ArticleOpen Access http://dx.doi.org/10.26855/jamc.2026.06.006
Deconstruction of the Propositional Logic in Three-stage Progressive Geometry Comprehensive Test Items
Ningning Lou
Liaocheng University, Liaocheng 252000, Shandong, China.
*Corresponding author:Ningning Lou
Published: June 30, 2026
Abstract
Geometry comprehensive examination items in Chinese secondary school mathematics education are used to assess students and to cultivate their higher-order thinking abilities. Among all the forms of study that have been performed in practice, the three-stage progressive geometry examination item has become a typical design; that is to say, it increases the cognitive load by having three consecutive sub-questions with increasing difficulty. In accordance with the revised taxonomy of educational objectives and the Van Hiele model of geometric thinking, this paper will systematically deconstruct the propositional logic contained in such items to explore how designers organise condition setting, constraint imposition and question sequence. By analysing the structure of typical objects, the three stages in logic can be divided into: the first is fundamental recognition and recall; The second is relational application and deduction; and the third is all-round synthesis with open-ended exploration. Propounded dependencies among the sub-questions will be analyzed in terms of the structure of information sharing and the cumulative scaffolding effect. The results can offer some suggestions for mathematics teachers in designing test questions and organising teaching.
Keyword
Three-stage progressive structure; geometry examination items; propositional logic; cognitive hierarchy; mathematics education
References
[1] Bloom BS, Engelhart MD, Furst EJ, et al. Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. Handbook I: cognitive domain. New York: David McKay; 1956.
[2] Van Hiele PM. Structure and insight: a theory of mathematics education. Orlando: Academic Press; 1986.
[3] Polya G. How to solve it: a new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1945.
[4] Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman; 2001.
[5] Silver EA. On mathematical problem posing. Learn Math. 1994;14(1):19-28.
[6] Schoenfeld AH. Learning to think mathematically: problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In: Grouws DA, editor. Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan; 1992. p. 334-370.
[7] Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. Mathematics curriculum standards for compulsory education (2022 edition). Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press; 2022.
[8] OECD. PISA 2022 results (volume I): the state of learning and equity in education. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2023.
Copyright
© 2026 by the author(s).
This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) license, which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not modified or adapted.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
How to cite this paper
Deconstruction of the Propositional Logic in Three-stage Progressive Geometry Comprehensive Test Items
How to cite this paper: Ningning Lou. (2026) Deconstruction of the Propositional Logic in Three-stage Progressive Geometry Comprehensive Test Items. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computation, 10(2), 113-117.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26855/jamc.2026.06.006