Role
UX Researcher & Designer
Timeline
5 Weeks
Tools
Figma
Tasks
Product design
Usability testing
User research
Storytelling
Project Overview
Study groups are a significant part of a student’s learning experience, yet many students struggle to form them outside of their existing social circles. As a result, they stick with familiar people, or choose to study alone, losing access to partners who'd suit them better.
StudyHusky is a conceptual app that helps students evaluate potential study partners before committing to a session.
Solution showcase
Discovery starts with a short list, not a directory
Describe one key part of the solution and how it helps users. Add a sentence explaining the benefit or intended outcome.
The profile carries what students said they use to judge fit
Describe one key part of the solution and how it helps users. Add a sentence explaining the benefit or intended outcome.
Every match comes with its reasoning
Describe one key part of the solution and how it helps users. Add a sentence explaining the benefit or intended outcome.
A home screen that surfaces matches without requiring a search
Describe one key part of the solution and how it helps users. Add a sentence explaining the benefit or intended outcome.
Connections stay organized in one place
Describe one key part of the solution and how it helps users. Add a sentence explaining the benefit or intended outcome.
Background
But, how did we get here?
Throughout freshman year, I've always noticed how I would study with the same people. Likewise, when I asked my friends — they did the same: they never branched out to new students and always studied with familiar people, or, they would study alone.
This sparked my curiosity, and pushed me to dive deeper in this topic. From my own and my friends' perspective, I suspected that social friction existed, as you have to approach someone before you can study with them.
Looking at current solutions, they only matched students based on schedules and classes, leaving out personality. This, coupled with an initial survey where 6 of 11 students named personality fit as an important factor in choosing a study partner, led me to wonder whether personality would impact the compatibility of a study group, and consequently, the study session altogether.
So I went in with two hypotheses:
1. Social friction prevents students from forming study groups outside their existing circles.
2. Personality plays a major role in determining whether students are compatible study partners.
Research
Investigating the Hypotheses
I interviewed 5 UW students — ranging from freshman to juniors — to investigate both hypotheses. I asked how they currently find people to study with, what happens when a session doesn’t go well, and what would make them willing to study with someone new.
I then organized these findings into themes using affinity mapping.
The Themes
Themes seemed to revolve around students seeking similar study habits and goals, academic compatibility, and wanting to know whether a student was productive.
I then created a diagram to help me understand the mechanism behind each theme. In this diagram, the arrows represent the "why."
Students rely on familiarity & trust when choosing study partners
Students rely on familiar classmates because familiarity provides confidence that a session will be productive when compatibility is otherwise uncertain.
Students seek compatible study habits and goals
Students want aligned habits and goals as they believe that it reduces friction and creates a more productive experience
Students prioritize productivity & efficiency in study sessions
Students want sessions to be meaningful and worth their time
Students seek academic compatibility before committing to a study partner
Students do not want to be held back by their study partner; they want to maximize learning and ensure a productive session
Students default to studying alone
When they are unable to find a partner they deem compatible
Quotes from Participants
“The main thing is that they’re focused, and that they’re going at the same pace, and want to study the same thing as you.”
Participant 1 · seeking compatible study habits and goals
“If I’m studying with somebody that isn’t my ideal study partner, I could get distracted, or I could deviate from the main goal of understanding the material — working individually, it’s more effective that way.”
Participant 3 · Students rely on familiarity & trust when choosing study partners
The Key Insight
I noticed a pattern emerging, a pattern revolving around productivity:
Students want study sessions to be productive and worth their time, and they choose familiar study partners because they trust that the session will likely be productive. Thus, students value this information reflected across these themes because it allows them to confidently assess the productivity of a study session.
This insight eventually led me to reframe my project.
Revisiting the Hypotheses
What I assumed
Social friction — being to shy, or too afraid to approach others — was the main culprit hindering students from approaching their peers, and consequently, blocking the formation of study groups.
Personality played a major role in how well students studied together, consequently, affecting how the study session went altogether.
What I found
Social friction existed when students approached their peers because they didn’t know whether a study session with that student would be productive.
When students described what made someone a good study partner, they talked about study habits, goals, academic context, and familiarity and trust — not personality.
Problem statement
How might we help [people] accomplish [goal] while addressing [core barrier]?
Ideation
Add a concise explanation of the context, your approach, and why it mattered. Replace this placeholder with the details and evidence from your project.
Criterion 1
Add the principle used to evaluate and prioritize your ideas.
Criterion 2
Add the principle used to evaluate and prioritize your ideas.
Criterion 3
Add the principle used to evaluate and prioritize your ideas.
Design decisions
Decision 1: add a descriptive title
Describe the user need, constraint, or insight behind this decision. Explain the options you considered and what made this choice important.
Explain the design response and the reasoning behind it. Add supporting feedback or evidence, along with any trade-offs you made.
Decision 2: add a descriptive title
Describe the user need, constraint, or insight behind this decision. Explain the options you considered and what made this choice important.
Explain the design response and the reasoning behind it. Add supporting feedback or evidence, along with any trade-offs you made.
Decision 3: add a descriptive title
Describe the user need, constraint, or insight behind this decision. Explain the options you considered and what made this choice important.
Explain the design response and the reasoning behind it. Add supporting feedback or evidence, along with any trade-offs you made.
Tensions
Tension 1
Describe a competing need or constraint and how you balanced it. Include the trade-off that remained unresolved.
Tension 2
Describe a competing need or constraint and how you balanced it. Include the trade-off that remained unresolved.
Tension 3
Describe a competing need or constraint and how you balanced it. Include the trade-off that remained unresolved.
Tension 4
Describe a competing need or constraint and how you balanced it. Include the trade-off that remained unresolved.
Testing
Add a concise explanation of the context, your approach, and why it mattered. Replace this placeholder with the details and evidence from your project.
Before
After
What I’d do differently
Learning 1: add a short heading
Describe what you would change next time, why it matters, and the practical step you would take to improve the process or outcome.
Learning 2: add a short heading
Describe what you would change next time, why it matters, and the practical step you would take to improve the process or outcome.
Learning 3: add a short heading
Describe what you would change next time, why it matters, and the practical step you would take to improve the process or outcome.
Learning 4: add a short heading
Describe what you would change next time, why it matters, and the practical step you would take to improve the process or outcome.
Reflection
Summarize the most important thing you learned and how this project shaped your design practice. Keep this reflection short and personal.
Explore more work
View other projects