At Digifest this year, we hosted a discussion session with around 45 delegates to explore how smart glasses might be used in post16 education, either as an assistive technology or as a teaching and learning tool.
We explored three scenarios: supporting visually impaired and hard‑of‑hearing learners, and using smart glasses in specialist environments such as mechanics workshops or clinical placements.
We heard a lot of discussion that echoed the themes from our exploratory research earlier this year. Delegates also shared new ideas we hadn’t identified before which was good to hear. One person even arrived wearing their Meta Ray-Ban glasses, and their first-hand experience of using them was especially useful.
Removing barriers to teaching and learning
Across some of the groups, delegates highlighted the potential of smart glasses to act as a less visible form of assistive technology, reducing stigma. This is backed up by research which suggests the appearance of assistive technologies can influence how comfortable a learner feels using it (Santos, et al., 2020).
Delegates also noted that wearable devices are no longer unusual in everyday settings. Concierge teams, security staff and car park attendants in some institutions already use tools like body‑worn cameras, so students may see smart glasses as a more accepted form of technology.
There was discussion of learners being able to use the glasses for live translation, removing barriers for learners with English as a second language, as identified in our previous blog post. However, some delegates questioned whether live translation should be encouraged in academic environments where developing English proficiency is integral to the course.
Context specific situations
Smart glasses were discussed as potentially useful for complex or extended tasks where several students need to observe a process. Delegates suggested that in areas such as food preparation, dentistry, or other hands-on demonstrations, a first-person viewpoint might offer clearer insight than traditional demonstrations.
Some groups also explored the idea that smart glasses could be used to capture evidence for learner portfolios, such as in apprenticeship settings. Others raised the possibility that future versions of the technology might generate engagement data, which could, in time, influence teaching practice. These ideas were exploratory rather than recommendations, but they showed how educators are beginning to consider the broader role wearable technologies might play in practical learning environments.
Privacy and ethical considerations
Privacy and data use formed one of the strongest threads across the session (as mentioned in our previous post). Delegates stressed the importance of understanding where any data or footage is held, who can access it, and whether it might be used to train AI models. These concerns reflect wider tech discussions around the use of wearable technology. For example, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has contacted Meta about reports that outsourced workers may have accessed sensitive content from smart‑glasses footage while training AI tools.
Delegates also emphasised the need for robust consent processes. Anyone who might appear in the glasses’ field of view when recording, including students, staff, patients, and members of the public, would need clear information and the chance to opt out. Delegates noted the importance of working closely with IT teams, safeguarding leads, information‑governance specialists, and student‑support services when considering the use of any recording‑enabled device.
There was also debate about the use of smart glasses in assessments. Awarding bodies may take different positions on whether the technology is appropriate during exams or practical assessments. This may become even more complex when learners rely on using their smart glasses if they have their prescription lenses put into the glasses.
Practicalities of smart glasses
Some delegates felt that current smart glasses technology may not yet be practical for everyday educational use. One delegate described it as
“using a sledgehammer to crack a nut,”
especially when alternative assistive technologies already exist for visually impaired or hard‑of‑hearing learners. However, others noted that different learners have different needs, and discrete devices may still play an important role in reducing stigma for disabled learners.
There were also questions about device management. Unlike virtual reality headsets, most smart glasses do not currently integrate with multi device management systems. This limits an institution’s ability to manage content, updates, and security settings. At present, many smart glasses operate primarily as an AI assistant rather than providing dedicated educational content, which adds additional uncertainty about how they fit into the curriculum for teaching and learning. The need for a smartphone linked to each device was also raised as a financial barrier to use.
Connectivity and battery life were also highlighted as constraints. Many features rely on stable Wi‑Fi, and with typical battery life ranging between four and six hours, the devices may not last a full day in college, university or on a placement.
Next steps
We thank everyone who contributed to the discussion at Digifest. These conversations help us understand not only where smart glasses might fit into post16 education, but also the practical, ethical, and pedagogical questions we still need to address.
If you’d like to continue exploring the topic, you can read our previous posts: Smart Glasses in Education and Opportunities and Challenges for Smart Glasses in Teaching, Learning and Assessment. We also invite you to join our UK XR Community and our Assistive Technology Network to share your experiences and learn from others.