Education: Social and Cultural Issues

Devices that therapeutically aid users with cognitive and learning disabilities/differences should not be equally applied to a general population seeking learning advantages. It must not be assumed that therapies able to improve cognition for mental and cognitive disorders (such as executive control and working memory) would work similarly on nondisabled people linearly to improve their cognition above standard levels. Although this may be a desirable outcome.

Learning neurotechnology/educational neuroscience could not be opened up to all students in a manner that ignores their social surroundings and cultural traditions due to factors of access, cost, rights of the child, and role of the educator/institution. As usage grows, the application of learning neuroscience/neurotechnologies must be carefully evaluated for responsible innovation and genuine social need.

We must consider how the application of neurotechnologies and learning sciences shapes individuals’ lives, both within their peer groups and broader social contexts. The integration of immersive learning and educational experiences using neurotechnology—such as headsets, immersive caves, and augmented reality—has the transformative potential to revolutionize education. These advanced technologies can create bidirectional interfaces, facilitating immersive interactions with brain data. This can lead to personalized, adaptive, and highly engaging learning experiences.

The social implications of these innovations are profound. They could democratize access to high-quality education, bridging gaps between socio-economic classes by providing tailored learning experiences to students from diverse backgrounds. Culturally, they might shift educational paradigms, valuing interactive and experiential learning over traditional rote methods. This shift could foster a generation of learners who are more adept at critical thinking, problem-solving, and adapting to rapid technological changes.

Moreover, the use of neurotechnology in education could reshape social interactions and group dynamics. As students engage with these technologies, they may develop new forms of collaboration and communication, influenced by their immersive experiences. This can lead to the formation of new social norms and cultural practices, as technology-mediated learning becomes a central component of daily life. Consequently, the widespread adoption of these technologies might challenge existing educational frameworks and necessitate new policies and ethical considerations to ensure equitable and responsible use.

This technology, which includes brain-computer interfaces and neural feedback systems, allows learners and educators to interact with digital environments in profound new ways, potentially accelerating skill acquisition and knowledge retention. However, its social, cultural, economic, and legal implications are profound and multifaceted. Especially when considering pre-university education, the rights of the learner (young person) and the responsibilities of the educator or institution must be taken into account both at the time of use and for the future, as brainwave data is unique to each individual.

On one hand, it could democratize education by providing unprecedented access to high-quality learning resources irrespective of geographic, economic, physical, or other barriers. On the other hand, it raises significant ethical concerns, such as the potential for exacerbating existing inequalities, infringing on cognitive privacy, and altering human cognition in unpredictable ways. The integration of neurotechnology in education also necessitates cultural shifts, including the need for new norms around data security, consent, and the ethical use of neural data. Thus, while the potential benefits of neurotechnology in immersive learning are vast, careful consideration of its social and cultural impacts is crucial to ensure it is deployed equitably and ethically.

The rhetoric, see table 5.1 for examples, used to persuade mass-market consumers to enter the new world of educational neurotechnology (or potentially neuro-education) is not hard to predict–the market is already arriving. Misconceptions about brain science and the capabilities of neurotech are understandably rampant, even among journalists, academics, and innovators themselves. The general population is unavoidably vulnerable to buzzwords for ‘neuromyths’ Dekker et al, 2012 [31]; Racieror-Plaza et al, 2023 [32], and their repetition from claims made by manufacturers and marketers.

Table 5.1. The Rhetoric of Advertising Claims for Neuromodulatory Devices

Neurotechnology devices designed to assess individual learning preparedness and performance should not be crafted or marketed in a way that allows simplistic classifications into separable and rankable types of students prior to actual learning outcomes [33].  What counts as sound learning and educational advancement can vary across different cultures. While deficits in learning ability may be due to underlying developmental challenges requiring therapy, neuro-assessments conducted for improved learning should resist a reduction to any psychiatric or medicalized categorization. Such categorizations contribute to societal injustice and cannot translate well across cultures.