TUTORNEST
Educational app
- My Role
- UX/UI Designer
- Team
- 4 designers
- Outcome
- 4 usability tests
01 · Context
A two-sided app: learners who need structure, instructors who need flexibility.
TutorNest is a mobile skill-sharing platform that matches students with instructors for personalized, interactive learning. We were a team of four designers on a 4-week sprint, from research and synthesis through wireframes, prototyping and usability testing. My main contribution was the wireframes: I built the base so the rest of the team could start refining from there.
02 · Problem
The real problem wasn't access to education. It was connection.
Existing platforms put content delivery ahead of connection. Students can't find instructors who match their pace, learning style or availability, and instructors have no tools to engage individual learners. The result: passive lectures, low engagement, and early dropout on both sides.
03 · Solution
Solve match quality first, then keep both sides engaged.
Research (4 interviews, 12 survey responses) kept landing on the same thing. Students felt intimidated asking for help, instructors felt ignored when students checked out, and both came from a poor fit between teaching and learning styles.
Match on style and personality, not just subject
Matching sits at the center of the app instead of a subject search.
Progress you can see
About two thirds of respondents valued progress tracking and rewards, so progress and light gamification are built into the core.
Real tools for instructors
Calendar, notes and student dashboards, because their biggest pains were scheduling and keeping pace with different learners.
What testing changed
Users saw two ways into search and couldn't tell browsing from finding a tutor. The fix was to separate "browse by topic" from "find a tutor" explicitly.
04 · Result
4 moderated usability tests, 5 tasks each. Navigation success was high, and four issues came up every time.
Unclear nav icons, weak section labels, too much on each screen, and the search overlap above. Each one got a specific fix before the high-fidelity pass. One honest gap: we only tested with students, so the instructor side still needs its own round.
05 · Impact
Expected impact: better matches, so fewer people drop out early.
This was a concept, so the impact is a hypothesis. The numbers I'd watch: how often a first session leads to a second one, and how many learners and instructors are still active after 30 days.
Research
4 interviews + 12 survey respondents. Four insights shaped every design decision that followed.
Engagement
Hands-on beats passive
All 12 survey respondents said hands-on, interactive learning is most effective. Passive lectures consistently lead to disengagement. → Prioritize interactive formats over content-dump flows.
Match quality
Poor fit on both sides
Students feel intimidated asking for help; instructors feel ignored when students disengage. Both stem from poor fit between teaching and learning styles. → Make matching style + personality central, not just subject.
Motivation
Progress keeps people going
About two thirds of respondents value progress tracking and a reward system. Most preferred a mix of live sessions and pre-made content. → Build gamification and progress visibility into the core.
Instructor pain
Clarity, scheduling and pace
The biggest teaching challenges were explaining material clearly, managing scheduling, and keeping pace with different learners. → Give instructors structured tools: calendar, notes, student dashboards.
Define
Two archetypes, one platform that had to serve both.
Peter, 23 · Learner
Learn new skills with structure
Wants to advance his career and stay consistent despite a busy schedule. Feels overwhelmed by unorganized content and nervous about asking questions. Needs a matched instructor, organized materials, progress tracking, and a low-intimidation way to connect.
Betty, 46 · Instructor
Teach on her own schedule
Wants genuine connections with students and to track their progress meaningfully. Online teaching strips away face-to-face connection. Needs communication tools, scheduling control, and student performance visibility.
Ideation & wireframes
From user flow to a 12-screen wireframe set, built around matching style and personality, not just subject.
Mid fidelity
The wireframe set iterated into mid-fidelity with real content and subject categories: the version taken into usability testing.
Testing & iterations
4 moderated usability tests. Each participant completed 5 tasks. Navigation success was high, but four issues emerged consistently.
Icon clarity
Bottom nav icons weren't immediately recognizable; users paused or misclicked. Fix: text labels on the bottom bar icons.
Section labeling
Users weren't always sure where they were in the app. Fix: stronger page headers and less visual clutter per screen.
Information density
Too much content per screen made users feel overwhelmed before completing flows. Fix: progressive disclosure, showing less until asked.
Search redundancy
Two entry points to search without clear differentiation. Fix: distinguish "browse by topic" from "find a tutor" explicitly.
Reflection
What I'd do differently
Do less, better
We tried to solve too much in one sprint. I'd scope the first version to just the matching and messaging flow, validate that it works, then layer in tools.
What's still unsolved
The instructor side
We only tested the student perspective. The instructor experience was never validated with real instructors, and that is the higher-risk side. Next: tutor onboarding, a visual design pass, and gamification exploration.