Abstract
Valid logic is the mortar that binds all building blocks of critical thinking and analytical thinking. It is the common factor and foundation of three 21st century cognitive skills—critical thinking, analytical thinking and problem solving. According to the Common Core Standards of K-12 mathematics in the United States, proposition and basic first order predicate logic is embedded as a small topic in geometry courses. However, its applications crosscut almost all topics in STEAM (Sciences, Technology, Engineering, Arts and Mathematics) subjects. We inspected how logic is expected to be taught according to the USA K-12 Common Core State Standards and compared with the Singapore curriculum. We found that the difference is not about what should be taught, but how it is taught. The question of this chapter is: How can our K-12 teachers effectively teach logic lessons so that our students can use basic logic to connect concepts and recognize typical logical fallacies? We argued that the answer to that question affects the 21st century skills of the workforce. We hope that our analysis may shed light on the difficult problem in reforming math education and promoting 21st century skills in the workforce.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bakó, M. (October 2002). Why we need to teach logic and how can we teach it? International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, (ISSN 1473-0111.). http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/bakom.pdf. Accessed March 2015.
Carnoy, M., & Rothstein, R. (2013). What do international tests really show about U. S. student performance? http://www.epi.org/publication/us-student-performance-testing/.
CCSSO (Council of Chief State School Officers), & the National Governors Association Center. (2010). Common core state standards initiative: Preparing American’s students for college and career. Washington, D. C. http://www.corestandards.org/Math/.
Charles A. Dana Center. (2014). CCSS resource. http://ccsstoolbox.agilemind.com/resources_samples.html.
De Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (2008). Model-facilitated learning. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 454–465). Taylor & Francis e-Library.
Devlin, K. (2000). The math gene, how mathematical thinking evolved and why numbers are liking gossip. Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Dori, D. (2002). Object-process methodology, a holistic system paradigm. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Epp, S. S. (1987). The role of logic in teaching proof. American Mathematical Monthly, 105(6), 497–507.
Epp, S. S. (2003). The logic of teaching calculus. In R. G. Douglas (Ed.), Toward a lean and lively calculus (pp. 41–60). Washington, D. C.: Mathematical Association of America.
Evans, J., Newstead, S. E., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1993). Human reasoning: The psychology of deduction. Psychology Press (ISBN 978-0-86377-313-6).
Finegold, D., & Notabartolo, A. S. (2011). 21st competencies and impact. http://www.hewlett.org/uploads/21st_Century_Competencies_Impact.pdf.
Fisher, J. (2010). ABC news, China debuts top international education ranking. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/china-debuts-top-international-education-rankings/story?id=12336108.
Gries, D., & Shneider, F. B. (1994). A logical approach to discrete math. New York: Springer.
Guha, N. (2014). Teaching logic: Cracking the hard nut. http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/1794/179430480009.pdf.
Hawthorne, V., & Rasmussen, C. (2014). A framework for characterizing students’ thinking about logical statements and truth tables. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 46(3), 1–17.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1975). Models of deduction. http://mentalmodels.princeton.edu/papers/1975models-of-ded.pdf.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2005). The history of mental models. http://mentalmodels.princeton.edu/papers/2005HistoryMentalModels.pdf.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Knuth, E. J. (2002). Second school mathematics teachers’ conception of proof. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(5), 379–405.
Liu, H., & Raghavan, J. (2009). A mathematical modeling module with system engineering approach for teaching undergraduate students to conquer complexity, The Proceedings of Conference ICCS 09, Part II. LNCS, 5545, 93–102.
Martin, W. G., & Harel, G. (1989). Proof frames of preservice elementary teachers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20, 41–51.
Mason, M. (2014). Van Hiele model, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Hiele_model.
Miriam, J. (2002). The trivium: The liberal arts of logic, grammar, and rhetoric. http://clinister.com/the-trivium-the-sister-miriam.html.
Moore, R. C. (1994). Making the transition to formal proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27(3), 221–237.
New Media Consortium. (2014). New horizon report–K-12 education review. http://redarchive.nmc.org/publications/2014-horizon-report-higher-ed.
Nicolay, J. G., & Hay, J. (2015). Lincoln’s Cooper Institute speech, and other political events of 1859–1860. Century Illustrated Monthly Magazine, 34(1887), 509–34. http://www.ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=cent;cc=cent;rgn=full%20text;idno=cent0034-4;didno=cent0034-4;view=image;seq=0519;node=cent0034-4%3 A4.
Pirnay-Dummer, P., Ifenthaler, D., & Spector, J. M. (2010). Highly integrated model assessment technology and tools. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58(1), 3–18.
Raghavan, J., Sena, L., Bethelmy, D., & Liu, H. (2008). Problem solving experience through light-dose computational mathematical modules for Engineering students, the proceedings of the 2008 ASEE Annual Conference.
Recio, A. M., & Godino, J. D. (2001). Institutional and personal meanings of mathematical proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 48, 83–99. (Kluwer Academic Publishers).
San Diego Jewish Journal. (2012). Singapore style. http://sdjewishjournal.com/site/3193/math-singapore-style/.
Scope and Sequence for Primary Mathematics. (2008). http://www.singaporemath.com/Default.asp?gclid=CNqY47jb270CFUoV7Aod4B8AEA.
Senk, S. (1985). How well do students write geometry proofs?. Mathematics Teacher, 78(6), 448–456.
Singapore Academy. http://www.schoolsthatcan.org/index.php/2011/12/30/singapore-math-with-vinny-dotoli-of-the-harlem-academy/.
Spector, M. (2010). Assessing progress of learning in complex domains. The 11th International Conference on Education Research: New Educational Paradigm for Learning and Instruction.
Stylianides, A. J., & Stylianides, G. J. (2009). Proof constructions and evaluations. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72, 237–253. http://www.math.ksu.edu/~bennett/onlinehw/qcenter/stylianides.pdf.
Tanenbaum, C., Carlson Le Floch, K., & Boyle, A. (2013). United States Institute of Research, are personalized learning environments the next wave of K-12 education reform? http://www.air.org/resource/are-personalized-learning-environments-next-wave-K-12-education-reform.
Warner, J. (2014). http://blog.readytomanage.com/how-is-critical-thinking-different-from-analytical-or-lateral-thinking/.
Wason, P. C. (1966). Reasoning. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), New horizons in psychology, 19. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Michael Spector at University of North Texas for our casual conversation about logic education and its impact to American math education inspired us to write this book chapter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Liu, H., Ludu, M., Holton, D. (2015). Can K-12 Math Teachers Train Students to Make Valid Logical Reasoning?. In: Ge, X., Ifenthaler, D., Spector, J. (eds) Emerging Technologies for STEAM Education. Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02573-5_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02573-5_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-02572-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-02573-5
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)