Critical thinking and writing in transition to higher education in Finland: do prior academic performance and socioeconomic background matter?

Figures & data

Figure 1. Hypothetical model of the relations between critical thinking and writing skills, prior academic performance, and socioeconomic background.

Table 1. Descriptive values for used measures in two mathematics course choice groups.

	Advanced mathematics					Basic mathematics
	N	M	SD	Min	Max	N	M	SD	Min	Max
Parents’ education	554	4.97	1.32	1	7	452	4.42	1.47	1	7
Scholarly culture	554	3.82	1.31	1	6	452	3.42	1.30	1	6
Grade in native language	554	3.83	1.06	1	5	452	3.40	1.09	1	5
Grade in mathematics	554	3.87	1.09	1	5	452	3.45	1.13	1	5
Analysis and problem solving	554	4.16	.72	1	6	452	4.02	.73	2	6
Writing effectiveness	554	4.19	.77	1	6	452	4.03	.79	2	6
Writing mechanics	554	4.47	.74	2	6	452	4.28	.79	1	6

Figure 2. Significant (p < .05) standardized regression coefficients in the model for students with advanced mathematics course choice.

Figure 3. Significant (p < .05) standardized regression coefficients in the model for students with basic mathematics course choice.

Table

Scale	Description	N/A	1	2	3	4	5	6
Analysis and problem solving	Making a logical decision or conclusion (or taking a position) and supporting it by utilizing appropriate information (facts, ideas, computed values, or salient features) from the Document Library	Off-topic Response could have been written without having read the documents at all. Information is copied directly from the documents without any analysis being performed.	May state or imply a decision/conclusion/position Provides minimal analysis as support (e.g. briefly addresses only one idea from one document) or analysis is entirely inaccurate, illogical, unreliable, or unconnected to the decision/conclusion/position	States or implies a decision/conclusion/position Provides analysis that addresses a few ideas as support, some of which are inaccurate, illogical, unreliable, or unconnected to the decision/conclusion/position	States or implies a decision/conclusion/position Provides some valid support, but omits or misrepresents critical information, suggesting only superficial analysis and partial comprehension of the documents May not account for contradictory information (if applicable)	States an explicit decision/conclusion/position Provides valid support that addresses multiple pieces of relevant and credible information in a manner that demonstrates adequate analysis and comprehension of the documents; some information is omitted May attempt to address contradictory information or alternative decisions/conclusions/positions (if applicable)	States an explicit decision/conclusion/position Provides strong support that addresses much of the relevant and credible information, in a manner that demonstrates very good analysis and comprehension of the documents Refutes contradictory information or alternative decisions/conclusions/positions (if applicable)	States an explicit decision/conclusion/position Provides comprehensive support, including nearly all of the relevant and credible information, in a manner that demonstrates outstanding analysis and comprehension of the documents Thoroughly refutes contradictory evidence or alternative decisions/conclusions/positions (if applicable)
Writing effectiveness	Constructing organized and logically cohesive arguments. Strengthening the writer's position by providing elaboration on facts or ideas (e.g. explaining how evidence bears on the problem, providing examples, and emphasizing especially convincing evidence)	Scored N/A if and only if the response gets a N/A for analysis and problem solving	Does not develop convincing arguments; writing may be disorganized and confusing Does not provide elaboration on facts or ideas	Provides limited, invalid, over-stated, or very unclear arguments; may present information in a disorganized fashion or undermine own points Any elaboration on facts or ideas tends to be vague, irrelevant, inaccurate, or unreliable (e.g. based entirely on writer's opinion); sources of information are often unclear	Provides limited or somewhat unclear arguments. Presents relevant information in each response, but that information is not woven into arguments Provides elaboration on facts or ideas a few times, some of which are valid; sources of information are sometimes unclear	Organizes response in a way that makes the writer's arguments and logic of those arguments apparent but not obvious Provides valid elaboration on facts or ideas several times and cites sources of information	Organizes response in a logically cohesive way that makes it fairly easy to follow the writer's arguments Provides valid elaboration on facts or ideas related to each argument and cites sources of information	Organizes response in a logically cohesive way that makes it very easy to follow the writer's arguments Provides valid and comprehensive elaboration on facts or ideas related to each argument and clearly cites sources of information
Writing mechanics	Demonstrating facility with the conventions of standard written English (agreement, tense, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling) and control of the English language, including syntax (sentence structure) and diction (word choice and usage)	Scored N/A if and only if the response gets a N/A for Analysis and Problem Solving	Demonstrates minimal control of grammatical conventions with many errors that make the response difficult to read or provides insufficient evidence to judge Writes sentences that are repetitive or incomplete, and some are difficult to understand Uses simple vocabulary, and some vocabulary is used inaccurately or in a way that makes meaning unclear	Demonstrates poor control of grammatical conventions with frequent minor errors and some severe errors Consistently writes sentences with similar structure and length, and some may be difficult to understand Uses simple vocabulary, and some vocabulary may be used inaccurately or in a way that makes meaning unclear	Demonstrates fair control of grammatical conventions with frequent minor errors Writes sentences that read naturally but tend to have similar structure and length Uses vocabulary that communicates ideas adequately but lacks variety	Demonstrates good control of grammatical conventions with few errors Writes well-constructed sentences with some varied structure and length Uses vocabulary that clearly communicates ideas but lacks variety	Demonstrates very good control of grammatical conventions Consistently writes well-constructed sentences with varied structure and length Uses varied and sometimes advanced vocabulary that effectively communicates ideas	Demonstrates outstanding control of grammatical conventions Consistently writes well-constructed complex sentences with varied structure and length Displays adept use of vocabulary that is precise, advanced, and varied

Table

Path	Model advanced mathematics	Model basic mathematics
	Estimate/Standard error	Estimate/Standard error
‘Critical thinking and Writing’
by ‘Analysis and Problem Solving’	1.00/.00	1.00/.00
by ‘Writing Effectiveness’	1.19/.06	1.17/.06
by ‘Writing Mechanics’	.089/.06	.97/.06
on ‘Grade in Native Language’	.18/.03	.22/.03
on ‘Grade in Mathematics’	.04/.02	.01/.03
on ‘Parents’ Education’	.01/.02	.01/.02
on ‘Scholarly Culture’	.05/.02	.01/.02
‘Grade in Native Language’
on ‘Parents’ Education’	.03/.03	.07/.04
on ‘Scholarly Culture’	.17/.04	.18/.04
‘Grade in Mathematics’
on ‘Parents’ Education’	.07/.04	.03/.04
on ‘Scholarly Culture’	.07/. 04	.08/.04
‘Scholarly Culture’
on ‘Parents’ Education’	.24/.04	.26/.04