Logo Revista Latinoamericana de Investigación en Matemática Educativa

Artículos

Vol. 29 (2026): Publicación continua

The Construction of a visual proof in trigonometry – the RBC+C Model and GeoGebra

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12802/relime.2026.29.e678
Published
September 4, 2026

Abstract

This study analyses how two first-year students enrolled in a Higher Professional Technical Course construct a visual proof of the trigonometric identity for the sine of the sum of two angles. The AiC and RBC+C models are adopted, using GeoGebra. A qualitative interpretative study was conducted with two students in the context of a Mathematics lesson. The empirical data include the students’ written and oral productions, dialogues between the students and the teacher, and the teacher’s written records. The epistemic actions mobilised were analysed, supported by subcategories developed for the study in accordance with the mathematical content and the required visual proof. The results show that the R, B and C actions evolved in an integrated manner, leading to the emergence of action C. Action R fostered the abstraction process, while the articulation between R and B constituted the central axis of the construction. GeoGebra supported the construction of the visual proof.

References

  1. Amado, N., Sanchez, J., & Pinto, J. (2015). A Utilização do Geogebra na demonstração matemática em sala de aula: o estudo da reta de Euler. Bolema: Boletim de Educação Matemática, 29, 637-657. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-4415v29n52a11
  2. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1994). Investigação qualitativa em educação: uma introdução à teoria e aos métodos. Porto Editora.
  3. Borwein, P., & Jörgenson, L. (1997). Visible structures in number theory. CECM – Simon Fraser University. http://www.cecm.sfu.ca/~loki/Papers/Numbers/node3.html
  4. Davydov, V. V. (1990). Types of generalization in instruction: logical and psychological problems in the structuring of school curricula. Soviet studies in mathematics education (Vol. 2). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  5. Davies, A., Veličković, P., Buesing, L., Blackwell, S., Zheng, D., Tomašev, N., Tanburn, R., Battaglia, P., Blundell, C., Juhász, A., Lackenby, M., Williamson, G., Hassabis, D., & Kohli, P. (2021). Advancing mathematics by guiding human intuition with AI. Nature, 600, 70–74. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04086-x
  6. Dreyfus, T., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. B. (2015). The nested epistemic actions model for abstraction in context: theory as methodological tool and methodological tool as theory. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education: examples of methodology and methods (pp. 185–217). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9181-6_8
  7. Dreyfus, T., & Kidron, Y. (2006). Interacting parallel constructions: A solitary learner and the bifurcation diagram. Recherches en didactique des mathématiques, 26(3), 295-336. https://revue-rdm.com/2006/interacting-parallel-constructions/
  8. Dreyfus, T. (1991). On the status of visual reasoning in mathematics and mathematics education. In F. Furinghetti (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 33–48). PME.
  9. Francis, G. (1996). Mathematical visualization: standing at the crossroads. CECM – Simon Fraser University. http://www.cecm.sfu.ca/projects/PhilVisMath/vis96panel.html
  10. Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Reidel.
  11. Gonçalves, J. V. (1937). Compêndio de álgebra e trigonometria: para os anos 4.º, 5.º e 6.º do curso dos liceus. Livraria Cruz.
  12. Hanna, G. (2000). Proof and its classroom role: a survey. In M. I. Coelho & J. M. Matos (orgs.), Ensino e aprendizagem da geometria (pp.75-105). SEM & SPCE.
  13. Hadamard, J. (1945). The psychology of invention in the mathematical field. Princeton University Press.
  14. Hershkowitz, R., Schwarz, B. B., & Dreyfus, T. (2001). Abstraction in context: epistemic actions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(2), 195–222. https://doi.org/10.2307/749673
  15. Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P. (1994). On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science, 18(4), 513-549. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(94)90007-8
  16. Lopes, M. M. (2011). Contribuições do software GeoGebra no ensino e aprendizagem de trigonometria. In Anais da XIII Conferência Interamericana de Educação Matemática. https://xiii.ciaem-redumate.org/index.php/xiii_ciaem/xiii_ciaem/paper/view/2577
  17. Lopes, M. M. (2013). Sequência didática para o ensino de trigonometria usando o software GeoGebra. Bolema: Boletim de Educação Matemática, 27 (47), 631-644. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-636X2013000400010
  18. Mason, J. (1991). Mathematical problem solving: open, closed and exploratory in the UK. ZDM, 23(1), 14-19.
  19. Nelsen, R. (1993). Proofs without words – exercises in visual thinking. The Mathematical Association of America.
  20. Palais, R. S. (1999). The visualization of mathematics: toward a mathematical exploratorium. Notices of the AMS, 46(6), 647-658.
  21. Peters, M., Santos, C. E. R., Oliveira, E. G., Melo, A. M., & Pröscholdt, G. (2023). GeoGebra e materiais manipuláveis facilitando a aprendizagem de trigonometria. Contribuciones a las Ciencias Sociales, 16(9), 15681–15697. https://doi.org/10.55905/revconv.16n.9-114
  22. Pimenta, C. (2016). A construção do conhecimento no desenvolvimento do pensamento algébrico [Tese de doutoramento, Universidade da Beira Interior]. uBibliorum. http://hdl.handle.net/10400.6/4196
  23. Pimenta, C., & Saraiva, M. (2019). As ações epistémicas na construção do novo conhecimento matemático e no desenvolvimento do pensamento algébrico. Quadrante, 28(1), 27–53. https://doi.org/10.48489/quadrante.22976
  24. Pinheiro, L. de J., & Carneiro, F. O. R. (2023). Trigonometria no Ensino Médio: uma proposta de ensino por meio da História da Matemática. Revista Baiana de Educação Matemática, 4(01), e202308. https://doi.org/10.47207/rbem.v4i01.16209
  25. Saraiva, M. (1992). O computador na aprendizagem da Geometria: Uma experiência com alunos do 10.º ano de escolaridade. Quadrante, 1(1), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.48489/quadrante.22615
  26. da Silva Santiago, P. V., & Santana, J. R. (2024). Proposta para o ensino de Geometria: sólidos no GeoGebra. Debates em Educação, 16(38), e15862-e15862. https://doi.org/10.28998/2175-6600.2024v16n38pe15862
  27. Stylianides, G., Stylianides, A., & Moutsios-Rentzos, A. (2024). Proof and proving in school and mathematics education research: a systematic review. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 56, 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01518-y
  28. Tabach, M., & Trgalová, J. (2020). Teaching mathematics in the digital era: standards and beyond. In Y. Ben-David Kolikant, D. Martinovic, & M. Milner-Bolotin (Eds.), STEM teachers and teaching in the digital era (pp. 245–264). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29396-3_12
  29. Toomer, G. J. (Ed.). (1998). Ptolemy's Almagest. Princeton University Press.
  30. Valori, G., Albanese, V., Adamuz-Povedano, N., & Gómez-Torres, E. (2024). Effectiveness of paper folding and GeoGebra on students’ geometric thinking and visualization. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology, 12(5), 1395-1414. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.4477
  31. Van Brummelen, G. (2009). The mathematics of the heavens and the earth: the early history of trigonometry. Princeton University Press.
  32. Yang, K. (2012). Structures of cognitive and metacognitive reading strategy use for reading comprehension of geometry proof. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(3), 307-326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-011-9350-1
  33. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.