed to discover the most important strengths and weaknesses • Also to identify fatal flaws

  19. Selection Criteria • Students were asked to evaluate the three designs focusing on: • Simplicity • Functionality • Usability • Asked to rate each design (1-10) in functionality, choose favorite, and provide strengths/weaknesses

  20. Design 1: Flaws No option for cumulative gpa No option to edit names of assignments Too simple

  21. Design 2: Flaws No option to change weights Buttons not clear Lack of organization

  22. Design 3: Flaws Too much whitespace Cluttered buttons No option to change weights

  23. Selection Results • Design 3 was chosen by students as both top-rated and favorite design

  24. Prototype • Taking survey into account, final design draws heavily from Design 3 • Takes some elements from Design 2 to help avoid Design 3’s pitfalls http://people.clarkson.edu/~stauffar/cs459/index.html

  25. Part 4: Prototype Evaluation

  26. Usability Specifications • Prototype was evaluated to determine how well it adhered to these principles: • Easy and Fast to Use • High Learnability • Consistent/Expected Results

  27. Design Evaluation • Survey • Walked user through prototype • Showed user a screen, and asked what they would do to accomplish a given task • Showed user the result of a successful interaction, and asked for thoughts on how this compares to what they expected • Allow us to have an idea how hard it is to determine how to perform certain actions, and also if the design agrees with what the user expects to see

  28. Survey http://bit.ly/7Ridll

  29. Evaluation Results • Varying responses regarding expected program behavior • About 50/50 split between “yeah.. duh” and “no! I thought _____” when asked if what the program did next was expected • Red x = successGreen checkmark = failure

  30. Evaluation Results (ctd.) • Confusion regarding difference between adding an assignment and adding an assignment type because of phantom button • Users also confused how to add rows to form on “Add Course” page • Navigation system was met with praise • “Self-Explanatory” • “Intuitive” • “Simple and easy to use”

  31. Improvements • Working prototype would allow much more accurate evaluation • Mockup prototype severely limits options for gathering feedback • Add personal interviews where a user discusses how they would use the program after seeing it for the first time

  32. Design Limitations and Implementation Challenges • Spreadsheet layout will be difficult to implement, especially with “phantom cell” method of adding grades • May have problems with students taking large number of classes at once • Must keep track of both current and past courses • Many things not yet accounted for, including: • Classes worth more or less credit hours • Dropping lowest grade • Retaking a class

  33. Future Work • Actually making system functional • Either improve “phantom button” system, or remove it • Move assignment type grade summaries to top of spreadsheet to not break the “grid” • Better method of archiving classes • Many students requested additional features: • Naming assignments • Point system vs. Percentage • Professor contact information • Assignment due dates • Transfer courses

  34. Questions?

More Related