User Experience and Usability Evaluation Identifies Learnability Barriers in an Industry Linked Vocational Learning Management System

In the modern world, digital platforms have become the primary classrooms for millions of students, particularly in vocational training where the goal is to prepare young people for specific jobs and industry certifications. These systems, known as learning management platforms, are supposed to do more than just host videos and quizzes; they must guide a learner from their first login to a finished certificate, acting as a reliable bridge between school and the workforce. However, a platform that looks good and feels exciting to use is not necessarily easy to navigate. Researchers distinguish between the overall feeling a user has about a system—whether it feels stimulating or trustworthy—and the practical ability to figure out how to use it without getting stuck. When a digital tool is meant to open doors to employment, any confusion or hidden friction in its design can become a barrier that stops a student from reaching their goal.

A team of researchers set out to examine this exact tension within a specific vocational program in Indonesia called the Axioo Class Program. This initiative connects schools with industry partners to provide students with skills and certifications that are recognized by employers. The digital heart of this program is a platform called UpMySkill, which allows students and teachers to access courses, complete assignments, and track their progress toward certification. The researchers wanted to know if this platform was truly working as intended. They gathered feedback from 232 people, mostly students aged 15 to 24, along with a smaller group of teachers, asking them to rate their experience with the system. They used two different ways of measuring this experience: one method looked at the broad feelings users had, such as whether the system felt fresh or efficient, while the other method focused strictly on how easy or difficult the users found it to learn and operate.

The results revealed a surprising split in how people experienced the platform. On the positive side, the users felt the system was engaging and valuable. They rated it highly for its ability to stimulate interest, its overall attractiveness, and its efficiency in getting tasks done once they knew how. In fact, five out of six measures of their experience were better than the average found in other software evaluations. The users felt the platform was dependable and that it helped them feel in control of their learning journey. However, when the researchers asked about the practical side of things—specifically how easy it was to learn the system and how straightforward it was to use without help—the picture changed. The overall score for usability fell below the standard benchmark that educators and designers often use as a sign of a successful tool. More than seventy percent of the respondents scored below this reference point, indicating that while they liked the platform, they found it difficult to figure out on their own.

This gap between liking a system and being able to use it easily was the study's most significant finding. The data suggested that the platform was not failing because it was boring or untrustworthy; rather, it was failing because it was not clear enough. Users reported that they needed to learn a lot before they could start using the system effectively, and they often felt they required technical support to navigate it. The researchers pointed to specific areas where the design caused friction, such as the difficulty in understanding the sequence of learning activities, the lack of clear paths to certification, and the confusion around how to find help when stuck. The study explicitly ruled out the idea that the platform was simply bad or unappealing; the users clearly valued the content and the opportunity it provided. Instead, the problem was identified as a "learnability barrier," meaning the initial hurdle to understanding how the system worked was too high for many users.

The implications of these findings are practical and direct. The researchers concluded that for a vocational platform to truly support quality education and help students reach industry certification, it must be redesigned to lower the initial learning effort. This means creating a clearer onboarding process that guides new users step-by-step, making the path to certification visible and obvious, and simplifying the navigation so that students do not have to guess where to go next. The study emphasizes that a positive emotional connection to a digital tool is not enough if the tool itself is confusing. By fixing these specific usability issues, the platform could transform from a system that requires constant support into one that allows students to participate equitably and independently in their journey toward employment. The research does not claim that fixing the design will automatically guarantee that every student gets a job or passes a certification exam, but it does show that removing these digital barriers is a necessary first step to making that outcome possible.