Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Neuroimaging and Personalized Learning: Value Reflection with Societal Stakeholders

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Responsible Innovation 2

Abstract

The emerging technology of neuroimaging may contribute to personalized learning, the adaptation of teaching methods to individual learning needs. In order to proceed with this application in a socially responsible way, it is necessary to carefully consider the practice of education during the innovation process. In this chapter we discuss the results of focus groups in which we reflected on the opportunities and concerns regarding this application with a selection of societal stakeholders: three focus groups with randomly selected parents of one or more children attending secondary school, three focus groups with randomly selected secondary school teachers and four focus groups with secondary school children attending one particular school. Our analysis shows that a different framing of ‘the learning child’ and ‘neuroimaging’ can lead to a different attitude towards the application of neuroimaging for personalized learning. It is important to anticipate these different framings in subsequent structuring of science-society dialogue.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Translation of the Dutch word “boerenslim”.

  2. 2.

    For more information the secondary school system in the Netherlands, see the website of the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science at http://www.government.nl/ministries/ocw. For a comparison of the Netherlands with other European countries, see http://www.trendsinbeeld.minocw.nl/grafieken/2_1_2.php (last accessed August 17, 2014).

References

  • Ansari, Daniel, Bert Smedt, and Roland H. Grabner. 2011. Neuroeducation—a critical overview of an emerging field. Neuroethics 5(2): 105–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohman, James. 1996. Public deliberation: pluralism, complexity, and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borup, Mads, Nik Brown, Kornelia Konrad, and Harro van Lente. 2006. The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18(3): 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, Michael. 2009. The role of neuroimaging in diagnosis and personalized medicine-current position and likely future directions. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience 11(4): 389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collingridge, David. 1981. The social control of technology. Milton Keynes: Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commissie Dijsselbloem. 2008. Parliamentary inquiry educational innovation: ‘Tijd voor Onderwijs’. Summary available at http://www.parlement.com/9291000/d/svrapportonderwijs.pdf (retrieved June 29, 2013).

  • Cutler, Tony, Barbara Waine, and Kevin Brehony. 2007. A new epoch of individualization? problems with the ‘personalization’of public sector services. Public Administration 85(3): 847–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelenbosch, Rosanne, Frank Kupper and Jacqueline E.W. Broerse. 2014. Evidence based learning and neuroimaging: reflections with potential end-users. in preparation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, Jeremy R., and Paul M. Thompson. 2004. Neurobiology of intelligence: science and ethics. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 5(6): 471–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grin, John, and Armin Grunwald. 2000. Vision assessment: shaping technology in 21st century society. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hardiman, Mariale, Luke Rinne, Emma Gregory, and Julia Yarmolinskaya. 2011. Neuroethics, neuroeducation, and classroom teaching: where the brain sciences meet pedagogy. Neuroethics 5(2): 135–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinrichs, Jan-Hendrik. 2011. The sensitivity of neuroimaging data. Neuroethics 5(2): 185–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard-Jones, Paul A., and Kate D. Fenton. 2011. The need for interdisciplinary dialogue in developing ethical approaches to neuroeducational research. Neuroethics 5(2): 119–134. doi:10.1007/s12152-011-9101-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keulartz, Jozef, Maartje Schermer, Michiel Korthals, and Tsjalling Swierstra. 2004. Ethics in technological culture: a programmatic proposal for a pragmatist approach. Science, Technology and Human Values 29(1): 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kupper, Frank. 2009. Democratizing animal biotechnology. Oisterwijk: Box Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kupper, Frank, and Tjard Cock Buning. 2010. Deliberating animal values: a pragmatic—pluralistic approach to animal ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24(5): 431–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kupper, Frank, Linda Krijgsman, Henriette Bout, and Tjard Cock De Buning. 2007. The value lab: exploring moral frameworks in the deliberation of values in the animal biotechnology debate. Science and Public Policy 34(9): 657–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacQueen, Glenda. 2010. Will there be a role for neuroimaging in clinical psychiatry? Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience 35(5): 291–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, Bruce, and Eric Racine. 2012. The ethics of neuroeducation: research: research, practice and policy. Neuroethics 5(2): 101–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oudshoorn, Nelly, and T.J. Pinch. 2005. How users matter: the co-construction of users and technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, Richard, Phil Macnaghten, and Jack Stilgoe. 2012. Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy 39(6): 751–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, Richard, John Bessant, and Maggie Heintz, eds. 2013. Responsible innovation. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dana Press. 2010. Cerebrum 2010: emerging ideas in brain science. Washington: Dana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raschle, N.M., Maria Chang, and Nadine Gaab. 2011. Structural brain alterations associated with dyslexia predate reading onset. NeuroImage 57(3): 742–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A. 2012. Futures of technology assessment. In Der systemblick auf innovation—technikfolgenabschatzung in der technikgestaltung, ed. Michael Dekker, Armin Grunwald, and Martin Knapp, 29–39. Berlin: Edition Sigma Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roelofsen, A., Roy R. Kloet, Jacqueline E.W. Broerse, Tjard de Cock Buning, and Joske F.G. Bunders. 2010. Guiding visions in ecological genomics: a first step to exploring the future. New Genetics and Society 29(1): 19–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohracher, Harald. 2003. The role of users in the social shaping of environmental technologies. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 16(2): 177–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, Donald A., and Martin Rein. 1995. Frame reflection. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheridan, Kimberly, Elena Zinchenko, and Howard Gardner. 2006. Neuroethics in education. In Neuroethics: defining the issues in theory, practice, and policy, ed. Judy Illes, 265–275. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • STT Netherlands Study Centre for Technology Trends. 2008. Brain Visions, ed. Ira van Keulen. The Hague: STT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swierstra, Tjalling, and Arie Rip. 2007. Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. Nanoethics 1(1): 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Royal Society (ed.). 2011. Brain waves module 2: neuroscience. London: The Royal Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, Brian. 1996. May the sheep safely graze? a reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In Risk environment and modernity towards a new ecology, ed. Scott Lash, Bronislaw Szerszynski, and Brian Wynne, 44–83. London: Sage Publications Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoo, Julie J., Oliver Hinds, Noa Ofen, Todd W. Thompson, Susan Whitfield-Gabrieli, Christina Triantafyllou, and John D.E. Gabrieli. 2012. When the brain is prepared to learn: enhancing human learning using real-time fMRI. NeuroImage 59(1): 846–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This chapter is the result of the research project Neurosciences in Dialogue, which is part of MVI and the Centre for Society and the Life Sciences, funded by the Netherlands Genomics Initiative. The authors would like to thank Sanne Koot for her contribution to the collection of data, and the anonymous reviewer for his/her insightful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Athena Institute, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Rosanne Edelenbosch, Frank Kupper & Jacqueline Broerse

Authors
  1. Rosanne Edelenbosch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frank Kupper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jacqueline Broerse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rosanne Edelenbosch .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Tilburg Law School, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    Bert-Jaap Koops

  2. Philosophy section, Faculty of TPM, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Ilse Oosterlaken

  3. Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Henny Romijn

  4. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Tsjalling Swierstra

  5. Philosophy Section, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Jeroen van den Hoven

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Edelenbosch, R., Kupper, F., Broerse, J. (2015). Neuroimaging and Personalized Learning: Value Reflection with Societal Stakeholders. In: Koops, BJ., Oosterlaken, I., Romijn, H., Swierstra, T., van den Hoven, J. (eds) Responsible Innovation 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17308-5_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation