Does the Brain Have a Place in Educational Psychology?

Byrnes and Fox (1998) present the case for the relevance of cognitive neuroscience in educational psychology, including both logical and empirical arguments. In this commentary, I begin by briefly reviewing the history of the case for including the brain in educational psychology: Early educational psychology—as reflected in Thorndike's (1926) educational psychology textbook—emphasized the neuronal basis of learning; contemporary educational psychology—as reflected in educational publications—tends to ignore the brain; and future educational psychology will need to overcome the pitfalls encountered in previous misuses of brain research. Next, I examine two logical arguments for Byrnes and Fox's case, namely, that including cognitive neuroscience research makes educational psychology more complete and more plausible. Then, I examine the empirical argument of Byrnes and Fox by focusing on the value of cognitive neuroscience research in attention and memory as well as in reading and arithmetic. Finally, I suggest criteria for evaluating the contributions of cognitive neuroscience research in educational psychology, including the need for research on educationally relevant tasks and issues.     

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among children in Children’s Hospital Zagreb during the initial and second wave of COVID-19 pandemic in Croatia

IntroductionThe study aimed to investigate the prevalence and titres of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in children treated at the Children’s Hospital Zagreb in the first and the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Statistical significance of difference at two time points was done to determine how restrictive epidemiological measures and exposure of children to COVID-19 infection affect this prevalence in different age groups.Materials and methodsAt the first time point (13th to 29th May 2020), 240 samples and in second time point (24th October to 23rd November 2020), 308 serum samples were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA). Confirmation of results and titre determination was done using virus micro-neutralization test. Subjects were divided according to gender, age and epidemiological history.ResultsSeroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies differs significantly in two time points (P = 0.010). In first time point 2.9% of seropositive children were determined and in second time point 8.4%. Statistically significant difference (P = 0.007) of seroprevalence between two time points was found only in a group of children aged 11-19 years. At the first time point, all seropositive children were asymptomatic with titre < 8. At the second time point, 69.2% seropositive children were asymptomatic with titre ≥ 8.ConclusionsThe prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was significantly lower at the first time point than at the second time point. Values of virus micro-neutralization test showed that low titre in asymptomatic children was not protective at the first time point but in second time point all seropositive children had protective titre of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.