Curriculum and beyond: Mathematics support for first year life science students

The move into higher education is a real challenge for students from all educational backgrounds, with the adaptation to a new curriculum and style of learning and teaching posing a daunting task. A series of exercises were planned to boost the impact of the mathematics support for level four students and was focussed around a core module for all students. The intention was to develop greater confidence in tackling mathematical problems in all levels of ability and to provide more structured transition period in the first semester of level 4. Over a two-year period the teaching team for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology provided a series of structured formative tutorials and “interactive” online problems. Video solutions to all formative problems were made available, in order that students were able to engage with the problems at any time and were not disadvantaged if they could not attend. The formative problems were specifically set to dovetail into a practical report in which the mathematical skills developed were specifically assessed. Students overwhelmingly agreed that the structured formative activities had broadened their understanding of the subject and that more such activities would help. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the package of changes undertaken resulted in a significant increase in the overall module mark over the two years of development.

Brief response to Ashton and colleagues regarding Fractionating Human Intelligence

Ashton and colleagues concede in their response (Ashton, Lee, & Visser, in this issue), that neuroimaging methods provide a relatively unambiguous measure of the levels to which cognitive tasks co-recruit dif- ferent functional brain networks (task mixing). It is also evident from their response that they now accept that task mixing differs from the blended models of the classic literature. However, they still have not grasped how the neuroimaging data can help to constrain models of the neural basis of higher order ‘g’. Specifically, they claim that our analyses are invalid as we assume that functional networks have uncorrelated capacities. They use the simple analogy of a set of exercises that recruit multiple muscle groups to varying extents and highlight the fact that individual differences in strength may correlate across muscle groups. Contrary to their claim, we did not assume in the original article (Hampshire, High- field, Parkin, & Owen, 2012) that functional networks had uncorrelated capacities; instead, the analyses were specifically designed to estimate the scale of those correlations, which we referred to as spatially ‘diffuse’ factors