Why case studies?

 

We now have a framework to analyse cognitive technologies, understand how the environment affects them and how in turn they transform their environment. This will allow us to speculate about what the future might look like with such technologies, not only technology's direct effect on the brain but also on the wider environment. We need to know to make the right decisions. 

To carry out this speculative work, we start with specific cognitive technologies used in education or being developed for that purpose. Through careful analysis, we describe what the future may look like if such technologies become widely used. 

I start with the example of BrainCo, a company that developed a headband to help students focus better. We will then work together to analyse other neurotechnologies used in education. The aim is to build together a picture of what the future may look like and the issues these technologies bring up. 

​

An example: the critical analysis of BrainCo's Focus1 headset

​

​

Here is a list of some of the resources I used for my case study. There is a more detailed bibliography in my position paper 'A Critical Approach to Cognitive Technologies'. You do not need to read them, as the findings are described below, but it gives you an idea of sources for your own case study.

​

• BrainCo's video explaining the benefits of Focus1 on the About Cognitive Technologies page.

• The company's website page which explains the technology.

• An article about the technology, including concerns it raises: 'This Company Wants to Gather Student Brainwave Data to Measure ‘Engagement’' by Johnson, 2017. 

• The latest article on the pressure to end using the headband in Chinese schools and changes in the law: 'Chinese primary school halts trial of device that monitors pupils' brainwaves' by Standeart, 2019.

• Weibo (China's microblogging website) to hear a diversity of voices. Use Google translate to follow the discussions in Chinese. 

​

Describing BrainCo's technology using the three codes

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Biological codes: plastic brains and neuronal activity that can be read and optimised. 

​

Computer codes: embodied in the headband and captors that serve as a brain-computer interface (BCI), the computers and servers, AI and the algorithms that transform the measurements into information to signal the level of attention, and in the cognitive training games software.

​

Social codes can be subdivided into social, economic and political aspects:

• social aspects: Although student engagement is clearly visible to teachers, as shown in the publicity film for BrainCo (BrainCo 2017), measures and data are considered more valuable: “There’s a subjective component people already experience. We want to make it visible and put a number on it so people can learn more about what’s going on in their brains (NASA Spinoff 2019). Much of the tech decisions that are made are based on the current social codes.

• economic aspects: in a neoliberal environment, the focus is on profit maximisation pushing BrainCo to research how to develop brain efficiency rather than happiness or empathy, for example. Surveillance capitalism (Zuboff 2015), puts value on the collection of much data: BrainCo will ‘net a database of EEG readings from a million users, larger than any that exists today’ (NASA Spinoff 2019) and hopefully become the future Facebook of BCI (Meng 2019).

• political aspects: the technology is informed by power relationships and surveillance culture (Lyon 2017), students are monitored by teachers and parents, while teachers are controlled by the administration. Moreover, BrainCo differentiates its activities based on the political environment. In the US, it focuses on supporting special needs such as students with ADHD and research is limited due to strict regulations. In China, until November 1st, 2019, data on children was not regulated and BrainCo was able to try out Focus1 in schools. However, there was strong parental opposition such as an outcry on Weibo (Feng 2019).

​

We have seen that the cognitive technology is entangled in the existing biological, computer and social codes, we now look at how the technology may in turn change these codes.

​

The risks of cognitive technologies in education.

​

We now come to the central part of our study: the retroactive effect of the technology on individuals and society. Although these are not deterministic and often unknown, we need to think about what could happen and monitor the changes. Starting from our bio-socio-technical codes analysis, we highlight some areas of concern.

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

Template of the above framework downloadable here for the following activity.

 

 

Activities (about 45'):

​

1. Can you think of any other retroactive effect the use of BrainCo may have on individuals or society? Please add any ideas or comments to the board below. 

2. Now it is your turn to analyse a cognitive technology.

   • Choose a cognitive technology that may be used in education and that you are particularly interested in, or take one from those suggested (see below the board).

   • Carry out a short research about the technology so that you can describe its bio-socio-technological codes on the board below. 

   • Consider the retroaction on the individual and society (social, economic, political aspects) of the use of this technology and list them on the board. 

​

 

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​