< back

User Research Experience

My Role

Prototype Sessions

Prototype Session Structure

Krubel and I led the design and facilitation of prototype testing sessions to gather actionable user feedback and inform iterative improvements to the site. We intentionally structured these sessions to surface both positive and negative user reactions, ensuring we captured a balanced and honest perspective.

Each session was divided into two parts: analog and digital. In the analog portion, participants completed off-screen activities such as categorizing content or annotating printed screenshots. These exercises encouraged deeper reflection and helped uncover insights that might not emerge in a purely digital environment. The digital portion then allowed users to interact directly with the live prototype, giving them a realistic sense of the experience.

We introduced this hybrid structure to maintain engagement and reduce screen fatigue. While we initially planned for fully digital sessions, we found that incorporating analog activities led to more focused participation and richer feedback. Overall, this approach struck a strong balance—structured enough to generate specific insights, while still leaving room for meaningful discussion.

User Research and Feedback

To capture structured and comprehensive feedback, we provided participants with a printed worksheet to complete during each mission. We used a simple “Plus / Delta” framework: “Pluses” captured what users liked or found intuitive, while “Deltas” focused on opportunities for improvement, including suggestions, points of confusion, or friction in the experience.

We chose this framework intentionally. Because many users are hesitant to offer direct criticism, pairing positives with areas for growth creates a more comfortable and balanced way for them to share honest feedback. “Delta,” representing change or growth, reinforced that we were actively seeking ways to improve the product.

During sessions, I also documented behavioral observations—where users hesitated, struggled, or moved quickly and confidently. I brought both the written feedback and observational insights into synthesis, allowing us to clearly identify and prioritize key problem areas.

Facilitation of Prototype Sessions

Facilitation was a core part of my role at the Hub for Innovation. Over time, our team significantly improved both the quality and frequency of our prototype sessions as we gained experience and stepped into stronger leadership roles.

Across a five-month period, we conducted approximately five large-scale prototype sessions, along with several smaller, iterative sessions. Our participant group primarily included professors, as well as faculty and staff across the university who were invested in the development of ITeachMSU.

In the photo below, you can see an example of our layout of one of the larger prototype sessions.

Takeaways and Reflections

Our session structure remained largely consistent throughout the prototype process, but my growth as a facilitator evolved significantly. After each session, I took time to reflect on my performance and actively sought feedback from my supervisors and Krubel to continuously improve.

My biggest area of growth was learning to manage my instinct to intervene and becoming more comfortable with patience during sessions. Early on, I felt the need to step in whenever a participant struggled. Over time, I realized that stepping back and only offering support when necessary led to much richer insights—revealing not just where users struggled, but how they naturally tried to solve problems.

I also became more intentional about my body language, ensuring it felt open, neutral, and inviting. This helped create an environment where participants felt comfortable sharing honest, even critical, feedback. Ultimately, the more candid input we received, the more effectively we could identify issues and drive meaningful improvements to the site.

Another area I focused on improving was balancing empathy with effective time management during sessions. At times, I found myself being too rigid with the schedule, which could limit the depth of conversation. Over time, I worked on becoming more flexible—allowing participants to guide the discussion while stepping in only when necessary to keep us aligned with our goals.

By staying attuned to both the flow of the conversation and the session objectives, I was able to create space for richer insights without losing structure. This balance, along with my attention to detail, helped me grow into a more effective and adaptable facilitator.