Please vote for your favorite logic curriculum...

[shanvan]

and tell me why you prefer it to other choices. I have gone round and round reading posts, articles, and looking at samples and still can't decide. I like aspects of each. This is for 9th grade Ds who is already a fairly logical thinker and good at detecting fallacies.

 

ETA: I realize some of the options I posted will give more credits than others. No matter which materials I choose, I will end up making a 1 credit course in Logic by adding more materials if necessary.

Edited July 3, 2012 by shanvan

[shanvan]

:bigear: Anyone?

[MicheleinMN]

I can't compare them. I have used Socratic Logic by Kreeft for myself; studying with a friend. I have used Traditional Logic with my first 2 children. And I have purchased Discovery of Deduction to try with my next 2 children, so while I have several of the programs...I can't really compare them. I do not think I would use Kreeft with a 9th grader unless he really enjoys logic or is a VERY logical thinker. Traditional Logic is dry (IMO, YMMV), but does get the job done. I'm hoping DoD can do the job without making my non-academically inclined son want to pull his hair out.

 

HTH

[MamaT]

I'm not sure how to vote. I used the Nance books with my two oldest, Traditional Logic I and II with my third, and DoD with my fourth. I think different programs work with different kids.

[shanvan]

Thank you, Michele. Am I correct in assuming that you did not want to use Traditional logic again b/c of it's dryness?

[Finnella]

I need to qualify my vote for Discovery of Deduction. We used its prequel, the Art of Argument last year. It worked very well, and my DS recently used lots of what he learned to discuss a magazine article. (And this was without my prompting.)

 

He'll be in 8th grade next year, and I already have Discovery of Deduction to continue his logic studies.

 

Based on what you say about your son, I doubt he'd get much out of Art of Argument, and I haven't read anything to indicate that you have to do that before moving to Discovery.

[shanvan]

I'm not sure how to vote. I used the Nance books with my two oldest, Traditional Logic I and II with my third, and DoD with my fourth. I think different programs work with different kids.

 

Can you tell me why these fit for your kids? (I know that's a big question!)

 

Ds is an academic type and excels in lit/English/history material/skills. Math is harder for him, though he does well b/c he works with mastery in mind.

 

I have read that the Nance bks are more oriented toward mathy kids and Traditional Logic more word based. With that in mind, TL seems like the logical choice for Ds, but it is said to be boring.

 

Maybe I'll have to get Ds to look at samples. :rolleyes:

[MamaT]

Yes, the Nance books work better for mathy kids, and Traditional Logic is more wordy. Traditional Logic works great for kids who are really interested in Logic. DoD is much more engaging than Traditional Logic, and worked for my dd who is not mathy and only studied Logic because I made her. :001_smile:

[Candid]

I used this set of books with my oldest: http://www.criticalthinking.com/searchBykeyword.do?catalog=c&searchKey=critical+thinking&x=0&y=0

 

I have the Traditional Logic I materials for my youngest; he's younger than older ds now that I am ready to work with him. I think Traditional Logic I is pretty darn easy compared to the Building Think texts.

 

If your son is a strong reader and reasoner, I'd get something more difficult than them. I have no experience with the other books, sorry.

[shanvan]

Yes, the Nance books work better for mathy kids, and Traditional Logic is more wordy. Traditional Logic works great for kids who are really interested in Logic. DoD is much more engaging than Traditional Logic, and worked for my dd who is not mathy and only studied Logic because I made her. :001_smile:

 

Thank you. This is helpful. Ds is very happy to be studying logic. In fact, he requested it. The Kreeft bk looks interesting and enjoyable, so I thought it might add a little spice to TL, especially if I can just pick out sections.

[shanvan]

I used this set of books with my oldest: http://www.criticalthinking.com/searchBykeyword.do?catalog=c&searchKey=critical+thinking&x=0&y=0

 

I have the Traditional Logic I materials for my youngest; he's younger than older ds now that I am ready to work with him. I think Traditional Logic I is pretty darn easy compared to the Building Think texts.

 

If your son is a strong reader and reasoner, I'd get something more difficult than them. I have no experience with the other books, sorry.

 

Hmmm....something else to consider. Thanks. :)

[MicheleinMN]

Thank you, Michele. Am I correct in assuming that you did not want to use Traditional logic again b/c of it's dryness?

 

It was fine for my first two children, but Traditional Logic would never engage my 3rd child. He doesn't put forth a lot of effort anyway...and I know that he would just not even try to learn if we used Traditional Logic. Sometimes I wonder if I should just use it anyway, but I don't love it, so since DoD is available, I thought we would try it. ;)

[PeterPan]

Shan, have you see the James Madison course from critical thinking press?

[shanvan]

Shan, have you see the James Madison course from critical thinking press?

 

No, but you know what I'll be researching tomorrow.

 

Really surprised that Introductory Logic has the most votes, though Traditional Logic is listed in 2 different categories, so maybe it really has the most.

[PeterPan]

To me, the challenge in evaluating these logic curricula is diciphering their thought process and what they're DOING with the material and whether what they're doing with it is something your dc will want to do with it.

 

There's not a lot out there on the JM course that I could find. However the samples look very good, just very applied. That could work really well for someone who is a doer, a problem-solver, and not so much a memorizer. Cothran is very sequential in thinking (no leaps, just outline, memorize), so that's better for someone who thinks in that way. I liked Introductory Logic when I looked at it, but it never fails that anything I really LIKE turns out totally to be the wrong learning style for dd, lol. So I go back to evaluating them by comparing what they DO with the terms and concepts and whether what they're doing is something that fits what your dc is good at doing. That's how I landed on JM, because it's more in the vein of mysteries and doing, totally up dd's alley. Haven't bought it yet, mind you (it's going into my RR cart!), but that's how I got there. If I were just picking, I'd pick Introductory Logic. But I think it fits *me* not dd. There was also a logic book that got mentioned recently. Come to think of it, I don't think my copy came in the mail yet!

[shanvan]

To me, the challenge in evaluating these logic curricula is diciphering their thought process and what they're DOING with the material and whether what they're doing with it is something your dc will want to do with it.

 

There's not a lot out there on the JM course that I could find. However the samples look very good, just very applied. That could work really well for someone who is a doer, a problem-solver, and not so much a memorizer. Cothran is very sequential in thinking (no leaps, just outline, memorize), so that's better for someone who thinks in that way. I liked Introductory Logic when I looked at it, but it never fails that anything I really LIKE turns out totally to be the wrong learning style for dd, lol. So I go back to evaluating them by comparing what they DO with the terms and concepts and whether what they're doing is something that fits what your dc is good at doing. That's how I landed on JM, because it's more in the vein of mysteries and doing, totally up dd's alley. Haven't bought it yet, mind you (it's going into my RR cart!), but that's how I got there. If I were just picking, I'd pick Introductory Logic. But I think it fits *me* not dd. There was also a logic book that got mentioned recently. Come to think of it, I don't think my copy came in the mail yet!

 

Yes, I'm trying to keep that in mind. The problem is that I have only samples to try to evaluate which would work for Ds, and they are such a small part of the books. Maybe today I will show him the samples.

[Jane in NC]

For what it is worth:

 

Nance (an older edition) was a total bust for us.

 

Traditional Logic was initially fine then moved to meh. It was hard to engage my son but since he was studying geometry from a text that introduced formal logic as well as traditional proofs, we chose to drop TL.

 

Then, much to my surprise, my son took Logic as an elective in college. He used a standard college text, A Concise Introduction to Logic by Hurley, a book that seems to be frequently updated (which means the old editions are cheap). I'm tossing this out as another possible option since my son seemed to connect to this book.

[shanvan]

For what it is worth:

 

Nance (an older edition) was a total bust for us.

 

Traditional Logic was initially fine then moved to meh.

 

This is what I keep reading and what makes me think twice about using it, even though it seems to be a very popular option. But, then I think maybe 'meh' is not so bad if it gets the job done quickly and efficiently. He'll have plenty to keep him busy in other subject areas and he's a very good memorizer. Still, I'd like him to be able to apply what he memorizes, though he may do that naturally too.

 

It was hard to engage my son but since he was studying geometry from a text that introduced formal logic as well as traditional proofs, we chose to drop TL.

 

Okay, I'll regret asking, maybe....which Geometry text?

 

Then, much to my surprise, my son took Logic as an elective in college. He used a standard college text, A Concise Introduction to Logic by Hurley, a book that seems to be frequently updated (which means the old editions are cheap). I'm tossing this out as another possible option since my son seemed to connect to this book.

 

I'll check it out. Thanks for sharing your experiences..

[Jane in NC]

Okay, I'll regret asking, maybe....which Geometry text?

 

Surprisingly, not Dolciani. :D

 

I used an early '70's text by Dressler that was written for students taking the NY Regents Exam which was tough in those days. The text is proof and construction heavy.

 

And why not Dolciani? Because Dressler was on my shelf and looked decent whereas at the time I did not own the Dolciani Geometry book.

[shanvan]

Surprisingly, not Dolciani. :D

 

I used an early '70's text by Dressler that was written for students taking the NY Regents Exam which was tough in those days. The text is proof and construction heavy.

 

And why not Dolciani? Because Dressler was on my shelf and looked decent whereas at the time I did not own the Dolciani Geometry book.

 

Well, I think that's a fine reason! Very logical. In fact, it's the reason behind at least one of my choices for next year. And, what's already on the shelf is so easy on the budget!

[laughing lioness]

Traditional logic teaches linguistic logic.

Introductory Logic teaches symbolic logic.

My 21 and 17 yo did both.

They are both more linguistically oriented. They did not "like" Nance- at all. We didn't start out with the videos and that hindered the process. Once we got the videos it got better.

Cothran is ...dry in Traditional logic but, like I said, they both "get" linguistic logic more naturally.

[shanvan]

Well, choosing something for logic is driving me insane. From all I have read Ds would do better with Traditional Logic. I showed him the samples. He read for a couple of pages and said "Oh, no. I do NOT want to use this. So boring, my mind is numb."

 

He likes what he sees of Introductory Logic, yet all the reviews I have read made me think it wouldn't be a good choice for him.

 

He also likes what he has read from samples of Kreeft's Socratic Logic.

 

He is giving me a hard time about looking at samples. Your kidding? Does he have any idea how much time I've spent researching? Don't answer that, I already know the answer.

[lllll]

.

Edited July 8, 2012 by ksva

[Wendi]

I just ordered James Madison for my ds; I think he'll enjoy the approach.

 

Wendi

[In The Great White North]

Has anyone actually used James Madison? How does it compare to Art of Argument? (besides being twice as long) is it equivalent or a follow on course?

[Mommyfaithe]

I picked TL 1&2 mainly because Memoria Press offers a class and I do not have to teach it.

 

 

Eta: TL IS boring...but it gets the job done.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Mommyfaithe

[JDoe]

and tell me why you prefer it to other choices. I have gone round and round reading posts, articles, and looking at samples and still can't decide. I like aspects of each. This is for 9th grade Ds who is already a fairly logical thinker and good at detecting fallacies.

 

The Kreeft book is simply amazing, however quite demanding (High-School/College). Balanced, with both Atheist and Religious examples, however most do not have religious theme.

 

"An introduction to Traditional Logic" by Scott M Sullivan might be better first choice. Well written, some of exercises to drive home points. Secular. Could well be followed by Kreeft a year later.

 

Should also give "The Trivium" by Sister Miriam Joseph honorable mention, it is has few exercises to do. Almost secular, which is pretty impressive for a Nun. Treats especially well interaction grammar and logic.

 

The rest I have not seen.

[shanvan]

The Kreeft book is simply amazing, however quite demanding (High-School/College). Balanced, with both Atheist and Religious examples, however most do not have religious theme.

 

"An introduction to Traditional Logic" by Scott M Sullivan might be better first choice. Well written, some of exercises to drive home points. Secular. Could well be followed by Kreeft a year later.

 

Should also give "The Trivium" by Sister Miriam Joseph honorable mention, it is has few exercises to do. Almost secular, which is pretty impressive for a Nun. Treats especially well interaction grammar and logic.

 

The rest I have not seen.

 

Thanks. This is an old thread, but I'll post an update. I decided against the Kreeft book for now, even though Ds loved the sample he read. I bought Intro to Logic but we have yet to start it.

 

Honestly I'm even thinking of not using anything for logic. He is getting so much logical thinking through Lost Tools of Writing, Jacobs Geometry, and online Latin, I'm not really sure he needs it this year. He has a pretty hefty course load and I need to start him on the leadership course I designed, which is going to be more useful to him and he's already got more than one elective.

[Nan in Mass]

I voted other: geometry and computer programming LOL.

Nan

[FaithManor]

I voted other: geometry and computer programming LOL.

Nan

 

 

We were using one of my OLD (ds thinks I just be ancient :glare:) college texts. I double majored with piano performance and philosophy so I took a logic course. He was doing fine, but I noticed a tremendous amount of boredom - something I had not experienced - but then noted that when one is doing geometry and object-oriented programming (JAVA) at the same time, the logic course is over-kill. If there is one thing computer programming is, INFINITELY LOGIC comes to mind! :lol:

 

So, we dropped it. He'll have plenty of electives without it.

 

Faith

[jetzmama]

Now that it's been a few months, does anyone who decided to try James Madison have any feedback on it?

 

14yo Ds is wrapping up Nance's Intermediate Logic, but feel like the 'co-op' he is with really schedules this book and the first in a 'drinking from a firehose' fashion. I'm pondering getting him the James Madison book for a summer review to really cement some of the concepts they've whizzed through. Ds *loves* crime scene related anything, so it may actually be some FUN summer review for him.

 

Any thoughts? Thanks.

[Susan of Croton]

I used Traditional Logic I and II. I took about a year and half to do it. My DD was in 6th and 7th grades for this and DS in 7th and 8th. Plus sides of program: Easy to schedule. One chapter a week, with clear, daily lessons that are well organized. For me, this was a godsend, as I did not have to figure out how to present the material. There was built in review. Logic II is astronomically harder than Logic I b/c of the demands on memory it made (more a problem for me than for the kiddie sponges). It got the job done with a minimum of planning and hassles. The kids also understood it well. On the minus-side, the program is dry; just the facts. The second book seems to go off the deep end into minutiae of logical analysis -- this is probably college-level stuff presented to the younger set. It is not a practical course, like a debater might appreciate. If the goal is to merely identify fallacies, a less-rigorous and more summary approach might be just the ticket. This is LOGIC. It is a field of study, and these two workbooks get the introduction down. Believe it or not, the IEW Logic-based writing lessons covered fallacy identification and logical structures very well and very painlessly, within the context of writing lessons. That might be enough to kill two birds with one stone -- writing plus logic.

[Sahamamama2]

To me, the challenge in evaluating these logic curricula is diciphering their thought process and what they're DOING with the material and whether what they're doing with it is something your dc will want to do with it.

 

There's not a lot out there on the JM course that I could find. However the samples look very good, just very applied. That could work really well for someone who is a doer, a problem-solver, and not so much a memorizer. Cothran is very sequential in thinking (no leaps, just outline, memorize), so that's better for someone who thinks in that way. I liked Introductory Logic when I looked at it, but it never fails that anything I really LIKE turns out totally to be the wrong learning style for dd, lol. So I go back to evaluating them by comparing what they DO with the terms and concepts and whether what they're doing is something that fits what your dc is good at doing. That's how I landed on JM, because it's more in the vein of mysteries and doing, totally up dd's alley. Haven't bought it yet, mind you (it's going into my RR cart!), but that's how I got there. If I were just picking, I'd pick Introductory Logic. But I think it fits *me* not dd. There was also a logic book that got mentioned recently. Come to think of it, I don't think my copy came in the mail yet!

 

(OLD THREAD)

 

OhElizabeth, did you end up using James Madison? If so, what did you think of it? Did your daughter enjoy it? Would it be a good course for a diligent, verbal, story-loving, history-loving 7th grader? I'm starting to think about adding on Logic next year. We haven't done much with it yet, just some Perplexors, a few Mind Benders, a bit of Sudoku and Chess, and some Analogies. We have Thinking Toolbox and Fallacy Detectives, but I couldn't stand the Bluedorn boys' tone (condescending, critical of everyone, IMO). I have tried several times (unsuccessfully) to work myself through Cothran's Traditional Logic I. Ugh, whine, moan, it's so dry. I know she would hate it. She'll do whatever I say she has to do, but I'd hate to torture her with TL I.

 

Up until next year, I want to focus her brain power on for Math, Grammar, and Composition. If we can solidify Grammar and make good strides ahead in Composition this year, I think she'll have room on her plate for Logic in 7th grade.

 

What were your experiences with James Madison?