• Michal AyalonEmail author
  • Ruhama Even


This study examines the views of people involved in mathematics education regarding the commonly stated goal of using mathematics learning to develop deductive reasoning that is usable outside of mathematical contexts. The data source includes 21 individual semi-structured interviews. The findings of the study show that the interviewees ascribed different meanings to the above-stated goal. Moreover, none of them said that it is possible to develop formal logic-based reasoning useful outside of mathematics, but for different reasons. Three distinct views were identified: the intervention–argumentation view, the reservation–deductive view, and the spontaneity–systematic view. Each interviewee’s view was interrelated with the interviewee’s approach to deductive reasoning and its nature in mathematics and outside it.


deductive reasoning developing mathematics educators mathematics learning views 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Australian Education Council (1990). A national statement on mathematics for Australian schools. Carlton, Victoria, Australia: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
  2. Ayalon, M. & Even, R. (2008). Deductive reasoning: In the eye of the beholder. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69(3), 235–247.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, D. L. & Bass, H. (2003). Making mathematics reasonable in school. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Shifter (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 27–44). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  4. Cheng, P. W., Holyoak, K. J., Nisbett, R. E. & Oliver, L. (1986). Pragmatic versus syntactic approach to training deductive reasoning. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 293–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clements, D. H. & Battista, M. T. (1992). Geometry and spatial reasoning. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 420–464). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (1997). Evolutionary psychology: A primer. Retrieved from
  7. Davis, P. J. & Hersh, R. (1981). The mathematical experience. Boston: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  8. Durand-Guerrier, V. (2003). Which notion of implication is the right one? From logical consideration to didactic perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 53, 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Durand-Guerrier, V. (2008). Truth versus validity in mathematical proof. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40, 373–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duval, R. (2002). Proof understanding in mathematics. Proceedings of 2002 international conference on mathematics: Understanding proving and proving to understand (pp. 23–44). National Taiwan Normal University. Retrieved from
  11. Eves, H. (1972). A survey of geometry. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  12. Fawcett, H. P. (1938). The nature of proof. The 13th yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. New York: Teachers College.Google Scholar
  13. Fey, J. T. (1991). Geometry: Educational programs. In A. Lewy (Ed.), The international encyclopaedia of curriculum. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  14. Garofalo, J. & Mtetwa, K. D. (1990). Implementing the standards: Mathematics as reasoning. Arithmetic Teacher, 37(5), 16–18.Google Scholar
  15. González, G. & Herbst, P. (2006). Competing arguments for the geometry course: Why were American high school students supposed to study geometry in the 20th century? International Journal for the History of Mathematics Education, 1(1), 7–33.Google Scholar
  16. Hanna, G. (1990). Some pedagogical aspects of proof. Interchange, 21(1), 6–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hanna, G. & Jahnke, H. N. (1996). Proof and proving. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education (pp. 877–908). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  18. Herbst, P. (2002a). Establishing a custom of proving in American school geometry: Evolution of the two-column proof in the early 20th century. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49, 283–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Herbst, P. (2002b). Engaging students in proving: A double bind on the teacher. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(3), 176–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herbst, P., Chen, C., Weiss, M., González, G., Nachlieli, T., Hamlin, M. et al. (2009). “Doing proofs” in geometry classrooms. In D. A. Stylianou, M. L. Blanton & E. J. Knuth (Eds.), Teaching and learning proof across the grades. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Inhelder, B. & Piaget, J. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to adolescence. New York: Basic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jahnke, H. N. (2008). Theorems that admit exceptions, including a remark on Toulmin. ZDM Mathematics Education, 40, 363–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson-Laird, P. N. & Byrne, R. M. J. (1991). Deduction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Krummheuer, G. (1995). The ethnography of argumentation. In P. Cobb & H. Bauersfeld (Eds.), The emergence of mathematical meaning: Interaction in classroom cultures (pp. 229–269). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Lehman, D. R. & Nisbett, R. E. (1990). A longitudinal study of the effects of undergraduate training on reasoning. Developmental Psychology, 26, 952–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leron, U. (2003). Origins of mathematical thinking: A synthesis. Retrieved from
  27. Leron, U. (2004). Mathematical thinking and human nature: Consonance and conflict. Retrieved from
  28. Luria, A. R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Mariotti, M. A. (2006). Proof and proving in mathematics education. In A. Gutierrez & P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education (pp. 173–203). Rotterdam, UK: Sense.Google Scholar
  30. Ministry of Education (1990). The mathematics curriculum in grades 7–9. Jerusalem, Israel: Author.Google Scholar
  31. Morris, A. K. & Sloutsky, V. M. (1998). Understanding of logical necessity: Developmental antecedent and cognitive consequences. Child Development, 69, 721–741.Google Scholar
  32. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  33. New Zealand Curriculum Framework (1991). Retrieved from
  34. Nisbett, R. E., Fong, G. T., Lehman, D. R. & Cheng, P. W. (1987). Teaching reasoning. Science, 238, 625–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  36. Polya, G. (1954). Induction and analogy in mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2006). National curriculum online. Retrieved from
  38. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Stylianides, G. J. & Stylianides, A. J. (2008). Proof in mathematics: Insights from psychological research into students’ ability for deductive reasoning. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10, 103–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Toulmin, S. E. (1969). The uses of arguments. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Voss, J. F. & Van Dyke, J. A. (2001). Argumentation in psychology: Background comments. Discourse Processes, 32, 89–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wu, H. (1996). The role of Euclidean geometry in high school. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 221–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Science Teaching DepartmentThe Weizmann Institute of ScienceRehovotIsrael

Personalised recommendations