Identifying the gap

The challenge first came to light through early market research carried out by the product manager, who explored existing tools offered through the Disabled Students’ Allowance (DSA). The landscape revealed a gap: while universities and DSA-funded tools focused heavily on content creation (like slides or mind-maps), none supported the emotional and behavioural side of presentation delivery.

A whiteboard audit of existing tools highlighted that students were often given help with planning but rarely with speaking. There was no structured way to practise speaking aloud, receive feedback or improve pacing and confidence, particularly in a way that felt safe.

Anxiety is not an occasional inconvenience. For many neurodivergent students, it is the main reason they avoid certain modules, defer assessments or drop out of university altogether. The combination of cognitive load, performance pressure and lack of structured support makes oral assessments one of the hardest challenges they face. Universities continue to use oral assessments to evaluate learning and communication, but most available tools simply help students build slides, not rehearse delivery. So students rely on workarounds. They rehearse in isolation, repeat lines in front of a mirror, time themselves on a phone or ask a partner to listen. These strategies work for some, but not all.

This insight led us to a bigger question...

Finding the right voices

To dig deeper, we used Ballpark, a participant recruitment tool and user testing tool, to connect with students who were actively preparing for presentations. We didn’t want volume, we wanted depth.

We reached out with a simple message:

“We’re exploring how to make practising for presentations less painful — especially for students who experience anxiety. We’d love to hear how it feels for you.”

The response was immediate. Students shared that no one had ever asked them about this before. We conducted rich, reflective interviews with students across academic levels, neurotypes and disciplines. Many were neurodivergent, some had left education before, and others were just trying to pass without panic.

Turning insight into action

We structured each research session as a conversation, not a checklist. Most calls lasted around 30–45 minutes and were loosely guided by four themes: preparation habits, emotional experience, tools used (or avoided), and feedback preferences.

Rather than following a rigid script, we let participants steer the conversation based on what felt most important to them. This helped surface deeper emotional insights, especially around confidence, avoidance, and fear of judgement.

We treated every interview as an emotional blueprint. From each transcript, we created a vertical mini-report, pulling out sentiment, pain points, behavioural patterns and key quotes.

This gave us a human dataset: real language, real struggle, real design signals. We weren’t just validating a problem, we were learning how students think, prepare, cope and hide.

What did we learn?

After reviewing all interviews, several consistent patterns emerged across diverse student contexts:

Common Pain Points (🔧)

• High levels of anxiety around performance and judgement

• Limited access to quality, structured rehearsal tools

• Cognitive overload from reading-heavy, unstructured prep methods

• Inconsistent or unhelpful feedback from peers or staff

Shared Emotional Themes (🧠)

• Many students feel isolated during rehearsal, leading to avoidance or distress

• Safety, privacy and control are essential to engagement and confidence

• Most gain confidence through structure, repetition and gentle guidance

Design Implications (🛠️)

• Tools must reduce pressure, not add to it: less like an evaluator, more like a coach

• Rehearsal experiences should be broken into small, achievable steps

• Visual, audio and multimodal inputs are crucial for accessibility and engagement

• Feedback must be timely, affirming and specific — without overwhelming

Opportunity Areas (🚀)

• Design a safe space for private, self-paced rehearsal

• Offer progress tracking and nudges without judgement

• Allow users to customise how they receive feedback (text, voice, tone)

• Provide emotional reassurance alongside technical insight

Across all interviews, students shared a deep sense of pressure, isolation and improvisation. They wanted to do well, but lacked the tools, structure or emotional safety to practise in a way that felt meaningful.

They told us they wanted four things:

• Safety: a way to rehearse without feeling watched or judged

• Structure: pacing, timing and visual prompts to reduce stress

• Feedback: clear, supportive insight that doesn’t overwhelm

• Flexibility: space to present their way, not just the 'academic' way

Designing the Alpha

We channelled these insights into a private Alpha, not to impress, but to listen. We had prototyped using AI - but now it was time to commit to code and start to build an experience from the ground up. 

From day one, Alpha wasn’t about polishing features. It was about building momentum and finding out what actually mattered to students. We focused on helping them feel value quickly, not just proving our concept. That meant cutting unnecessary setup, surfacing emotional blockers, and seeing where confidence could grow with the right prompts.

We tested using our alpha group, that we had recruited using our user testing platform. This provided us with valuable insights into not only the usability of the product, but also the value users seen in what we were doing. 

We also tested the product internally. Colleagues were invited to step into students' shoes, experiencing the tool as learners, not builders. Their feedback revealed friction we hadn’t spotted, especially around clarity, pacing and emotional tone. It helped us stress-test assumptions and sharpen the experience before going wider.

Behind the scenes, we laid strong foundations. We worked cross-functionally with legal to develop a student-friendly consent process that put transparency first, and collaborated with data to define what success looked like early. We tracked rehearsal completion, drop-off points and engagement with feedback, not just to monitor performance, but to guide meaningful iteration.

Not only that, but we kept the scope tight:

• A core flow to rehearse, designed to help users reach value quickly and avoid setup friction

• Automatic feedback on pace, clarity and filler words

• A way to reflect, repeat, and try again

• A record of the rehearsals they had done

We tested quietly with real students, iterated weekly, and made space for emotional feedback alongside usability input.

Alpha wasn’t about features. It was about earning trust.

In the next post, I will detail how we transitioned from early stage Alpha into a more concrete UI and visual identity (spoilers) using our existing design system.