Welcome to our OER on NeuroEdTech — the space where neuroscience, wearable technology, and AI are beginning to shape the future of education. In this learning experience, we explore how real-time brain data, adaptive systems, and emerging neurotechnologies are creating new possibilities (and raising new questions) for how we teach, learn, and design educational tools.
We’ll take you through what educational neuroscience is, what it’s not, its challenges, and the ways it’s entering the classroom as well as other kinds of learning, and where the actual market stands today. You’ll also get a closer look at tools like EEG headbands and similar wearables, and the ventures trying to make brain-based learning scalable, along with a critical look at what’s hype vs. what’s helpful.
We’ve included several interactive activities. Only those in GoogleForms and Padlet where made to keep track of participation, so do not feel obliged to sign up to the other interactive platforms, but we do encourage to do them ????. Please don’t forget to put your names in your Padlet posts ????
Ready to explore the learning brain from the inside out? Let’s dive in.
https://sites.google.com/view/emergingmarketsineducationalne/home
Once you’ve walked through the experience, please leave your comments/recommendations to make our OER better in the discussion below, and answer one (or more!) of the following questions:
- What surprised you most about the current use (or misuse) of brain data in education?
- Would you feel comfortable if a school used wearable EEG devices to monitor student focus? Why or why not?
- Can you imagine a realistic, ethical classroom use case for neurotechnology? What would it look like?
- Do you think neuro-based learning tools could help address educational equity — or deepen the gap?
- After exploring the tools and trends, do you think NeuroEdTech is mostly hype, or do you see long-term potential?
Victoria & Mark
Hi Victoria and Mark, thank you for the thought-provoking OER. I thought the information presented was very easy to digest, combined with interactivity to wrap up the key learning points.
I want to share a case study for neurotechnology which focuses on enhancing teaching effectiveness and student engagement without compromising privacy or autonomy. A friend of mine leveraged AI and cloud technologies alongside neuro-inspired data to support teachers in real time. The setup includes hardware components – a camera paired with a Jetson Nano processor that capture classroom dynamics such as student attention, participation, and overall engagement. These data points feed into an AI model that calculates a “Class Sync Score,” which reflects how well students are collectively focused and connected during lessons. This score is then delivered as real-time feedback to teachers and school administrators via a user-friendly web platform designed for quality management. With this information, teachers can adjust their pacing, teaching methods, or even classroom layout on the fly to better engage students. Meanwhile, administrators can monitor trends over time to identify best practices or provide targeted support where needed. But more importantly, the system is designed with ethics and privacy in mind: it does not record or store any personal data or video footage beyond aggregated, anonymized engagement metrics. The goal is not to surveil students but to empower educators with actionable insights that improve learning experiences.
With careful consideration, neurotechnology can be a valuable ally in shaping the future of education. However, it’s crucial that such innovations prioritize transparency, consent, and equitable access to ensure they truly benefit all learners 🙂
Thanks for your feedback and for sharing that additional case study Annie! That tool you describe sounds really interesting. As you point out, careful consideration of ethics and safety is needed. As well, we aimed to highlight the importance of understanding how reliable the neurological data collected is in informing teaching practice. This is especially true if AI algorithms are used to make decisions. The effects also need to be understood from the perspective of all stakeholders, so ethical frameworks should be used in their implementation to avoid causing harm.
Annie, thank you for your feedback and the case study! I think it is very interesting because its an example of technology being used to meet us where we are – in terms of developments, knowledge, training. What I mean with this is: it is helping teachers teach better, with the indicator of engagement. It is not dictating absolute truths about how a specific student is learning (or not). Very cool!
This is a really cool example Annie. There’s so much potential in something like this as a valuable feedback metric. To play devils advocate, I wonder what the negative consequences of widespread use of a “Class Sync Score” could be. It would depend largely on the efficacy of the score as an indicator of engagement and learning. We’ve all likely heard of “teach to the test” where standardized test proliferation leads to teaching solely to optimize students’ test results – I imagine something similar could happen with a sync score, where teaching is transformed in ways that maximizes the sync score without actually maximizing learning.
This is a potential pitfall of much of this neuroedtech technology – it attempts to quantify and surface the complex learning process, but it needs to be very carefully implemented so that its clear that metrics like EEG activity do not necessarily directly correlate to effective learning transfer.
Thank you for sharing, Annie. It is so inspiring to read impactful additions like yours, that offer both insight and some interesting examples to explore.
Hi Victoria and Mark, I learned a lot about neurotechnology from your presentation! I also enjoyed the different quiz check-ins you had at the end of each section.
Personally, I wouldn’t feel comfortable if a school used wearable EEG devices to monitor student focus because the data isn’t there to support the validity of these devices in a way that is meaningfully connected to learning, yet. I also think that technology like this and the data it produces could inadvertently punish students who are neurodiverse. There are so many different cognitive processes that occur during learning, so I think measuring student focus flattens and oversimplifies what it means to learn something.
As it stands now, I think neuro-based learning technology would lead to further inequity among students because equating student engagement and learning to focus or how a student’s EEG measurements read will inevitably punish students whose brains don’t work in the conventional way. However, as more research is done on the brain and as this technology evolves, I can see the potential for this type of technology to help learners, especially neurodiverse learners who would benefit from understanding what environments and what strategies are most suited for their learning.
Thanks for your reflection on the OER and for contributing your thoughts, Anna! The points you made about neurodiverse learners are really insightful ones. There is understandably both concern and excitement with these technologies as it pertains to neurodiverse learners.
One of the most surprising takeaways for me this week was realizing how little I’ve questioned the trustworthiness of data from wearable devices. Even though I once deleted a stress-monitoring app because it didn’t feel accurate, I hadn’t really thought deeply about why I distrusted it. It’s interesting how easily we can accept data, especially when it comes in the form of charts, trends, or numbers, as being objective or authoritative. But this week’s reading reminded me that just because something looks scientific doesn’t mean it’s accurate or meaningful. We need to stay critical and remember that data from technology isn’t always reliable, and certainly shouldn’t be treated as absolute truth without context.
Hi Yan, thanks for your entry! And I’m glad our OER brought reflection for you in this sense. As you say, just because it’s coming from science doesn’t mean it’s true, and we shouldn’t believe everything a monitor/screen says. I just attended a TEDx talk last night, and an elite trail runner precisely talked about this – how he realized how much frustration his Garmin/smart watch was giving him (“Trainning insuficient” message, while actually he was full of endorphines and happiness from the fun he just had!) and the disconnect it was causing with his body. I feel that if we just let EEG head bands and similar wearables influence education like they have influenced health/sports, we can be in big trouble!
Great OER this week Mark and Victoria! You did an excellent job of demonstrating the spectrum of neuroedtech and its applications. I never really associated neuroscience so closely with wearables, and thus I wasn’t surprised to find that many of the current ventures (Emotiv, Neurosky, Muse) were not particularly compelling. For study purposes, EEG data is great. I am not convinced that these ventures demonstrate a valuable or practical application of this data though.
On the other hand, the future of neuroedetch is incredibly exciting. With machine learning, the burden and complexity of wearables can be shed. Things such as personalized and adaptive learning and dynamic cognitive load management can be achieved not through EEG data collection, but merely the training of machine learning models and the analysis of learning analytics data. These models could be supplemented with the data generated by wearables, but they wouldn’t necessarily need it. This future feels very close, and thus I think the hype is justified!
Hi Duncan, thank you for your post. After all this investigation, I, like you, think the greatest potential in applied neuroscience is machine learning in order to give adaptive learning plans. EEG and similar wearable tech should stay in the labs for a while still!
What surprised you most about the current use (or misuse) of brain data in education?
Hey Victoria and Mark, great work on the neuroscience OER! It’s becoming a hot topic in the adult learning sector as we’re seeing those delayed diagnoses utilizing available resources to support them in their roles. I think the biggest thing for me was how much we’ve known about it for so long and that we’re just starting to now incorporate ways to support these people.
Would you feel comfortable if a school used wearable EEG devices to monitor student focus? Why or why not?
At first I came into this with an “absolutely not” mentality, but seeing how monitors will evolve and biofeedback provide a more individual experience thanks to AI and better manufacturing processes, I see it as a game changer. I appreciated the reflection of the teachers role in providing this support as well and look forward to learning a new way to incorporate this monitor in classrooms.
Can you imagine a realistic, ethical classroom use case for neurotechnology? What would it look like?
I think in a classroom that invites the use of neurotechnology is a good way to have it in the classroom. I’ve always dreamt of teaching a class with students who have neurodiverse needs and would like to try a new way to do it. I’ve had leaders admit to having ADHD and using technology and methods in a specific classroom would be an interesting experience.
After exploring the tools and trends, do you think NeuroEdTech is mostly hype, or do you see long-term potential?
I absolutely see it having long-term potential. I could even think about neuroedtech in terms of what it means for an aging population who might have to stay in their jobs longer and would like to re-skill. I’m also talking about ways that neurotech can support all of us trying to juggle many hats and trying to find ways to help us focus on our education better.
This was a great OER and I enjoyed the journey that we were taken on.
Hi Rico, thank you for your feedback! Glad you enjoyed and learned with our OER. It was quite a journey! I find it really interesting that you see a future in neuroedtech for retraining of the ageing population – do you see it as EEG-Wearables to track how they are “waking up” parts of their brains again by doing certain activities? Or what do you have in mind? Find it really fascinating!
Hi Mark and Victoria,
Great work on your OER this week! I learned a lot about how neuroscience can help inform teachers of best teaching practices and the emerging technologies in the NeuroEdTech market such as Emotiv and Neurosky.
I personally would not currently use this technology with my students due to all the concerns brought up in your OER. My main concern is the fact that there is no scientific evidence that proves the connection between brain activity monitored by EEG and student attentiveness. I believe using EEG monitors with their current limitations would put unnecessary pressure on students and have a negative rather than positive impact on their learning. However, I can envision a future where this technology can be ethically integrated in the classroom to provide personalized learning plans for each student. However, there needs to be further research into how EEG data correlates with student attentiveness, and the concerns around privacy and data usage will need to be addressed.
One suggestion for improvement for your OER would be to design the webpages so the content is linear rather than side-by-side so that your webpage is more accessible and screen-reader friendly!
Thank you Tim for your comments and feedback 🙂
Like you, I hope that technologies like these evolve to eventually give easy to understand feedback and makes learning a more personalized and “easier” path. I thought that was where it was now, so it was dissappointing to see its taken a more massive and different path.
Thank you for your work. It was both impressive and refreshing to have the complexities of neuroscience laid out in such an accessible format, supported with such clear summaries of real-world examples and ventures.
As an investor looking to better understand this market, your site would be invaluable. As an educator, your work has helped me reconnect with my understandings of neuroscience, education, and neuroedtech ventures. Your design is intentional and succinct, modelling some of the very concepts it explains. Emerging opportunities and ventures aside, it was useful for me to consider how I might improve my practice.
As a classroom teacher, I am hesitant to embrace tools that measure the brain activity of learners in the classroom — when being used by teachers, to either teach or to inform their own practice. My concerns are twofold (but could likely be remedied through well-designed products and quality support): 1) how is the data used and secured by the company providing the product and service and 2) how accessible is the support needed for end-users to effectively and meaningfully incorporate the technology in the classroom?
For now, I see generally anticipate neurotech to remain largely in the hands of the researchers and neuroscientists, helping education better understand learning — to inform our pedagogy and the design of future tools and iterations. I expect powerful neurotech will first make waves in smaller settings, in the hands of specialized learning support teachers that understand the technology well and have uncovered how to effectively interpret the information it collects to improve their practice, while being able to model and communicate that efficacy amongst faculty. The information collected from these scenarios, when shared in an accessible manner for professional development, will help to spread and normalize its use, making it more accessible and practical in global, general classroom settings and markets. Word of mouth would be a slow but effective in establishing staying power in this market I imagine.
That said, wearables are certainly invaluable in today’s classrooms and will continue to be added to more and more learning settings as the market grows and products improve and are more accessible. Ethical use will need to be continually reviewed and examined by third-parties, to ensure a level both quality and responsible care. AR, VR, assistive technology and health data wearables offer such powerful efficiencies, but again we must be aware of how users are tracked and their data collected and used by the companies providing the experience.
Thank you for your work.
Thanks for your feedback and thoughtful reflections Patrick! I especially appreciate your thoughts on how these types of technologies could eventually scale and the need for really thoughtful approaches to privacy and data security. AI-driven adaptive learning systems that incorporate neuroscience in particular, could hold an incredible amount of sensitive student data. The risks would need to be well understood and the appropriate safeguards would need to be put in place.
Great job this week, Victoria and Mark! This is a fascinating topic and you’ve given us all an opportunity to think about an explore. What I found especially interesting, is how polarizing this topic is given all of the potential benefits it presents alongside a long list of potential dangers and risks with respect to issues like privacy and equity – a classic hallmark of an emergent and transformative technology like this.
Thinking about the potential benefits, what strikes me the most is the potential for truly personalized learning through AI systems that can monitor and adapt to individual cognitive load in real-time. You shared some really compelling evidence that technologies can leverage neuroscience to generate substantial improvements in knowledge retention, learner engagement, and cognitive efficiency across diverse educational settings. The idea of wearable technologies that can detect when a learner is becoming overwhelmed or disengaged and automatically adjust the learning environment represents a major improvement from current one-size-fits-all approaches or time-consuming traditional assessment and analysis practices.
On the other hand, the ethical and practical barriers should give educators cause to be careful about how enthusiastically they adopt some early entrants in this space. Data privacy concerns and potential bias reinforcement for underrepresented populations are not merely technical hurdles but fundamental questions about equity and justice in education.
I am personally most concerned about the major socioeconomic factors that will come into play given how expensive these technologies currently are and project to be. I took a look at some of the companies you shared (who are all doing objectively incredible things!) and noted some prohibitively expensive price tags. The MindWave starter kit, which is marketed as an affordable option, comes in at $129.99 per set, and Emotiv’s options are even more expensive at $6000 per year for 25 seats – or $400 per user. I have no doubt that these products could present some exciting possibilities in classrooms fortunate enough to have them, but the fact that these powerful tools might exacerbate existing inequalities rather than reduce them is particularly concerning.
That said, this is an undeniably exciting space for education and I will be keeping a close eye on it now that you have given us such a thorough overview, so thank you for that!! Well done.
Hi Ken! Thanks for your thoughts and feedback. The costs of these technologies is a really great point to bring forward. While much focus is given to the cost of these technologies coming down and how quickly they’ve advanced, your point is well taken that that the costs are still a significant barriers for many. In a world where there are still challenges in getting basic high-speed internet to all citizens, it is certainly important to keep concerns around equity in mind.
Hello Mark and Victoria! I enjoyed going through your OER. It’s informative and organized.
I am drawn to answer this discussion prompt: Would you feel comfortable if a school used wearable EEG devices to monitor student focus? Why or why not?
I feel like it would make students feel uncomfortable if a school used wearable EEG devices to monitor their focus. I believe I would feel the same way too. While the intent may be good, like for improved learning, such monitoring can violate students’ privacy and create unnecessary stress or pressure. Brain data is personal, and I think that interpreting students’ focus level is not always accurate. Students may feel surveilled and feel anxious and conscious just to get a positive result. Instead of focusing on the lesson, they might focus more on the thought that they are being surveilled. Education should foster trust and motivate the students. Schools should focus on creating a supportive learning environment that would get the students’ focus and attention and motivate them to study. They should not rely on wearables that would only ignite disengagement and anxiety.
Hi Sinsi! Thanks for sharing your experience with our OER and for sharing your thoughts on wearable EEG devices. I especially appreciate your thoughts about these devices being a distraction from the lesson. I would imagine over time these technologies would become normalized, but you rightly point out the dangers of these types of technologies becoming normalized before we understand how or if they actually work as intended. Your points about privacy are also really important. To avoid the feeling of being surveilled, there would need to be transparency about what data is collected, who has access to it, and what it is used for.
Would you feel comfortable if a school used wearable EEG devices to monitor student focus? Why or why not?
To be quite honest, I would not support or feel comfortable with a school asking their students to wear EEG devices to monitor them for any reason. As “useful” as these devices may be when it comes to getting certain types of information, I do not think they are necessary in educational settings. If the school was a higher ed research school where all the students willingly agreed to be monitored, then that is completely fine. But I do not think elementary to high school level students would completely understand the implications of being constantly tracked by an EEG device, and I do not believe parents would support such use of those devices either.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Didy. There are many ethical issues with these technologies that need to be explored and understood. Your concerns around privacy outline many of those well.