Neuroimaging and Personalized Learning: Value Reflection with Societal Stakeholders
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.
KeywordsResponsible research and innovation (RRI) Neuroimaging Personalized learning Focus group methodology Pragmatic ethics
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.
- 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
- 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).
- 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
- Kupper, Frank. 2009. Democratizing animal biotechnology. Oisterwijk: Box Press.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, 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
- 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
- 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