Neuromyths in education - includes the treatment of visual stress

A nice review appeared in the Science and Society section of Nature Reviews in Neuroscience. The article Neuroscience in Education: Myths and Messages is unfortunately located behind a paywall and is hard to access unless you have access to a university library.

According to the author, Paul Howard Jones, myths about the brain are hampering education and are widely promoted to teachers as a means of enhancing educational performance. These 'neuromyths' include the notion that we only use 10% of our brain, that individuals have individual learning styles, that short bursts of coordination exercises can enhance learning, that children are less attentive after sugary drinks, that drinking less than 6-8 glasses of water per day causes the brain to shrink and that difference in right and left cerebral hemisphere dominance can explain individual differences among learners.
On page 5 of the review, the author turns his attention to visual theories of dyslexia, in particular, the use of coloured lenses and overlays to overcome an alleged structural deficit. The reviewer points to the lack of evidence from randomised controlled trial and puts treatment of visual stress firmly in the camp of neuromyths. Despite this lack of evidence, a majority of preschool teachers surveyed in South Western USA believed that dyslexia was a visual perceptual problem rather than a weakness in phonological encoding.

The book Neuroscience in Education: The good, the bad and the ugly edited by Sergio Della Salla and Mike Anderson follows a similar theme, looking at the misapplication of neuroscience in education. The authors tackle some of the same bonkers ideas highlighted by Paul Howard Jones' article in Nature Reviews in Neuroscience. Chapter 14 of this book 'Rose-Tinted? The use of coloured filters to treat reading difficulties' looks at the evidence for treating reading difficulties with coloured overlays and lenses.  Existing RCTs are reviewed together with an account of the Port  Glasgow study (see blogpost July 2015). As well as being entertaining the chapter could not be more damning. The authors conclude coloured lenses and overlays 'should not be recommended to private individuals, or supported by public bodies. Resources should instead be directed towards better-proven remedial interventions'

Conclusions
So there you have it. According to mainstream neuroscientists and psychologists the use of coloured overlays and lens is not an evidence based treatment and the underlying neuro-scientific hypothesis which is presented as gospel by proponents of Irlen and Intuitive overlays is both speculative and implausible.