One of the most consistent challenges we hear from higher education leaders trying to develop AI-enhanced learning tools is this: "How do we get meaningful student input without overwhelming them or selecting only our most engaged students?"
Universities are rightfully protective of student time and attention. Survey fatigue is real. Student advisory committees tend to attract the same subset of highly engaged students. Internal review board processes designed for traditional research studies don't flex well for rapid prototyping and iterative testing. The result is that institutions end up designing AI tools based on administrator assumptions, faculty preferences, or vendor promises rather than actual student needs and experiences.
Over the past year-and-a-half at WGU Labs, we built something different: a Student Insights Council of about 8,000 students who volunteered to contribute to research and development work. This standing panel has allowed us to center students’ perspectives throughout our efforts to design and build new learning solutions.
Here's what we learned about making this work.
Start with intentional recruitment
We didn't send a blanket email asking, "Who wants to help with research?" We recruited strategically to build a panel that reflects our student population, with intentional oversampling of groups that are underrepresented. This means we have enough students to study students in different sub-groups and, with calibration, generate results that are representative of WGU’s student body.
The recruitment message was clear: we're building new tools and approaches to improve learning at WGU, and we need student input to do it well. We explained that participation would involve surveys, interviews, user testing, and pilots throughout the year. We promised compensation for the students’ time and flexibility in how they engage.
About 8,000 students signed up. That was our initial working panel. As of June 2026, our numbers remain steady at about 8,400 students.
Create multiple engagement pathways
Not every student on the council participates in every activity, and that's by design. Some students are well-suited to quick surveys about preferences or reactions. Others are willing to sit for hour-long interviews about their learning experiences. Still others want to actually pilot new tools and provide detailed feedback.
To date, we’ve completed over 25 studies with the SIC. Activities include:
- Short surveys (5-10 minutes) about student preferences and reactions to concepts
- Longer surveys (15-20 minutes) about learning experiences and needs
- One-on-one interviews for deep qualitative insights
- User testing sessions where students interact with prototypes and think aloud
- Pilot studies where students use new tools over several weeks and provide feedback
- Focus groups exploring specific challenges or opportunities
Students opt into what works for their schedules and interests. Some participate in everything they are invited to. Others pick and choose. Both are valuable.
Build it into your development process
The real value of the Student Insights Council? We never have to speculate about student reactions. When we're designing something new, the question isn't "what do we think students want?" It's "let's ask the council."
This shows up throughout our development process:
- Concept testing: Before we build anything, we describe the idea to students and gauge interest and concerns.
- Design feedback: Students review wireframes and prototypes to identify confusion or missing features.
- Pilot recruitment: When we're ready to test with real users, we have a ready pool of volunteers.
- Iteration input: After initial testing, we go back to the students to understand what worked and what didn't.
Recently, we were designing an AI-powered tool to help students reflect on their learning progress. We had strong ideas about what features would be most valuable. When we asked the council, students told us our assumptions were wrong—they wanted something simpler and more focused. This gave us the info we needed to pivot before building the wrong thing. That conversation saved us months of work and hours of wasted student time, testing something they didn’t want in the first place.
What this costs
The most common question we get: "How much does this cost to run?"
Our main expenses are:
- Compensation: We budget roughly $50,000-75,000 annually for student compensation across all activities.
- Platform: We use Qualtrics for surveys and scheduling tools for interviews, which we already have.
- Staff time: Two team members spend about 15-20% of their time coordinating council activities and communications.
What we’ve gained from the SIC
For that investment, we've engaged about 16,000 student interactions since launching in 2025 (some students participate in multiple activities). The alternative would be designing in the dark, building things students don't want, or running expensive external market research that wouldn't be as contextually rich. Another alternative would be to recruit from the entire active student population, but this nets historically low engagement and requires time-consuming stakeholder approval. Both defeat the purpose of our research, which is “speed to insight.” The SIC only expedites it.
Starting with intentional recruitment, creating multiple engagement pathways, and making the SIC a key part of the development process have contributed to our high student engagement rates. Typical university surveys struggle to achieve response rates of 5%; our SIC surveys routinely see 25-50% response rates.
Why are students engaging in higher rates? A few factors seem to matter:
- Students opted into this relationship. They expect to hear from us and want to contribute.
- We compensate students for their time (usually $10-25, depending on the activity).
- We close the loop by sharing what we learned and how it influenced our work.
- We're respectful of students’ time. Surveys are focused and purposeful, not fishing expeditions.
- Students see tangible results. The students who tested early prototypes see refined versions later and know their feedback meant something.
Why this matters now
As institutions experiment with AI-enhanced learning, the risk of building tools that don't serve students is enormous. The technology moves fast. Vendor promises are compelling and the administrative pressure to "do something with AI" is intense.
The antidote is treating student voice as a core part of the development process. A student insights council makes that possible without overwhelming your broader student body or relying only on your most engaged students.
If your institution is serious about student-centered AI development, this is a foundational part of the infrastructure.
