本研究主要探討我國學生邏輯演繹推理問題表現之現況，並據以了解不同年級學生間的差異情況。本研究以問卷調查法進行，針對台北市、台北縣、桃園縣和新竹市的一所國小或國中進行研究，有效樣本數共260名，其中，國小占131人，國中占129人。研究工具則自編符合本研究之研究目的之「邏輯演繹推理問題表現測驗問卷」，其測驗內容包含假言命題推理、定言命題推理、以及邏輯分析推理等三面向的問題。
根據資料分析結果，本研究主要發現如下：（1）學生在六年級到九年級之成長階段，其多重假言事件命題的進步速度遠較多重假言條件高；（2）學生在生活語意邏輯與數學形式邏輯之間有嚴重落差和矛盾，而此一落差可歸因於學生在日常生活中對詞彙『所有（ALL）』、『沒有（NO）』和『有些（SOME）』的錯誤解讀，以及對其延伸語意之慣性迷思；（3）學生在邏輯分析推理之表現不佳，仍有待加強（答對率僅只有33.92%）；（4）學生在邏輯演繹推理問題的所有面向之表現，皆隨著學習階段的提升而有顯著之成長，而且，他們的邏輯演繹推理問題表現優劣依序為定言命題推理、假言命題推理、以及邏輯分析推理。

The purpose of this study was to realize the perormance of Taiwan Students in the topic of logical deductive reasoning, and understand the differentness of grades. The research was based on survey. The samples were pupils and junior high school students who were study in Taipei city, Taipei county, Taoyuan county or Hsinchu city. There were 260 effective samples, inculding 131 pupils and 129 junior high school students. Furthermore, the topic of logical deductive reasoning test contains “Hypothetical Proposition Reasoning”, “Categorical Proposition Reasoning” and “Logical Analytic Reasoning”.
The main findings from the research are as follows:(1)Stuents’ advancement of multiple events hypothetical proposition is more than their advancement of multiple premises hypothetical proposition in the stage from six grade to nine grade. (2)Students have serious difference and contradiction between language purpose logic of life and formal logic of mathematics. This difference is due to their wrong interpretation about “ALL”, “NO” and “SOME”. Besides, it is due to their habitual misconception about them. (3)The score of stuents’ Logical Analytic Reasoning is not good . (4)The perormance of Taiwan Students in all kinds of logical deductive reasoning has apparent growth as grade. Moreover, their perormance is “Categorical Proposition Reasoning”, “Hypothetical Proposition Reasoning”, “Logical Analytic Reasoning” in order from good to bad.

一中文部分
高哲翰（民92）。邏輯原理與應用（2版）。臺北：揚智文化。
香港課程發展議會（民84）。數學科學習綱要──第一學習階段。線上檢索日期：民97年5月29日。網址：http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=5121&langno=2
香港課程發展議會（民84）。數學教育學習領域──第二學習階段。線上檢索日期：民97年5月29日。網址：http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=5421&langno=2
香港課程發展議會（民89）。數學教育學習領域──小一至小六。線上檢索日期：民97年5月29日。網址：http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=4907&langno=2
香港教育局（民88）。中學課程綱要──數學科。線上檢索日期：民97年5月29日。網址：http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?nodeID=4905&langno=2
張春興（民83）。現代心理學。台北：東華。
教育百科辭典編審委員會（民83）。教育百科辭典。臺北：五南。
教育部（民92）。國民小學九年一貫課程綱要。臺北：教育部。
鄧曉芒（譯）（民93）。純粹理性與批判（原作者：Immanuel Kant）。臺北：聯經。（原著出版年：1781）
羅湘敏（民94）。美國魏氏兒童智力量表第四版簡介。屏師特殊教育，10，10-12。

二英文部分
Baroody, Arthur J. (1993). Problem solving, reasoning, and communicating, K-8: helping children think mathematically. New York: Merrill.
Battista, M. T. (1990). Spatial Visualization and Gender Differences in High School Geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 47-60.
Brody, Baruch A. (1973). Logic: theoretical and applied. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Cahan, Sorel & Artman, Lavee (1997). Is Everyday Experience Dysfunctional for the Development of Conditional Reasoning ? Cognitive Development, 12, 261-279.
Cummins, D. D. (1995). Naive theories and causal deduction. Memory & Cognition, 23(5), 646-658.
Deary, Ian J. (2001). Human intelligence differences: towards a combined experimental-differntial approach. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(4), 164-170.
Educational Testing Service (2009). Graduate Record Examinations. Retrieved June 22, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem.fab2360b1645a1de9b3a0779f1751509/?vgnextoid=b195e3b5f64f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD
Evans, J. St. B. T. & Twyman-Musgrove, J. (1998). Conditional easoningwith inducement and adivice. Cognition, 69, B11-B16.
Guilford, J. P. (1963). Psychologist and Teacher. Psychological Bulletin, 60(1), 1-34.
Johnson-Laird P. N., Schaeken W. & Byrne R. M. (1992). Prepositional Reasoning by Model. Psychological Review, 99(3), 418-439.
Johnson-Laird P. N., Legrenzi P. & Legrenzi M. S. (1972). Reasoning and a sense of reality. The British Journal of Psychology, 63(2), 205-212.
Mayer, Richard E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition. (2nd ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman.
Müller, Sokol, & Overton (1999). Developmental Sequences in Class Reasoning and Propositional Reasoning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 74, 69–106.
Newstead, S. E. & Evans J. St. B. T. (1995). Perspectives on Thinking and Reasoning. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbuam.
Quinn, S. & Markovits, H. (1998). Conditional reasoning causality, and the structure of semantic memory: Strength of association as a predictive factor for content effect. Cognition, 68, B93-B101.
Stricker, Lawrence J. & Rock, Donald A. (1995). Examinee background characteristics and GRE general test performance. Intelligence, 21, 49-67.
The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Techers of Mathematics.
Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Wason, P. C. & Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1972). Psychology of Reasoning. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.