Neuroimaging and Personalized Learning: Value Reflection with Societal Stakeholders

  • Rosanne EdelenboschEmail author
  • Frank Kupper
  • Jacqueline Broerse


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.


Responsible 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.


  1. Ansari, Daniel, Bert Smedt, and Roland H. Grabner. 2011. Neuroeducation—a critical overview of an emerging field. Neuroethics 5(2): 105–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bohman, James. 1996. Public deliberation: pluralism, complexity, and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collingridge, David. 1981. The social control of technology. Milton Keynes: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  7. Commissie Dijsselbloem. 2008. Parliamentary inquiry educational innovation: ‘Tijd voor Onderwijs’. Summary available at (retrieved June 29, 2013).
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Edelenbosch, Rosanne, Frank Kupper and Jacqueline E.W. Broerse. 2014. Evidence based learning and neuroimaging: reflections with potential end-users. in preparation.Google Scholar
  10. Gray, Jeremy R., and Paul M. Thompson. 2004. Neurobiology of intelligence: science and ethics. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 5(6): 471–482.Google Scholar
  11. Grin, John, and Armin Grunwald. 2000. Vision assessment: shaping technology in 21st century society. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heinrichs, Jan-Hendrik. 2011. The sensitivity of neuroimaging data. Neuroethics 5(2): 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kupper, Frank. 2009. Democratizing animal biotechnology. Oisterwijk: Box Press.Google Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. MacQueen, Glenda. 2010. Will there be a role for neuroimaging in clinical psychiatry? Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience 35(5): 291–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maxwell, Bruce, and Eric Racine. 2012. The ethics of neuroeducation: research: research, practice and policy. Neuroethics 5(2): 101–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oudshoorn, Nelly, and T.J. Pinch. 2005. How users matter: the co-construction of users and technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Owen, Richard, John Bessant, and Maggie Heintz, eds. 2013. Responsible innovation. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Dana Press. 2010. Cerebrum 2010: emerging ideas in brain science. Washington: Dana Press.Google Scholar
  25. Raschle, N.M., Maria Chang, and Nadine Gaab. 2011. Structural brain alterations associated with dyslexia predate reading onset. NeuroImage 57(3): 742–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. Schön, Donald A., and Martin Rein. 1995. Frame reflection. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. STT Netherlands Study Centre for Technology Trends. 2008. Brain Visions, ed. Ira van Keulen. The Hague: STT.Google Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. The Royal Society (ed.). 2011. Brain waves module 2: neuroscience. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rosanne Edelenbosch
    • 1
    Email author
  • Frank Kupper
    • 1
  • Jacqueline Broerse
    • 1
  1. 1.Athena Institute, Faculty of Earth and Life SciencesVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations