1.1 Context

A skill-based assessment tool for curriculum experts and teachers

D2L is an EdTech company that provides digital learning solutions. They build an assessment tool helps teachers evaluate specific skills (e.g., critical thinking, creativity) instead of just overall grades. The tool is designed for 2 key groups:

1.2 Problem

The tool's rigid grading method leads to inaccurate scores and low adoption rates

Currently, the tool allows curriculum experts to create multiple grading methods, but only one method can be 'Active' institution-wide. Teachers are forced to use the same 'Active' method for all assignments, leading to inaccurate scores, teacher frustration, and low adoption in K-12 and universities.

1.3 Goal

Enhance the tool’s flexibility for accurate grading while following school/district rules

Research showed that while teachers have diverse needs when grading student skills, most follow school or district grading rules. Only a small minority required customization options. Our cross-functional team decided to prioritize the most common requirements first.

1.4 Solution

Provide multiple pre-set grading methods for teachers to choose from

Jump to the process

As a Grade 1 teacher, I find the 3-level scale ideal for assessing my students. The tool now lets me select this method from 8 curriculum expert-designed grading options during course planning, and the graphics make it quick to identify and apply the best approach.

1.5 Impact

Received positive feedback in usability testing

2.1 Project Challenges

2.2 Research

Most teachers need flexibility to grade accurately while adhering to school or district grading rules

As the first market tool for skill-based grading, we lacked competitors for reference. To understand what flexibility teachers require, I collaborated with 2 UX researchers and interviewed 12 teachers from both sectors. Key findings:

Course assessment needs are consistent, but institutional needs vary

Each teacher has limited assessment needs

Most follow school or district grading rules; only a small minority need customization

Grading method is selected during course planning

2.3 Ideation

Enable teachers to select from multiple pre-set grading methods, overriding the institution-wide default

Inspired by the findings, my squad prioritized letting teachers override the default by selecting from up to 8 pre-set grading methods during course planning. This balances standardization with flexibility, addressing the majority’s needs while noting customization as a future opportunity.

2.4 Design Challenge 1

Accuracy vs. Ease of use: Which takes priority?

The initial override design prioritized ease of use, but the tool’s constraint—locking grading methods once assessments began—made accidental errors irreversible and costly to fix. This conflicted with teachers’ critical need for accurate evaluations. To resolve this, I relocated the override feature to a dedicated page, intentionally adding friction to ensure careful selection and improve accuracy.

2.5 Design Challenge 2

How to swiftly recognize the targeted grading method?

I noticed many grading methods had similar names, increasing the risk of selection errors and slowing down the override workflow. To address this, I added graphics inspired by existing grading visuals and created a preview mode to indicate the methods are non-interactive.

Develop a preview mode, drawing inspiration from map scales and the current grading mode

However, teachers couldn’t see graphic details in the dropdown, making the graphics ineffective for quick recognition. To address this, I replaced the dropdown with radio buttons for better visibility and faster selection.

2.6 Accessibility

Accessible for keyboard and screen reader users

To guarantee that the design is accessible for keyboard and screen reader users, I conducted tests with an accessibility tester focusing on 2 navigation patterns.

Design specifications for keyboard and screen reader experiences

2.7 Takeaways

Friction isn't always bad

While ease of use is a cornerstone of UX design, it’s not always the ultimate goal. When user goals conflict with simplicity—like ensuring thoughtful decision-making or preventing errors—friction can be intentionally added to guide users toward success. For example, confirmation steps can slow users down but ultimately help them achieve their goals more effectively.