WLU Academic Petitions and Student Appeals
Making Laurier petitions and appeals simple, clear, and transparent for students.
Date: November 2024-December 2024
Methodology: Four moderated user interviews on students who had submitted a petition, and 11 moderated usability tests on students who had never submitted a petition.
Research Goals: Improve the petitions and appeals process to simplify requests and enhance understanding.
01 Study Set-up
Objective
The Laurier petitions team approached our team and proposed a redesign of the Petitions and Appeals page. The team shared that students often submit the wrong petition, and express frustration and confusion about their existing experience. The wider team aimed to address the following problem:
"How might we improve the petitions and appeals process to simplify requests, enhance understanding, and ensure transparent status tracking?"
Collaborated with our client from Laurier to understand the end-to-end process and define key assumptions.
The client identified four key assumptions to be tested through research:
Users feel it is confusing to find information.
Users do not understand what kind of documentation must be submitted with a petition.
Users feel frustration when waiting six weeks for a response.
Users do not know when to submit a petition to their home faculty versus the faculty that houses the course.
Conducted a two-pronged research study by speaking to both students who had submitted a petition and those who had never submitted one:
Students who had submitted a petition: Conducted 20-question interviews to understand their specific experiences, with a strong emphasis on post-submission frustrations that could not be replicated in usability tests.
Students who had never submitted a petition: Assigned a series of four tasks and followed up with qualitative questions to observe their real-time reactions as they navigated the website and attempted to submit a petition for the first time.
This approach allowed us to capture live user pain points and gain deep insights into the cognitive process of first-time users while identifying systemic issues faced by those familiar with the process.
Process
The existing interface of the Laurier Petitions and Appeals.
02 Study Findings
The research identified two main themes:
Poor information architecture and structure
Lack of clarity and assurance
A. Usability Tests - with students who had never submitted a petition
Severe Task Failures
High failure rates across all tasks, with users struggling to navigate and locate the correct petition form.
Dropdown menus and form labels were unclear, leading to misclick errors and incomplete submissions.
Mental Model Misalignment
Users expected a step-by-step guided process, but the website provided little direction, leaving them unsure of what to do next.
Too much information without clear actions overwhelmed first-time users.
Navigation Challenges
Many users assumed petitions were processed through LORIS (the university’s academic system) and were confused as to why it wasn’t integrated.
Misleading section headers made users believe they were selecting the correct form when they were not.
Key Findings
Quantitative and qualitative data showed high user failure rates, with themes of confusion, poor information architecture, and lack of communication which led all users to feel frustration at least once.
Summary
B. User Interviews - with students who had submitted a petition in the past
Form Navigation Issues
Many students struggled to find the correct petition form, often selecting the wrong option due to unclear labels and vague descriptions.
Users expected a centralized petition system rather than navigating multiple pages.
Lack of Transparency & Long Wait Times
Users were frustrated by the six-week wait period and expressed a lack of communication after submission.
Many students wanted real-time status updates on their petitions but had no way of tracking progress.
Perceived Success vs. Actual Success
Some users believed they had submitted petitions correctly, only to later realize they had made errors.
Confusion over where to submit petitions (home faculty vs. faculty of the course) led to delays and misrouted petitions.
Key Findings
Our solution directly addresses the validated pain points from both user interviews and usability testing, ensuring alignment with qualitative and quantitative findings.
03 Final Recommendations
Validates Findings:
Quantitative Data: High failure rates in usability tests showed that students frequently selected the wrong petition, leading to incorrect submissions.
Qualitative Data: Interviews revealed that students were unsure which petition to file, and often had to seek external help to confirm their selection.
How it Helps:
The survey guides students to the correct petition form based on their unique situation.
Reduces the likelihood of form selection errors and misdirected submissions.
Ensures students understand supporting documentation requirements upfront, addressing a top frustration from user interviews.
1. Short Survey for Smart Form Selection
By implementing this two-pronged solution, we validate and directly address the issues surfaced in our research:
Reduces petition selection errors by helping students choose the correct form upfront.
Streamlines navigation by breaking the submission process into clear, manageable steps.
Increases user confidence by ensuring students understand what to submit and when.
This solution bridges the gap between user expectations and system usability, making the Laurier Petitions and Appeals process more intuitive, efficient, and frustration-free.
Conclusion
The introduction to the survey to help students with form selection.
The redesigned landing page information architecture.
Validates Findings:
Quantitative Data: Users struggled with unclear navigation, leading to long task completion times and frequent misclicks.
Qualitative Data: First-time users expected a guided process but instead encountered overwhelming amounts of information without clear actions.
How it Helps:
The new structure breaks down petition submission into clear, sequential steps, ensuring students always know what to do next.
Removes unnecessary complexity, replacing dropdown-heavy navigation with a guided, form-driven experience.
Provides real-time feedback to reassure students that they are on the right path.