Guiding reinvention of conventional tools of mathematical logic: students’ reasoning about mathematical disjunctions

Abstract

Motivated by the observation that formal logic answers questions students have not yet asked, we conducted exploratory teaching experiments with undergraduate students intended to guide their reinvention of truth-functional definitions for basic logical connectives. We intend to reframe the relationship between reasoning and logic by showing how logic emerges within students’ mathematical activity. This activity entails reflecting on and systematizing their own language use across diverse semantic content. We present categories of students’ untrained strategies for assessing the truth-values for mathematical disjunctions. Students’ initial reasoning heavily reflected content-specific and pragmatic factors in ways inconsistent with the norms and conventions of mathematical logic. Despite this, all student groups reinvented the standard truth-functional definition for simple disjunctions. We demonstrate how this learning depended upon particular forms of reasoning about logic. We also contrast various strategies for assessing quantified disjunctions and their different affordances in students’ mathematical activity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

1. 1.

We omit some tasks because they were not used in experiment 2 and are not featured in presented data. We maintain the original numbering from experiment 1 because student quotes refer to the tasks by their numbers.

2. 2.

Each turn is numbered for ease of reference. “I” stands for the interviewer. We also insert an “A” before each reference to a disjunction to distinguish statement A7 from the example integer 7, though it was not stated. An ellipsis without brackets marks a pause while an ellipsis in brackets marks an omission.

References

1. Barnard, T. (1995). The impact of meaning on students’ ability to negate statements. Proceedings of the 19th PME Conference, 2, 3–10.

2. Clement, J. (2000). Analysis of clinical interviews: Foundations and model viability. In R. Lesh & A. Kelley (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 547–589). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

3. Dawkins, P. C. (2012). Extensions of the semantic/syntactic reasoning framework. For the Learning of Mathematics, 32(3), 39–45.

4. Dawkins, P. C. (2014). Disambiguating research on logic as it pertains to advanced mathematical practice. In T. Fukawa-Connelly, G. Karakok, K. Keene, & M. Zandieh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education. Denver, Colorado: PME.

5. Dubinsky, E., & Yiparaki, O. (2000). On student understanding of AE and EA quantification. Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education, IV, 239–289.

6. Epp, S. (2003). The role of logic in teaching proof. The American Mathematical Monthly, 110, 886–899.

7. Evans, J. (2007). Hypothetical thinking: Dual processes in reasoning and judgement. Hove: Psychology Press.

8. Evans, J., & Feeny, A. (2004). The role of prior belief in reasoning. In J. P. Leighton & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of reasoning (pp. 78–102). Cambridge: New York: Cambridge University Press.

9. Gravemeijer, K. (1994). Developing realistic mathematics education. Utrecht: CD-β Press.

10. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: speech acts (Vol. 3). London: Academic.

11. Inglis, M., & Simpson, A. (2004). Mathematicians and the selection task. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on the Psychology of Mathematics Education, 3, 89–96.

12. Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (2002). Conditionals: A theory of meaning, pragmatics, and inference. Psychological Review, 109, 646–678.

13. Katz, B., & Starbird, M. (2013). Distilling ideas: An introduction to mathematical thinking. Washington, D.C.: Mathematical Association of America.

14. Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2002). Commonsense reasoning, logic, and human rationality. In R. Elio (Ed.), Common sense, reasoning, and rationality (pp. 174–214). New York: Oxford University Press.

15. Rips, L. J. (1994). The psychology of proof: Deductive reasoning in human thinking. Cambridge: MIT Press.

16. Schroyens, W. (2010). Logic and/in psychology: The paradoxes of material implication and psychologism in the cognitive science of human reasoning. In M. Oaksford & N. Chater (Eds.), Cognition and conditionals: Probability and logic in human thinking (pp. 69–84). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

17. Stanovich, K. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

18. Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In R. Lesh & A. E. Kelly (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267–307). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

19. Stenning, K. (2002). Seeing reason: Image and language in learning to think. New York: Oxford University Press.

20. Stenning, K., & van Lambalgen, M. (2004). A little logic goes a long way: Basing experiment on semantic theory in the cognitive science of conditional reasoning. Cognitive Science, 28, 481–529.

21. Stenning, K., & van Lambalgen, M. (2008). Human reasoning and cognitive science. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

22. Stylianides, A. J., Stylianides, G. J., & Philippou, G. N. (2004). Undergraduate students’ understanding of the contraposition equivalence rule in symbolic and verbal contexts. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 55, 133–162.

23. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Author information

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Christian Dawkins.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Dawkins, P.C., Cook, J.P. Guiding reinvention of conventional tools of mathematical logic: students’ reasoning about mathematical disjunctions. Educ Stud Math 94, 241–256 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9722-7