Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
1    Outline                                                      Behavior Design         Behavior Design Statement1   1  ...
“In the next 50 years, the increasing                              importance of designing spaces for human               ...
Courses                                                         “Designing for behavior change                            ...
“We believe            design thinking                                                                 Psychology and Huma...
Communication – 21 Units   CEE 151: Negotiation                          3   COMM 166: Virtual People                     ...
Anticipated QuestionsWhy does Behavior Design belong toHumanities and Sciences? Why not an IDMEN?Behavior Design belongs t...
Anticipated QuestionsWhy not major in CS HCI, Psychology,Product Design, STS, or SymSys HCI? CS HCI                    Psy...
Study PlanJunior Year                        Senior Year                       Quotes & Picture Sources                   ...
Anecdotes from      Students,     Faculty, &        Alumni“This is great. I think if students don’t study something that r...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5

Stanford's First Behavior Design Major


Published on

My proposal for an individually designed major in Behavior Design at Stanford University in Spring 2011.

Only approved IDM in 2011.

Designed first and only major in Behavior Design at Stanford.

Thank you to my advisors BJ Fogg, Jeremy Bailenson, Clifford Nass, and Carol Dweck.

Published in: Technology

Stanford's First Behavior Design Major

  1. 1. 1 Outline Behavior Design Behavior Design Statement1 1 - Introduction - Motivation and Goal - Courses - Conclusion Anticipated Questions 2 Study Plan 3 4 Anecdotes from Students, Faculty, & Alumni Stanford University Proposal for an Individually Designed Major David Ngo, Class of 2013 Introduction Dear Mrs. Susan Weersing, Mrs. Sheila Booth, and IDM Committee, I have finally found a direction that aligns with my fascination for life- optimizing psychology and technology entrepreneurship. Since sixth grade, I have been fascinated about human memory, learning, motivation, and productivity. I wanted to find ways to optimize how we could live. “The best design At 20 years of age, I have discovered that creating life-optimizing solutions today solutions is through Behavior Design—using technology to create lasting behavior change. Whether it is increasing the behavior of daily exercising, change human decreasing work-related stress, or creating a habit of daily appreciation for behavior. Yet despite life, these behavior endeavors are through effective behavior design. This decades of research, is behavior design: design solutions that create lasting behavior change in challenges remain our lives. With the help of Dr. BJ Fogg, Professor Jeremy Bailenson, for people who Professor Cliff Nass, and Professor Carol Dweck, I have found an design to influence.” academic direction and support for my interests of psychology and technology entrepreneurship—an IDM in Behavior Design. – Dr. BJ Fogg, Director of Stanford Persuasive Tech Lab I hope you may all share my vision as well.
  2. 2. “In the next 50 years, the increasing importance of designing spaces for human communication and interaction will lead to expansion in those aspects of computing that are focused on people, rather than machinery.” --Terry Winograd, Bringing Design to Software Motivation and Goal My personal motivation and goal for an IDM in Behavior Design is to optimize my Stanford experience. Never will I be able to study at Stanford as an undergraduate again. It has taken me two years of trying, failing, andI am ready to challenge self-searching to discover the direction of Behavior Design. But, I ratherconvention and discover the take two years now than 10 years later to find what I have found: the fieldseemingly impossible. of Behavior Design that bridges psychology and technology entrepreneurship in ways that existing majors have not yet combined—a new found love. I am ready to challenge convention and discover the seemingly impossible. My academic motivation and goal is to help spearhead the field of Behavior Design with the help of Dr. BJ Fogg, Professor Jeremy Bailenson (Communication), Professor Cliff Nass (Communication, courtesy in CS), and Professor Carol Dweck (Psychology): to build new bridges between Computer Science, Psychology, Product Design, and Human-Computer Interaction in order to create solutions that improves our lives through behavior change. Although Human-Computer Interaction Design is designing for technology that embraces simplicity and intuition of the mind, HCI is only one component of creating human-centered technology. I believe the second component, Behavior Design, is also needed because it focuses on designing for the long-term behavior change of using that new technology. I hope my passion, vision, and hard-work can be seen in this proposal and in our face-to-face meetings. I have spent 17 hours researching the current coursework, and 23 hours crafting this proposal. It is not perfect, but I am very happy with it. I know that I have much to learn not only in formal academics, but also in writing and conveying my mission to others in a more professional setting—such as trying to gather faculty support. Because Stanford actually gives their students the option to individually design majors, I am thankful for this opportunity and thank you Mrs. Susan Weersing, Mrs. Sheila Booth and IDM Committee for your time and consideration. David Ngo IDM Proposal 2011 2
  3. 3. Courses “Designing for behavior change via social and mobile tech is new, with no leading books or conferences to provide guidance. Our goal is to explain human nature clearly and map those insights onto the emerging opportunities in technology.” – Dr. BJ Fogg Computer Science is invaluable to create new technology:Computer Science & HCI – 22 units It is the implementation of creating new technology. In other words the ability to program iPhone, Android, and other platforms will be essential in designing behavior CS 106A: Programming 5 changing technology. Professor BJ Fogg asserts that Methodology implementing “mobile technology is the future.” And the CS 106B: Programming future starts now. 5 Abstractions CS106/108 provide strong a fundamental understanding of CS 108: Object-Oriented 4 CS in Java and C++. Furthermore, CS147/247 establish a Systems Design solid technical perspective in the Human-Computer Design relationship. Having technical background is only CS 147: Intro. to Human- 4 one facet in behavior design. Although these CS classes Computer Interaction Design are extremely hands-on, the exercises are pre-made CS 247: Human-Computer 4 problems. The next component allows direct application Interaction Design Studio to solve real world problems with infinite possible solutions. Entrepreneurship is the source of introducing Entrepreneurship – 12 Units revolutionizing change: it is the creation of something that did not exist before—finding novel solutions to existing problems, or perhaps identifying latent problems MS&E 175: Innovation, 4 that have never been noticed. Creativity, and Change MS&E 175 directly studies creativity and innovation. These classes are hands-on, providing the opportunity to ENGR 145: Technology 4 learn the processes of creativity, innovation and Entrepreneurship application of computer science knowledge. ENGR 245: Tech. ENGR145/245 revolve around technology Entrepreneurship and Lean 4 entrepreneurship. These classes allow real-world Startups application of Behavior Design. David Ngo IDM Proposal 2011 3
  4. 4. “We believe design thinking Psychology and Human Factors –30 Units is a catalyst for innovation Psych 55: Intro. to the Brain and and bringing new things into 4 Cognition* (WIM) the world.” Psych 131: Language and Thought 4 Psych 198: Senior Honors Thesis 5 Design Psych 205: Foundations of 3 Thinking, Cognition Psych 249: Human Motivation 3 website EDUC 364: Cognition and 3 Learning CS 377T: Behavior Design: Using Technology 4 to Creating Calming Habits EDUC 176X: The Design of Technologies for 1 Casual Learning - Lab EDUC 196X: The Design of 3 Technologies for Casual Learning Although CS147/247 (HCI depth) create bridgesDesign Thinking – 15 Units between CS and Psychology, it does not provide enough depth from the Human perspective. Psych55/205/249 provide substantial understanding of ME 101: Visual Thinking 3 Motivation and Cognition (memory, learning, decision- making, language). Psych 198 is the capstone project. ME 115A: Introduction to Human 3 Values in Design EDUC 364/176X/196X dive deeper into cognition and learning by applying CS and Psych knowledge in ME115B: Product Design Methods 3 education, specifically in the learning process. CS377T is another hands-on class that will create real- ME 115C: Design and Business 3 world applications that bridges the gap between CS and Factors Psychology. CS377T presents a unique opportunity to create real-world solutions to significant problems. DANCE 138: Liquid Flow: Dance, 1 CS377T Behavioral Design: Creating Calming Design, and Engineering Technologies will allow us to create new technology to relieve stress and improve health. If successful, we will Drama 105V Improv & Design 2 be invited to share our ideas at Mobile Health 2011 in May 4-5, 2011. Dr. Fogg, the teacher of this course, has been a big supporter of my IDM.Product Design adds another facet to Behavioral Design & Innovation: design thinking. According to one of’s statement [on their website], “design thinking is the catalyst for innovation and bringing new things into theworld.” Design thinking is key to creating new technology that will influence behavior.ME101 is a fundamental pillar of design thinking. ME115 series teaches the importance of human values, methods, andbusiness of product design. Dance138 and Drama 105V provide two very unconventional, but innovative ways topractice design thinking—from Liquid Flow Dance and Improvisation. Collectively, these courses provide a strongfoundation and unique approaches to learn design thinking. David Ngo IDM Proposal 2011 4
  5. 5. Communication – 21 Units CEE 151: Negotiation 3 COMM 166: Virtual People 5 COMM 168: Experimental 5 Research in Adv. User Interfaces COMM 169: Computers and 5 Interfaces DRAMA 103 Beginning Improv 3The ability to effectively communicate ones ideas, whether through writing orspeech, is extremely important. If people cannot understand the message, then they Core Sequence from Unitscannot use or contribute to the mission. Last winter in ENGR 145, David HCI Concentration inMorgenthaler, founder of Morgenthaler Ventures, told the class to take drama Symbolic Systemscourses: “Captivate people because I hear a lot of ideas, but I can tell who is CS147: Intro. to Human- 4enthusiastic about his/her idea and who is not." (paraphrased, C. Crosland). Computer Interaction DesignCEE151 teaches the important skill to negotiate. Supplementing with live practice, CS247: Human- 4DRAMA103 allows students to convey one’s vision with clarity, passion in Computer Interactionimpromptu. Design Studio Comm169: Computers 5COMM166, taught by my primary advisor Jeremy Bailenson, is key to and Interfacesunderstanding how behavior design can be applied to virtual people—digital human Psych131: Language 4 and Thoughtrepresentations. COMM 168/169 further enhances the behavior design by bridging CS108: Object-Oriented 4the disciplines between CS and PSYCH: this is another hands-on opportunity to Programmingmaster designing technology for behavior design. Because Behavior Design is a Comm168: 5relatively new field, Behavior Designers must be able to effectively convey the Experimental Researchimportance and their contribution to designing new technology that will improve in Adv. User Interfaceshuman lives. Furthermore, these “Communication” courses give anotherperspective to learn about behaviors and design—how we are persuaded, come tocompromises, interact with interfaces, and improvise.Conclusion“When Dr. Fogg began studying how technology could influence behavior back in 1992, Total IDM units: 100he faced some resistance to his ideas. But today hes one of the most sought-after IDM Units completed: 22thinkers in Silicon Valley” (CNNMoney). I hope and wish that I can contribute to thisfield by spearheading a new Individually Designed Major in Behavior Design &Innovation. “We must dare toBehavior Design can be applied to every technology company—any company or mission dream the seeminglythat desires to create a behavior change. Whether it is encouraging middle school impossible, if we wantstudents to adopt recycling habits, or designing a product so that millions of high school the seeminglyteachers can use, these endeavors require designing for behavior change. impossible to becomeWhen I was applying to Stanford, I included a quote in my essay by Czech Republic reality.”President Vaclav Havel: “We must dare to dream the seemingly impossible, if we wantthe seemingly impossible to become reality.” Before, I dreamed of the seemingly – Vaclav Havel, President of Czechimpossible to attend Stanford. Now, I dream of helping to pave the unconventional path Republicof creating next-generation technologies through behavior design. Thank you all foryour time. David Ngo IDM Proposal 2011 5
  6. 6. Anticipated QuestionsWhy does Behavior Design belong toHumanities and Sciences? Why not an IDMEN?Behavior Design belongs to the Humanities & Sciences department because it attempts to create a unique bridgebetween Psychology and Technology Entrepreneurship first rooted in Psychology, and then second in otherengineering perspectives. In other words, Behavior Design is fundamentally grounded in Humanities & Sciencescourses as its primary component, and heavily supplemented with Engineering courses as its secondary component.Although the Engineering courses are the secondary component in Behavior Design, there are still many courses fromthe School of Engineering. This may initially seem to merit Behavior Design as not fit for the school of Humanitiesand Sciences; the courses, however, do not make Behavior Design an IDMEN because of three major reasons:  All proposed courses from the Engineering Department do not require any Math or Science prerequisites. Speaking with Mrs. Darlene Lazar, Students Affairs Administrator, creating Behavior Design as an IDMEN would not be recommended due to this fact of prerequisites.  All proposed courses from the Engineering Department are” non-technical”. In other words, they do not require a certain level in Math or Science. Only CS147/247 require technical prerequisites— CS106A/B (which are already completed). The upper CS courses heavily focus on Human-Computer Interaction from the “human” perspective (not coding). Although ME101 and ME106A/B/C constitute a part of the Product Design core, these courses teach “design thinking.” Design thinking is taught from the School of Engineering, but it is not constrained to only technical or engineering perspectives. Design thinking can be integrated into H&S disciplines, especially into Behavior Design because it allows a new, creative way of thinking which further builds a unique bridge between Psychology and Technology Entrepreneurship.  A historical comparison can drive Behavior Design to its home in Humanities & Sciences: Former president of Sony, Norio Ohga, is often credited with the creation of the CD. He had a passion for classical music and wanted to compile all of Beethoven’s 9th Symphony on a single piece of media. Norio Ohga, however, did not invent the CD technology, nor did he possess the original patents for the process. The technical grounding of the CD belonged to James Russell, an American who brought the idea to life in 1965. But it was not until 1985, that Norio Ohga and Sony started to see the potential in Russell’s CD technology. Although Norio Ohga did not possess the technical background, he helped revolutionize the music industry through his love for music. Like Norio’s skill set, Behavior Design does not necessarily equip me with the technical background, but it does allow me to integrate my love for Psychology into the world of Technology Entrepreneurship from the home of the Humanities & Sciences. David Ngo IDM Proposal 2011 6
  7. 7. Anticipated QuestionsWhy not major in CS HCI, Psychology,Product Design, STS, or SymSys HCI? CS HCI Psychology Product Design STSCS HCI55 Introduction to Psychology Psych CS 103---Discrete Product Design Psych 1 Introduction to STS Can fit Product Design Mathematics for Computer Cognition and the Brain CS 103---Discrete Psychology proposed coursesPsych 55 Introduction to Science Psych 1 Introduction to Can fit Product Design Mathematics for Computer PSYCH 221: AppliedCognition and the Brain CS 106B---Programming Psychology proposed fit CS proposed Can courses Science Psych 20-95 Vision and Image Systems Abstractions coursesPSYCH 221: Applied CS 106B---Programming Can fit CS proposed Cannot fit PsychologyVision and Image to CS 121---Introduction to Psych 20-95 Psych 30 Intro. Systems Abstractions Perception Artificial Intelligence ----- coursesCommunication or proposed courses Cannot fit PsychologyPsych 30205: Foundations of CS 121---Introduction to Psych Intro. toPerception ----- Artificial Intelligence ----- ----- ----- or Communication Cognition proposed courses In-person Colleen 205: Foundations of ConnorsCognition ----- ----- ----- Limitations In-person Colleen Connors CS HCI: Psych 30 and Psych 55 are suggested as options to satisfy the CS HCI Science requirements. Psych 55,Why not major in CS HCI, Psychology, however, is also suggested under as a Depth Track Course. Psych 205 is the continuation of Psych 55, which bridges CS and Psych to a certain extent, but is simply not enough to capture the important of the human perspective in Human-Computer Interaction.Product Design, STS, or SymSymsthat attempts to bridge connections Psychology: The Cognitive Science Track is the only Psychology track (out of 4) HCI? between Psychology and Computer Science. Although the Cognitive Science track allows several CS courses to be part of the Psychology major, the 3 possible CS courses does not satisfy the bridge between CS and Psych that I desire. CS 103 is discrete Math-- the theory behind Computer science. Although this is important in stretching the mind and understanding advanced (graduate level) CS courses, it does not directly strengthen the relationship between Human-Computer Interaction or Behavior Design. CS106B, I must agree is essential to creating more bridges between CS and Psych because it provides a foundation for programming knowledge. CS 121 introduces artificial intelligence, and although interesting, it does not contribute to the major which I wish to pursue. Product Design: Product Design is essential in Behavior Design & Innovation. It teaches us another perspective of thinking--- design thinking, which is different from perspectives in psychology and computer science. Product Design, however, only requires two courses in Behavioral Sciences -- Psych 1 and any course from Psych 20 to 95. This does not provide enough depth in understanding the human perspective enough to design for Behavior or human-computer interaction. STS: Individually designed tracks are unable to incorporate the proposed courses in Psychology and Communications. Symbolic Systems HCI: SymSys HCI is the closest major that provides that flexibility and attempt to have a strong balance between Human and Computer interaction. The drawback to Symbolic Systems is that it includes substantial requirements in Philosophy and Linguistics. Again, although these courses are interesting and beneficial to challenging the mind, it does not satisfy my thirst for substantial bridges between Computer science and Psychology (Memory, Learning, Motivation, and Cognition). David Ngo IDM Proposal 2011 7 Limitations
  8. 8. Study PlanJunior Year Senior Year Quotes & Picture Sources BJ FoggFall Quarter 2011-2012 Fall Quarter 2012-2013 viordesign.htmlHUMBIO139: Sports CS 147: Introduction to 4 4Medicine (GER- NatSci) Human-Computer D.schoolME 101: Visual Thinking 3 Interaction Design 115A: Introduction to 3 ENGR 145: Technology 4 Lemelson-MIT ProgramHuman Values in Design Entrepreneurship 103 Beginning 3 CEE 151: Negotiation 3Improv Phil 50: Introductory Logic 4 Stanford UniversityMS&E 175: Innovation, 4 (GER-Math) http://stanford.eduCreativity, and Change PSYCH198: Senior Thesis 5 Terry Winograd Designing for a new Foundation in DesignWinter Quarter 2011-2012 Winter Quarter 2012-2013ME 115B: Product Design 3 CS 247: Human-Computer 4Methods Interaction Design Studio Academic Council AdvisorsPsych 205: Foundations of 3 ENGR 245: Technology 4 Jeremy Bailenson, CommunicationsCognition Entrepreneurship and LeanEDUC 196X: The Design of 3 Startups Clifford Nass, Computer ScienceTechnologies for Casual COMM 168: Experimental 5 Carol Dweck, PsychologyLearning Research in Advanced UserEDUC 176X: The Design of 1 InterfacesTechnologies for Casual EDUC 364: Cognition and 3 Informal AdvisorsLearning - Lab Learning BJ Fogg, Persuasive Tech LabDANCE 138: Liquid Flow: 1 HUMBIO140: Sex Differences 3Dance, Design, and in Human Physiology &Engineering Disease (GER-Gender)AFRICAAM 21: African 5American VernacularEnglish (GER-AmerCul) Spring Quarter 2012-2013Spring Quarter 2011-2012: COMM 169: Computers 5Study Abroad and Interfaces ME 115C: Design and 3GER Global Comm 5 Business FactorsCS108: Object-Oriented 4 PSYCH 249 Human 3Systems Design MotivationStart Capstone Senior Thesis Drama 105V Improv & 2 Design COMM166: Virtual People 5NOTE: Completed Courses on HardCopy Four-Year Curricular Plan David Ngo IDM Proposal 2011 8
  9. 9. Anecdotes from Students, Faculty, & Alumni“This is great. I think if students don’t study something that really love when they are here at Stanford, theywill surely miss out on what Stanford had to offer.”– Professor Herbert Clark, Psychology“Your major sounds very interesting.”– Professor Lera Boroditsky, Psychology“You’re at the best place to do what you’re doing: Stanford pushes barriers and creates cross-disciplinarydiscoveries. Your coursework does just that.”– Dr. BJ Fogg, Director of Persuasive Tech Lab“I am happy to get updates on what you are doing. It sounds very interesting.”– Professor Tina Seelig, Co-Director of STVP “I do think there is legitimacy in studying Behavior Design. I think your current proposal [including a SeniorCapstone Project] is fine as an IDM.”– Professor Mehran Sehami, Computer Science “I finally had some time to read through it. Overall it looks good. Its clear that you have put a lot of thoughtinto this IDM. Nice job.”– Stephanie Hsieh, Alumni 94’“Especially, in the field of my own specialty, in electronic commerce, behavioral design can not only helpcompanies to improve their electronic business processes but can also make online buying much easier forcustomers, who vary vastly with regard to IT behavior. As Hauser et al. (2009) demonstrated in their highlyrecognized research (Website Morphing), delicately designed e-commerce systems, where different cognitivepersonality types of consumers are detected and taken into account, help consumers to make right decision and,therefore, lead to better conversion rates. At the moment, when the level of technology is generally high, it isextremely important to pay attention to behavioral elements in electronic environments.”– Jerry Lindholm, Visiting Scholar from Finland 2011 David Ngo IDM Proposal 2011 9