Final Thoughts: Looking back into our NeuroEdTech Journey

To wrap up our OER, we decided to reflect on the process through a short interview-style format. Below, you can learn about our personal takeaways: surprises, challenges, and our future predictions. Hopefully, we’ve given you a solid picture of what this field is and its potential, and as we see it, the questions and doubts it holds.

Question 1: So… is NeuroEdTech real or just hype?

Victoria:  Honestly, in my view, it’s both. There’s real science behind how we learn, how our brains respond to stress, memory, or attention… and we’re finally starting to see that knowledge move from the lab into classrooms and learning tools. But a lot of what's on the market today is still experimental or even a bit questionable in terms of accuracy.

Mark: Hype does seem to be a particularly acute issue when it comes to neuroscience and education. Fundamentally, the ability to affect learning based on our brain’s biology could unlock a flywheel effect of potential improvements in learning, so it is easy to see why there is so much excitement and eagerness to get there. There does seem to be something real here too though. Scientists are innovating in big ways to find better ways to study the brain, including mobile brain imaging devices and real-world experiments. I still hold out hope that we will learn more about how we learn in ways that can affect teaching practice in a more meaningful way.

Question 2: What surprised you most while researching this topic?

Victoria: How much is happening all at once. There are so many new releases, a new wearable, a new platform, or someone claiming to read your brain in real time. It’s exciting, but it’s also overwhelming. There’s still a big gap between what’s possible and what’s truly useful or validated in education.

Mark: I was surprised at how widespread mobile EEG technologies were. There is a blurring between commercial interests and research applications, but it is exciting to see how these tools can be used to further our understanding of how the brain works. I find the application of these devices in research to be the most exciting area for now.

Question 3: Was it easy to define the NeuroEdTech market?

Victoria: That was one of our biggest challenges. This market doesn’t really exist as a clear, defined category, it sits somewhere between EdTech, neurotechnology, and wellness. We had to put things together from different places, and that alone says a lot about how early-stage and fragmented it still is.

Mark: It was a big challenge. There are many commercial products out there where they claim to use neuroscience to improve academic performance or focus, but it is hard to tell what is efficacious or not. This market is still in a very early phase since applications to teaching practice are still largely debatable.

Question 4: Any final takeaway?

Victoria: Just that this is a space worth following, but with a critical eye. There’s a lot of promise, and also a real risk of oversimplifying brain science. If we want this field to grow in the right direction, we need more collaboration between educators, scientists, and designers, not just fast tech.

Mark: I hold a lot of hope for the future in this area. Understanding better how our brains work on a biological level can only help give teachers more confidence, and I really am hopeful that with new technologies that advance the study of the brian, we will finally start getting a clearer understanding of that. However, I still think specific applications to teaching are still a way off. Nevertheless, as we’ve shown, perhaps there are some near-term possibilities to get somewhere with advancements in AI, monitoring of cognitive load, and adaptive learning environments where brain patterns can be monitored and the learning environment adjusts to suit student cognitive demands.