Cognitive neuroscience research is typically conducted in controlled laboratory environments and therefore its contribution to our understanding of learning in real-world environments is limited. In recent years, however, portable and wearable brain devices have become more readily available for classroom-based research. Complementing existing education research methods, these emerging technologies could provide information about learning processes that might not be reflected in classroom observations or learners’ self-reports. This essay critically evaluates the value added by portable brain technologies in education research and outlines a proposed research agenda, centered around questions related to student engagement, cognitive load, and self-regulation. We also address ethical concerns regarding student privacy and the potential misuse of students’ brain data.
AbrahamsonD.ShayanS.BakkerA.Van der SchaafM. F. (2016). Eye-tracking Piaget: Capturing the emergence of attentional anchors in the coordination of proportional motor action. Human Development, 58(4–5), 218–244. https://doi.org/10.1159/000443153
2.
AntonenkoP. D. (2019). Educational neuroscience: Exploring cognitive processes that underlie learning. In ParsonsT.LinL.CockerhamD. (Eds.), Mind, brain and technology. Educational communications and technology: Issues and innovations (pp. 27–46). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02631-8_3
3.
AntonenkoP. D.NiederhauserD. S. (2010). The influence of leads on cognitive load and learning in a hypertext environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 140–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.014
4.
AzekaS.CarterS.DavidescoI. (2020). Neuroscientists in training. Educational Leadership, 77(8), 66–69.
5.
BabikerA.FayeI.MumtazW.MalikA. S.SatoH. (2019). EEG in classroom: EMD features to detect situational interest of students during learning. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 78(12), 16261–16281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-018-7016-z
BenasichA. A.ChoudhuryN. A.Realpe-BonillaT.RoeslerC. P. (2014). Plasticity in developing brain: Active auditory exposure impacts prelinguistic acoustic mapping. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(40), 13349–13363. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0972-14.2014
8.
BenjaminR. (2019). Race after technology. Polity Press.
9.
BevilacquaD.DavidescoI.WanL.ChalonerK.RowlandJ.DingM.PoeppelD.DikkerS. (2019). Brain-to-brain synchrony and learning outcomes vary by student–teacher dynamics: Evidence from a real-world classroom electroencephalography study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 31(3), 401–411. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01274
10.
BowersJ. S. (2016). The practical and principled problems with educational neuroscience. Psychological Review, 123(5), 600–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000025
BurgessA. P. (2013). On the interpretation of synchronization in EEG hyperscanning studies: A cautionary note. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 881. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00881
13.
CarewT. J.MagsamenS. H. (2010). Neuroscience and education: An ideal partnership for producing evidence-based solutions to guide 21st century learning. Neuron, 67(5), 685–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.08.028
14.
CavazzaM.CharlesF.AranyiG.PorteousJ.GilroyS. W.RazG.KeynanN. J.CohenA.JackontG.JacobY.SoreqE.KlovatchI.HendlerT. (2014). Towards emotional regulation through neurofeedback. In Proceedings of the 5th Augmented Human International Conference (pp. 1–8). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2582051.2582093
15.
CohenS. S.MadsenJ.TouchanG.RoblesD.LimaS. F.HeninS.ParraL. C. (2018). Neural engagement with online educational videos predicts learning performance for individual students. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 155, 60–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2018.06.011
16.
Dahlstrom-HakkiI.Asbell-ClarkeJ.RoweE. (2019). Showing is knowing: The potential and challenges of using neurocognitive measures of implicit learning in the classroom. Mind, Brain, and Education, 13(1), 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12177
17.
DavidescoI.LaurentE.ValkH.WestT.DikkerS.MilneC.PoeppelD. (2019). Brain-to-brain synchrony between students and teachers predicts learning outcomes. bioRxiv, 644047. https://doi.org/10.1101/644047
18.
DavisJ.MartinD. B. (2008). Racism, assessment, and instructional practices: Implications for mathematics teachers of African American students. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 1(1), 10–34.
19.
DikkerS.MichalareasG.OostrikM.SerafimakiA.KahramanH. M.StruiksmaM. E.PoeppelD. (2021). Crowdsourcing neuroscience: Inter-brain coupling during face-to-face interactions outside the laboratory. NeuroImage, 227, Article 117436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117436
20.
DikkerS.WanL.DavidescoI.KaggenL.OostrikM.McClintockJ.RowlandJ.MichalareasG.Van BavelJ. J.DingM.PoeppelD. (2017). Brain-to-brain synchrony tracks real-world dynamic group interactions in the classroom. Current Biology, 27(9), 1375–1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.04.002
21.
D’MelloS. K.DieterleE.DuckworthA. (2017). Advanced, analytic, automated (AAA) measurement of engagement during learning. Educational Psychologist, 52(2), 104–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1281747
22.
ElfordG. (2002). Beyond standardized testing. The Scarecrow Press.
23.
EtienneA.LaroiaT.WeigleH.AfelinA.KellyS. K.KrishnanA.GroverP. (2020). Novel electrodes for reliable EEG recordings on coarse and curly hair. In 2020 42nd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (pp. 6151–6154). https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC44109.2020.9176067
24.
FerrariM.QuaresimaV. (2012). A brief review on the history of human functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) development and fields of application. Neuroimage, 63(2), 921–935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.049
25.
GabrieliJ. D. (2016). The promise of educational neuroscience: Comment on Bowers (2016). Psychological Review, 123, 613–619. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000034
26.
GeorgeS.DuranN.NorrisK. (2014). A systematic review of barriers and facilitators to minority research participation among African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, and Pacific Islanders. American Journal of Public Health, 104(2), e16–e31. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301706
27.
GerjetsP.WalterC.RosenstielW.BogdanM.ZanderT. O. (2014). Cognitive state monitoring and the design of adaptive instruction in digital environments: Lessons learned from cognitive workload assessment using a passive brain-computer interface approach. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8, Article 385. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2014.00385
28.
GuttormT. K.LeppänenP. H.PoikkeusA.-M.EklundK. M.LyytinenP.LyytinenH. (2005). Brain event-related potentials (ERPs) measured at birth predict later language development in children with and without familial risk for dyslexia. Cortex, 41(3), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70267-3
29.
GuttormT. K.LeppänenP. H.RichardsonU.LyytinenH. (2001). Event-related potentials and consonant differentiation in newborns with familial risk for dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(6), 534–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940103400606
30.
HassonU.GhazanfarA. A.GalantucciB.GarrodS.KeysersC. (2012). Brain-to-brain coupling: A mechanism for creating and sharing a social world. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(2), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.007
31.
HoeftF.McCandlissB. D.BlackJ. M.GantmanA.ZakeraniN.HulmeC.LyytinenH.Whitfield-GabrieliS.GloverG. H.ReissA. L.GabrieliJ. D. E. (2011). Neural systems predicting long-term outcome in dyslexia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U S A, 108(1), 361–366. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1008950108
32.
HolperL.GoldinA. P.ShalómD. E.BattroA. M.WolfM.SigmanM. (2013). The teaching and the learning brain: A cortical hemodynamic marker of teacher–student interactions in the Socratic dialog. International Journal of Educational Research, 59, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2013.02.002
33.
HydeD. C.SpelkeE. S. (2011). Neural signatures of number processing in human infants: Evidence for two core systems underlying numerical cognition. Developmental Science, 14(2), 360–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.00987.x
34.
KauffmanJ. M.AnastasiouD.MaagJ. W. (2017). Special education at the crossroad: An identity crisis and the need for a scientific reconstruction. Exceptionality, 25(2), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2016.1238380
35.
KlimeschW.SchackB.SausengP. (2005). The functional significance of theta and upper alpha oscillations. Experimental Psychology, 52(2), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.52.2.99
36.
KoL. W.KomarovO.HairstonW. D.JungT. P.LinC. T. (2017). Sustained attention in real classroom settings: An EEG study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 388. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00388
37.
LaneH. C.D’MelloS. K. (2019). Uses of physiological monitoring in intelligent learning environments: A review of research, evidence, and technologies. In ParsonsT.LinL.CockerhamD. (Eds.), Mind, brain and technology: Educational communications and technology: Issues and innovations (pp. 67–86). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02631-8_5
LuckS. J. (2014). An introduction to the event-related potential technique. MIT Press.
40.
MartínezR. A. (2018). Beyond the English learner label: Recognizing the richness of bi/multilingual students’ linguistic repertoires. The Reading Teacher, 71(5), 515–522. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1679
41.
MatuszP. J.DikkerS.HuthA. G.PerrodinC. (2019). Are we ready for real-world neuroscience?Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 31(3), 327–338. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_e_01276
42.
MaurerU.BucherK.BremS.BenzR.KranzF.SchulzE.van der MarkS.SteinhausenafH.-C.BrandeisD. (2009). Neurophysiology in preschool improves behavioral prediction of reading ability throughout primary school. Biological Psychiatry, 66(4), 341–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.02.031
43.
MayerR. E. (2017). How can brain research inform academic learning and instruction?Educational Psychology Review, 29(4), 835–846. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9391-1
44.
MillsC.FridmanI.SoussouW.WaghrayD.OlneyA. M.D’MelloS. K. (2017). Put your thinking cap on: Detecting cognitive load using EEG during learning. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference (pp. 80–89). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3027385.3027431
45.
NasirN. S. (2019). Race and education: How inequality matters for learning. In KuhlP. K.LimS. S.GuerrieroS.van DammeD. (Eds.), Developing minds in the digital age: Towards a science of learning for 21st century education (pp. 49–58). OECD.
46.
OchoaX. (2017). Multimodal learning analytics. In LangC.SiemensG.WiseA. F.GaševicD. (Eds.), The handbook of learning analytics (pp. 129–141). SOLAR. https://doi.org/10.18608/hla17.011
47.
PanY.DikkerS.GoldsteinP.ZhuY.YangC.HuY. (2020). Instructor-learner brain coupling discriminates between instructional approaches and predicts learning. NeuroImage, 211, 116657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116657
48.
PoulsenA. T.KamronnS.DmochowskiJ.ParraL. C.HansenL. K. (2017). EEG in the classroom: Synchronised neural recordings during video presentation. Scientific Reports, 7, 43916. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep43916
49.
RacineE.Bar-IlanO.IllesJ. (2005). fMRI in the public eye. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(2), 159–164. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1609
50.
ReichleE. D.ReinebergA. E.SchoolerJ. W. (2010). Eye movements during mindless reading. Psychological Science, 21(9), 1300–1310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610378686
51.
SamuelsB. M. (2009). Can the differences between education and neuroscience be overcome by mind, brain, and education?Mind, Brain, and Education, 3(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2008.01052.x
52.
ScharingerC.KammererY.GerjetsP. (2015). Pupil dilation and EEG alpha frequency band power reveal load on executive functions for link-selection processes during text reading. PLOS ONE, 10(6), Article e0130608. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130608
SigmanM.PeñaM.GoldinA. P.RibeiroS. (2014). Neuroscience and education: prime time to build the bridge. Nature Neuroscience, 17(4), 497–502. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3672
55.
SinatraG. M.HeddyB. C.LombardiD. (2015). The challenges of defining and measuring student engagement in science. Educational Psychologist, 50, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.1002924
56.
SmallwoodJ.SchoolerJ. W. (2015). The science of mind wandering: empirically navigating the stream of consciousness. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 487–518. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015331
57.
StephensG. J.SilbertL. J.HassonU. (2010). Speaker–listener neural coupling underlies successful communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U S A, 107(32), 14425–14430. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1008662107
SwellerJ. (2010). Cognitive load theory: Recent theoretical advances. In PlassJ. L.MorenoR.BrünkenR. (Eds.), Cognitive load theory (pp. 29–47). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511844744.004
60.
SylvanL. J.ChristodoulouJ. A. (2010). Understanding the role of neuroscience in brain based products: A guide for educators and consumers. Mind, Brain, and Education, 4(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-228X.2009.01077.x
61.
UncapherM. R. (2019). Design considerations for conducting large-scale learning research using innovative technologies in schools. Mind, Brain, and Education, 13(1), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12185
62.
van AtteveldtN.van KesterenM. T.BraamsB.KrabbendamL. (2018). Neuroimaging of learning and development: improving ecological validity. Frontline Learning Research, 6(3), 186–203. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v6i3.366
63.
Van DorenJ.ArnsM.HeinrichH.VollebregtM. A.StrehlU.LooS. K. (2019). Sustained effects of neurofeedback in ADHD: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 28(3), 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-018-1121-4
64.
VarmaS.McCandlissB. D.SchwartzD. L. (2008). Scientific and pragmatic challenges for bridging education and neuroscience. Educational Researcher, 37(3), 140–152. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08317687
65.
WalterC.RosenstielW.BogdanM.GerjetsP.SpülerM. (2017). Online EEG-based workload adaptation of an arithmetic learning environment. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 286. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2017.00286
66.
White-SchwochT.CarrK. W.ThompsonE. C.AndersonS.NicolT.BradlowA. R.KrausN. (2015). Auditory processing in noise: A preschool biomarker for literacy. PLOS BIOLOGY, 13(7), Article e1002196.
