© PY 2019. 

OVERVIEW

PROJECT

Develop a desktop platform for Lrnit.Live. A space to virtually learn programming. Learn.Live connects student learners, 13–18 years of age, and teachers to have both Live and pre-recorded classes. As part of the live learning components, peers can leverage each other as resources which bolsters a community. 

MY ROLE

Research/ Information Architecture/User Interface.

PROBLEMS

The online code learning environment is a saturated market with enormous competition.

DELIVERABLES

Competitors: Revenue Model, Key recommendations, Product sketches & wireframes, User flows, personas , High-fidelity prototype.

DURATION

2 Weeks.

SOLUTIONS

Cater the product to specifically address the problems of 13–18 year olds. No other product does this. 

We started by conducting a competitive analysis. We looked at the many similar products that are out there and narrowed our competitive list to the seven we found were closest to our product.

We also looked at the costs of our different competitors

We created a Business Model Canvas.

Looking at the products that are out there gave us a clear understanding that the online learning market is challenging because there are many products available to learn coding, with robust features, and large amounts of capital and revenue. Just as an example, Code Combat is translated into 50 international languages, teaches many types of code languages, both to beginners and advanced students, giving it an impressive global and diverse reach, plus they have $2 million in revenue and $2 million in funding.

 

With so many well established brands in such a saturated market, it was critical that we identify what are the main factors to successful online learning platforms. 

 

We did extensive research, which can be distilled to three fundamental pillars of success to online learning: “Differentiation, Pedagogy, and a unique learning experience” -Eduventurist Summit. 

 

This was insightful because it told us that our product needs to identify what is different about it from what is already in the market (differentiation), think about how the teaching is conducted (pedagogy), and how we can conduct a unique learning experience for students and make it effective.

 

We conducted over 15 interviews both with parents and teenagers, separately, to understand their beliefs around learning to code, perceptions of importance, or not. 

 

After we compiled our interviews and synthesized them, we conducted an affinity map to identify the patterns in the responses we were getting.

This helped us identify the main points of our users needs.

‚Äč

  • Parents do see the importance of learning to code, but will only encourage their kids to learn if the kids themselves are actually interested.
     

  • Independence is important to teenagers.
     

  • The “Cool factor” is important to most teens.
     

  • Community, or peer engagement will attract more teenagers towards the product.


We found these points very important because while other products were wide in their demographics, we can focus on the needs of teenagers. This allows us the ability to have the independence factor, or a well curated product curtailed to a teenagers interests, rather than treating them as monolithic people.


With this in mind we created four paths of learning from the four main types of teenagers we encountered, “The gamer”, “The entrepreneur”, “ The activist”, and “The Rock n Roller”. With these different paths a student can have a unique learning experience that was more in harmony with their interests. So a gamer can learn code building out video games, etc.

The highlight points of our research was this:
 

  • A live instructor was a differentiator hardly any competitor had.
     

  • Community component was important because it made it an organic process where teens can interact with their peers and not be isolated while learning.
     

  • The different learning paths gave teenagers the freedom to stay true to their interests and identity.


Keeping our Personas in mind, we did a design studio, sketching wireframes of what our prototype might look like.

We also listed out different content that might be included on the site and an initial site map.

Following this process, we conducted a card sorting to identify if there are better ways of organizing the information and content.

Using this information we iterated on the content and information architecture.

We then begun building out our prototype on sketch.

We conducting usability testing on our initial prototype and iterated on the pain points of our users.

After building out our high-fidelity prototype, we presented the product to the client. Along with next steps.