ZDM Mathematics Education (2016) 48:827–842
DOI 10.1007/s11858-016-0757-0
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Problem solving and the use of digital technologies within 
the Mathematical Working Space framework
Manuel Santos‑Trigo1 · Luis Moreno‑Armella1 · Matías Camacho‑Machín2
Accepted: 15 January 2016 / Published online: 1 February 2016
© FIZ Karlsruhe 2016
Abstract  The aim of this study is to analyze and docu-
ment the extent to which high school teachers rely on a
set of technology affordances to articulate epistemologi-
cal and cognitive actions in problem solving approaches.
Participants were encouraged to construct dynamic repre-
sentations of tasks and always to look for different ways
to identify and support mathematical relations. To this end,
three interrelated geneses (instrumental, semiotic, discur-
sive) proposed in the Mathematical Working Space frame
are used to document ways in which the participants con-
structed dynamic configuration of mathematical tasks as a
means initially to explore invariants and eventually formu-
late conjectures based on empirical arguments. Technol-
ogy affordances that involve dragging objects, quantifying
parameters, graphing loci and using sliders were important
for the participants to articulate semiotic and discursive
geneses. Thus, the participants’ approaches that appeared
individual, small group and plenary discussions contrib-
uted to identifying initial conjectures that later were ana-
lyzed via empirical, geometric or algebraic arguments. In
addition, the participants recognized that a working space
to understand mathematical ideas and to solve problems
should foster mathematical discussions beyond formal set-
tings. The use of digital technologies plays an important
* Manuel Santos‑Trigo
msantos@cinvestav.mx
Luis Moreno‑Armella
lmorenoarmella@gmail.com
Matías Camacho‑Machín
mcamacho@ull.edu.es
1
Center for Research and Advanced Studies, Cinvestav-IPN,
Mexico City, Mexico
2
University of la Laguna, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain
 
role in both representing and exploring mathematical tasks
and in following the discussion outside the formal class. As
a result, the participants outlined a possible route to imple-
ment a route for learners to integrate activities to account
for instrumental, semiotic, and discursive genesis.
Keywords  Problem solving · Empirical and formal
reasoning · Mathematical Working Space · Digital
technologies
1 Introduction
Mathematics education as a research domain aims at under-
standing and analyzing how students learn and develop
mathematical knowledge to solve a variety of problems
situated in different contexts. The Mathematical Working
Space (MWS) framework involves the design of a learn-
ing scenario for students to develop mathematical knowl-
edge and to enrich their mathematical practice. Its founda-
tion lies in introducing a pedagogical standpoint to frame
instructional activities in order to orient and stimulate the
students’ development of mathematical knowledge in a
problem-solving environment. Indeed, this framework
explicitly articulates epistemic activities that define math-
ematical practices and how learners engage in valid math-
ematical explorations. That is, the framework establishes
a close bridge between the discipline’s epistemological
stance (the epistemological plane) and the students’ cog-
nitive dimensions (the cognitive plane) in order to provide
a learning environment for students to grasp mathemati-
cal concepts and develop problem solving abilities. The
epistemological plane provides as well the bases to iden-
tify, explore, develop and discover relations that need to
be validated through mathematical reasoning. In terms of
13
828
connecting the epistemological plane with students’ cogni-
tive activities, three elements are identified: (1) the instru-
mental genesis, in which the role of artifacts is considered
as important during the problem solving experiences; in
this study, the participants mainly rely on a dynamic geom-
etry system (GeoGebra) to represent mathematical objects
and to identify and explore mathematical relations; (2) the
semiotic genesis, which accounts for the role of representa-
tions in analyzing relations among mathematical objects or
concepts involving syntax and semantic treatment (Duval,
2006); and (3) the discursive genesis, that deals with the
different ways of reasoning to validate and communicate
mathematical results. Kuzniak and Richard (2014) pointed
out that this framework is conceived of as “a well-thought
and organized environment in order to permit the work of
the individual solving mathematical problems” (p. 18).
This environment may consist of a physical or online set-
ting, teachers, students, mathematical tasks, artifacts used
for teaching and learning and a didactic approach to frame
learning activities.
We focus on the use of digital technologies to represent
and explore mathematical relations and as a way to extend
learners’ mathematical discussion beyond the classroom
settings. The presence of digital technologies transforms
and enhances the Mathematical Working Space where
students develop their mathematical practice. Indeed, that
presence invites students to take profit from the inbuilt
mathematical tools which come with the new medium.
For instance, the student can easily explore loci that pre-
viously, in the pencil and paper environment, were hardly
considered due to technical difficulties. Similarly, drag-
ging points, exploring relations through sliders or gener-
ating and examining properties of families of objects are
important strategies that enrich the working space or learn-
ing environment. “Dynamic digital tools, like dynamic
geometry software, can be used in task design to cover a
large epistemic spectrum from drawing precise robust geo-
metrical figures to exploration of new geometric theorems
and development of argumentation discourse” (Leung and
Bolite-Frant; 2015, p. 195). Similarly, Hegedus and Tall
(2016) argue that the affordances of dynamic interactive
mathematics environments provide novel ways for users
to explore, express, visualize, compute, and interact with
mathematical objects. The term affordance has been used
to interpret how learners incorporate digital technologies in
their learning experiences. It refers to:
[P]roperties in the environment that present possibili-
ties for action and are available for an agent to per-
ceive and act upon. It refers to those inherent epis-
temic conditions or qualities of the environment that
allow learners to perform certain actions with the envi-
ronment to acquire knowledge (Leung; 2011, p. 326).
13
M. Santos-Trigo et al.
2 The Mathematical Working Space (MWS)
and the use of digital technologies
To support and structure the development of this study, we
intend to characterize the role played by the students’ use
of digital technologies while they articulate epistemologi-
cal issues such as validating a line of reasoning when solv-
ing mathematical problems. Leung and Bolite-Frant (2015)
pointed out that the use of tools influences cognition and
that “[the] development of mathematical ideas and con-
cepts has been closely associated with [the] development of
technology” (p. 191).
In accordance with the NCTM (2009), it is important to
recognize that mathematical reasoning entails more than
reaching conclusions logically deduced, based on assump-
tions and definitions, it involves also informal explorations,
false starts, formulation of conjectures and partial explana-
tions before constructing formal arguments or proofs.
Using technology to display multiple representations
of the same problem can aid in making connections…
When technology allows multiple representations to
be linked dynamically, it can provide new opportuni-
ties for students to take mathematically meaningful
actions and immediately see mathematically mean-
ingful consequences—fertile ground for sense-mak-
ing and reasoning activities (NCTM, 2009, p. 14).
Kuzniak et al. (2013) pointed out that problems are a
means to guide or orient students in the development of
mathematical ideas and problem solving skills. A “problem
situation” as these authors call it, provides an opportunity
for students to elicit and use their previous knowledge and
conceptions in order to acquire new mathematical knowl-
edge. For the students to engage fully in a mathemati-
cal discussion, the mediating problem situation has to be
meaningful for them. Besides, it is important that these
problems become a platform for learners to discuss and
examine strategies that can be transferred to solve others
problems. This entails a transfer of context. Thus, the con-
cept of open problem is essential for students to conjecture
possible solutions, to develop inductive reasoning, to test
and validate mathematical relations. In working and dis-
cussing this kind of open problems the goal for the students
should be to find a genuine and personal solution through
their own resources.
In the case of an open problem the question is to
find a genuine and personal solution, with one’s own
means, the general solution can be out of reach of the
students (and possibly the teacher); in the case of a
problem situation the question is, starting from a spe-
cific problem, to elaborate a more general knowledge
(concept, process…) which is intended to be institu-
Problem solving and the use of digital technologies within the Mathematical Working Space… 829

tionalized, socially acknowledged, and mastered by which the generic figures that they construct represent all
all the students (Kuzniak et al. 2013, p. 417). possible figures or only a particular class of them.
Moreno-Armella and Santos-Trigo (2016) pointed out
Tasks should trigger basic mathematical activities and
that the use of mediating instruments, in particular, digi-
actions, as they are the kernels for the cognitive activi-
tal technologies, are never epistemologically neutral. The
ties of learners. Blume (2013, p. 3) has as well indicated
ways of approaching a problem depend upon the resources
that “For teachers, tasks are a crucial element to orches-
we have at our reach. Mishra and Koehler (2006) pointed
trate lessons and to clarify the aims of instruction as solv-
out that “teachers need to know not just the subject matter
ing these tasks requires the competencies that students
they teach but also the manner in which the subject mat-
are to acquire”. That is, tasks are a crucial ingredient of
ter can be changed by the application of technology” (p.
the Mathematical Working Space. Thus, learners gradu-
1028). Likewise, Hegedus and Moreno-Armella (2009)
ally construct meaning of mathematical tasks by articu-
stated that the incorporation of digital technologies in
lating epistemological issues with their cognitive system
school practices requires that teachers develop new habits
via genetic developments. Indeed, “a mathematics peda-
of mind to gradually transform instructional approaches.
gogic task aims to engage learners in activities that could
They recognize that the use of digital technologies in class-
transform the ways they see and do mathematics” (Leung,
rooms extends ways of reasoning about problems; and also
2011, p. 326).
demands a new curriculum organization. Technology, they
We argue that the use of digital technology offers teach-
argue, “is here to transform thinking, and not to serve as
ers and learners an opportunity to extend and deepen ways
some prosthetic device to prop up old styles of pedagogy or
of reasoning about the mathematical strategies involved in
curriculum standards” (p. 398).
solving problems. In addition, representing and exploring
Santos-Trigo and Ortega-Moreno (2013) pointed out
mathematical tasks mediated by digital technologies bring
that the systematic and coordinated use of digital technolo-
in new challenges for teachers that include the appropria-
gies allows problem solvers to connect several fundamen-
tion of the instruments afforded by these technologies in
tal ideas via key concepts. For example, the concept of
order to identify and analyze what changes to mathemati-
perpendicular bisector becomes a fundamental concept to
cal contents and teaching practice are fostered through its
generate conic sections within dynamic models involving
use. We consider it important to mention the epistemologi-
simple geometric figures such as triangles and rectangles
cal impact generated by the presence of those technologies.
(Moreno-Armella and Santos-Trigo, 2016).
As Leung (2011) has aptly expressed: “affordance is of
The use of digital technologies makes teachers and
particular importance when considering mathematical tasks
learners become active participants in the learning pro-
that involve the use of technology since interaction with the
cess generated within the MWS. Indeed, these instruments
technology should be a critical epistemological element in
offer a rich diversity of ways to represent and explore the
such tasks (p. 326)”.
tasks. It is not the material object by itself that produces
Geeraerts, Venant and Tanguay (2014) illustrate the com-
this transformation, it is the process of appropriation led by
plexity of using a dynamic geometry system (GeoGebra) to
the teacher and the students that eventually transform the
represent and explore mathematical objects. For example,
digital artifact into a mathematical instrument (Moreno-
in a task that involves drawing the perpendicular to line
Armella & Santos-Trigo, 2016). This deep process, by
AB through a point M outside AB based only on equidis-
means of which the digital artifact becomes an instrument
tant properties, the achieved construction initially seems to
to think with and through it, has been previously studied by
fulfill the goal. But when point M is moved, then at some
Rabardel (1995) and more recently by Trouche (2004). An
positions of M the required perpendicular disappears. “…
instrument, as Trouche has pointed out, “can be considered
[S]tudents must anticipate the movement resulting from
an extension of the body, a functional organ made up of
dragging, must keep in mind which are the objects free to
an artifact component (an artifact, or the part of an artifact
move in the construction and what is going to happen if
mobilized in the activity) and a psychological component”
these objects are moved” (p. 260). Similarly, the explora-
(p. 285).
tion of a generic figure of a right triangle, constructed with
In the MWS framework, the instrumental genesis
the use of the GeoGebra command “Perpendicular Line”,
accounts for the process involved in individuals’ transfor-
carried out by dragging either point A or B (end points of
mation of an artifact into an instrument. In others words as
side AB) might lead the students to observe and formulate
Geeraerts, et al. (2014) have explained, this transformation
a false conjecture: “[A]ll right-angled triangles have their
involves two intertwined processes: instrumentation that
two short sides in a unique and same relation of propor-
refers to how the user adapts his/her action to the artifact,
tionality” (p. 261). Here, the authors suggest that teachers
and instrumentalization, by means of which the user devel-
should be aware of and discuss with students the extent to
ops a cognitive scheme to use the tool in problem solving

13
830 M. Santos-Trigo et al.

situations. But this is not a new issue; it is precisely what

happens each time a person learns to write. Writing opens
a world of intellectual possibilities to the person that, with
time, will transform the ways the person sees, lives, and
conceives of the world. Similarly, the presence of a digi-
tal artifact has an effect we are still trying to figure out in
all its complexity. The artifact’s characteristics (ergonomics
and constraints) and the strategies developed by the users,
during the activities, are important to transform the artifact
into a problem-solving instrument. In this respect, Trouche
(2004) related the problem solvers’ psychological compo-
nent to the construction of a scheme with three functions:
“a pragmatic function (it allows the agent to do something),
a heuristic function (it allows the agent to anticipate and
plan actions), and an epistemological function (it allows
the agent to understand what he is doing)” (p. 286). Indeed,
these three functions become essential for learners to con-
struct and explore dynamic models to examine a large num-
ber of examples, detect and formulate conjectures or invari-
ances and to look for arguments to support mathematical Fig. 1  A dynamic configuration to find and support mathematical
relations
relations (Sinclair and Baccaglini-Frank, 2016).
In this study, we focus on the implementation of two
kinds of tasks that involve: 3 Participants, tasks, methods, and procedures

1. Dynamic configurations formed by simple objects (cir-
cle, segments, triangles, lines, etc.) where subjects are
asked to move particular point(s) to identify relation-
ships and formulate conjectures and ways to support
them.
2. Problems that appear in textbooks where students are
asked to represent them dynamically and search for
different ways to solve them.
In addition, in order for subjects to keep problem solv-
ing discussions going even beyond formal sessions, we rely
on communication technologies such as email and video-
conference to share and extend individual and collective or
groups’ contributions.
2.1 Research question
We focus on characterizing the problem solving process
that prospective high school teachers exhibit as a result of
using systematically digital tools in formulating and solv-
ing two mathematical tasks. Thus, a research question that
guided the development of the study is:
To what extent do prospective high school teachers
rely on and coordinate a set of digital affordances (drag-
ging, measuring, loci, slider variation, etc.) to construct
and explore dynamic representations of tasks, and to transit
from empirical reasoning to formal approaches within the
MWS framework?
Eight high school prospective teachers participated in a
problem-solving course that was part of a Master’s pro-
gram in mathematics education. All participants had com-
pleted a university degree with major in mathematics and
were attending the second semester of the program. The
course included two weekly sessions of 3 h each during
one semester. The participants worked on each task indi-
vidually, in small groups, and collectively in plenary group
discussions. That is, throughout the sessions they began
working on the task individually, then individual contribu-
tions were discussed in pairs or small groups and later on,
results were presented and discussed within the community
including the instructor. We focused on two tasks that the
group worked at the end of the semester (the last two ses-
sions). The group discussion continued beyond the formal
sessions via email or chats through communication tech-
nologies (FaceTime or Skype). The instructor and two doc-
toral students coordinated the sessions and their role was to
elicit the participants’ ideas and guide their approaches to
the tasks.
3.1 The first task: a dynamic configuration
The participants received a GeoGebra geometric configu-
ration showing an inscribed equilateral triangle (Fig. 1) in
iBook format that could be accessed and explored through
a computer, tablet or iPhone. The participants were asked
to examine it and to pose some questions or problems

13
Problem solving and the use of digital technologies within the Mathematical Working Space…
Fig. 2  A sheet of paper is folded (http://youtu.be/LwjbFll5Udo),
what questions could you pose involving mathematical objects that
appear in the figure?
regarding the geometrical objects involved, their behaviors
and possible relations. In addition, they were asked to solve
those problems.
3.2 The second task
Participants were asked to observe a video (http://youtu.
be/LwjbFll5Udo) that involves folding a sheet of paper.
Likewise, the participants were asked to formulate ques-
tions regarding the mathematical objects that are embedded
in the folding process (Fig. 2). This task was inspired by a
Calculus task that appears in Ellis, et, al. (1999, p. 191).
The participants worked on the tasks individually at
the beginning, later they shared their ideas in pairs and at
the end, each pair presented their approaches to the whole
group (plenary discussion). The individual report and the
initial pair’s report were handed in at the end of the session
and all pairs also had an opportunity to revise and incorpo-
rate observations made during the plenary discussions into
a new version of the report (sent through email).
The presentation and analysis of results were structured
in terms of episodes that accounted for how the participants
contributions evolved, from individual participation to col-
lective reflection.
It is important to mention that each task, implemented
during the sessions, was analyzed by the research team
previously to its application. The team included two math-
ematics educators, two mathematicians and four doctoral
students in mathematics education. The idea was to identify
potential solutions that helped guide and orient (through
questions) the participants’ work. The prior analysis of the
tasks was based on identifying key problem solving epi-
sodes, to transform routine tasks into a set of learning activ-
ities (Santos-Trigo and Camacho-Machín, 2009; 2013).
831
Table  1 shows main activities implemented during the
study and the information gathered through individual,
pairs, and plenary discussion.
The research team designed an instrument based on a
set of questions to identify and analyze main ideas and
concepts that appeared in problem solving episodes involv-
ing understanding and making sense of tasks, the construc-
tion and exploration of dynamic configurations, looking
for and implementing several solution methods, the use
of empirical, geometric and algebraic arguments and the
extensions of tasks. Some questions that guided our analy-
sis of individual and pairs’ contributions involved: Do they
identify relevant information to represent and explore the
task? What technology affordances do they rely on to con-
struct a task dynamic configuration? What conjectures or
relationships do they formulate? What initial arguments
do they use to support them? How do the ways to sup-
port initial and emerging conjectures evolve throughout
the individual and collective approaches? And so on. In
addition, the research team identified main decisions that
led the participants to delve into ideas and explorations
that expanded or enhanced the initial tasks. Throughout
the analysis of the participants’ work, it was important to
document passages in which the tools affordances (drag-
ging, finding loci, using sliders, etc.) became important
for the participants to transit from empirical to geomet-
ric and algebraic approaches. For instance, an emerging
approach that was pursued during the plenary discussion
involved inscribing an equilateral triangle in a given cir-
cle via the area variation of two related circles. Thus, the
research team analyzed all the participants’ contributions
and focused on the process involved in going from indi-
vidual to collective approaches.
4 Presentation of results and discussion
To present and discuss the main results, we identify impor-
tant phases shown during the development of the problem
solving sessions. In terms of the MWS framework, we
identify the extent to which the use of GeoGebra allows the
participants to problematize the tasks and to engage them
in problem solving activities in order to look for math-
ematical relations and ways of supporting them. Thus, as
Leung (2011) stated, “a task guides learners from informal
to formal mathematical knowledge through a gradual pro-
cess that connects contextual understanding and conceptual
abstract understanding” (p. 326).
4.1 The first task; the grasping phase
Initially, the participants carried out two main approaches
to explore this task:
13
 832 M. Santos-Trigo et al.

1. Those who used GeoGebra to try to inscribe an equilat-

Focusing on the domain of potential solutions to examine attrib-

utes and relations among embedded objects and generaliza-
Pairs’ report handed in at the end of the session and a revised
eral triangle in a given circle.
Individual report handed in at the end of the first session 2. Those who used the model as given and began moving
some elements within the model.

For the first group, they measured the length of the tri-
angle sides and recognized that the inscribed triangle was
version sent after the second session equilateral and asked: How can we inscribe an equilateral
triangle in a given circle? It is important to observe that this
question is different from asking about how to draw a cir-
tion of results (both tasks) cle that circumscribes an equilateral triangle. The second
Evidence and data sources

group focused directly on exploring empirically the behav-

ior of some elements of the figure by moving point P on
arc AB. All the participants had previously developed some
experiences in the use of GeoGebra and they identified
main properties of the objects involved in the configuration.

4.2 The exploration phase

Exploring objects mathematical behaviors through quantifi-

Six participants explored numerically the length of seg-

Focusing on ways to support conjectures: both analytic and
cation of lengths and dragging (task 1). Construction of a

dynamic approaches (task 1). Analyzing the second task

ment CP and the sum of lengths of segments AP and

Presentation of each pair’s work and group discussion

PB for different positions of point P (Fig. 3). They

concluded that in this configuration, the equality
D(C, P) = D(A, P) + D(P, B) holds.
Two participants focused initially on finding a way to
domain and finding an algebraic model

inscribe an equilateral triangle in a given circle. One of

these students expressed that “in a given circle, I want to
draw three arcs of 120°, that is, I want to draw three cen-
dynamic model of task 2

tral angles of 120°each” (Fig. 4). Both students, later on,

Problem solving activity

reported also that within the configuration, the conjecture

Table 1  Summary of main activities developed during the problem solving sessions

D(C, P) = D(A, P) + D(P, B) seems to hold and recognized

that it was important to look for a geometric argument to
support this relation. In terms of the Mathematical Work-
ing Space, both initial approaches are important to engage
the participants into mathematical reflection. Focusing on
drawing the given model allows the participants to question
the given data and as a result, several concepts and problem
Looking back and introducing new questions (task 1). Identi-
Pairs’ discussion to detect patterns or invariances and to look
for geometric arguments (task 1). A dynamic and graphic
Focus on drawing a dynamic configuration, identifying the

solving strategies appear in their empirical, visual and for-

Exploration and sense making activities (tasks 1 and 2)

mal approaches.

4.3 Looking for a geometric argument

fying various variation phenomena in task 2

Seven participants relied on similar triangles arguments to

support the conjecture. Figure 5 shows a representation and
notation used to affirm that:
exploration of the second task

PDB ∼ PAC
since ∠PBD ∼ = ∠PCA both subtended by the same arc, and
Type of contribution

∠BPD ∼ = ∠CPA both subtended by equal arcs. Similarly,

Plenary session

they also showed that:

given data
Individual

ADC ∼ PAC.

13
Problem solving and the use of digital technologies within the Mathematical Working Space… 833

Fig. 3  Looking for relationships

Fig.  5  a Constructing a geometric argument. b Providing a geomet-

ric argument to validate that d(C, P) = d(A, P) + d(P, B)

And by adding “a” and “b”:

(h1 + h2 )(l − x + x)
a+b= = h1 + h 2 , that is
l
d(C, P) = d(A, P) + d(P, B).
Fig. 4  Drawing three central angles of 120°
It is clear that the use of the tool played an important
role in examining properties of the embedded figures and in
formulating and exploring a particular conjecture that later
Based on the proportionality of their corresponding
was justified through a formal argument.
sides, from PDB ∼ PAC :
Another participant observed that quadrilateral APBC
PD DB BP h2 x b was inscribed in the circle and asked for its properties.
= = , that is, = = (1)
PA AC CP a l h1 + h2 He mentioned that it was an inscribable cyclic quadri-
lateral and therefore the opposite angles add up to 180°
and based on that ADC ∼ PAC:
(supplementary angles). This property led him to relate
this quadrilateral to Ptolemy’s theorem: the product of
AD DC CA l−x h1 l
= = , that is, = = . (2) the lengths of the two diagonals of a cyclic quadrilateral
PA AC CP a l h1 + h2 is the sum of the products of lengths of the two pairs of
opposite sides. During the plenary discussion, this con-
Then, by isolating a and b from (1) and (2) respectively,
nection was addressed and later, supported by formal
(h1 + h2 )x arguments.
b= (3)
l Another approach that one of the participants sent via
email involves drawing ray PB and a circle centered at P
(h1 + h2 )(l − x) and radius PC (Fig. 5b). This circle intersects ray PB at
a= . (4)
l D and triangle PCD is equilateral because sides PC and

13
834
Fig. 6  Using the conditions to inscribe an equilateral triangle
PD are congruent (same radius) and angle CPB is always
60 degrees (triangle ABC is equilateral). Similarly, tri-
angles APC and BDC are congruent because angles APC
and BDC are congruent, angles ACP and BCD are also
congruent and side PC is congruent with side DC. Then,
d(C, P) = d(A, P) + d(P, B).
4.4 Extensions
At this stage, the dynamic configuration became a trigger
for exploring others relations. In the plenary discussion, all
recognized that asking “how to inscribe an equilateral tri-
angle in a given circle” led them to identify different ways
of inscribing such a triangle. Figures 6 and 7 show a way
to inscribe such a triangle in a given circle X of center O.
Points A and B are points on the given circle X. On segment
13
M. Santos-Trigo et al.
Fig. 7  Constructing the solution via the circles’ area
AB, an equilateral triangle ABC is drawn and a circle that
passes through vertices ABC. Now, by moving point A
along the circle X, a family of equilateral triangles is gen-
erated and for one position of A, vertex C of triangle ABC
will be on the given circle of center O. Line M represents
the function f(x)  = area of circle X  = 17.53, and point Q
has the x-coordinate of point A and as y-coordinate the area
of the circle e that circumscribes triangle ABC. The locus
of point Q when point A moves along the circle with center
O is an ellipse (Fig. 6). Then, the intersection point (L) of
the ellipse and line M indicates that, at this position of ver-
tex A, triangle ABC is inscribed in the given circle. That
is, the area of the circle that circumscribes the equilateral
triangle ABC coincides with the area of the given circle X
(Fig. 7). This construction is based on graphing a relation
that associates the position of point A and the area of the
Problem solving and the use of digital technologies within the Mathematical Working Space…
Fig.  8  a Drawing an equilateral triangle ATP based on an equilateral triangle QRS. b By moving point A on the circle the inscribed equilateral
triangle is found
circumscribed circle e without making explicit the alge-
braic representation of that relation (Fig. 7).
The link (http://tube.geogebra.org/student/m1197241)
shows more solutions provided by the participants to
inscribe an equilateral triangle in a given circle. One solu-
tion involves drawing any equilateral triangle (triangle
QRS) as a reference and selecting any point A on the given
circle c (Fig. 8a). A parallel line to QR that passes through
A is drawn, this line intersects the circle c at point T. Like-
wise, a parallel to QS through A and a parallel line to RS
that passes through T are drawn. Point U is the intersection
between the two parallel lines and triangle ATU is equilat-
eral because is similar to triangle QRS (Fig. 8a), the locus
of point U when point A moves along the circle c inter-
sects the circle, and that is the inscribed equilateral trian-
gle (Fig. 8b). In the process of looking for ways to inscribe
an equilateral triangle in a given circle, the participants
relied on different concepts and strategies where the use of
GeoGebra helped them connect and make sense of those
concepts. For example, the concept of parallelism and loci
were crucial to think of a dynamic configuration to inscribe
the equilateral triangle (Fig. 8a, b).
5 The folded sheet task: focusing on questions
The participants worked on the task individually for
20 min, they posed many questions. In general, they
observed that the folded sheet can be divided in two right
triangles and a polygon and the questions they posed were
about the behaviors of the areas involving those figures as
835
Fig. 9  Representing the folding situation
a result of moving the vertex along the side. In the initial
phase (sense making and task understanding), some par-
ticipants focused on the construction of a dynamic model
of the task, others aimed at finding an algebraic represen-
tation of it based on a paper and pencil diagram. In this
phase, some questions were posed: How can I represent the
task dynamically? What figures are important in the fold-
ing process of the sheet? Can the folded vertex be located
anywhere on the side of the sheet? Is there any particular
domain for the location of such vertex?
Figure 9 is a typical representation used by the partici-
pants to pose their questions. All the questions were written
at the board and the goal was then to discuss what ques-
tions they could pursue or answer. Here, they discussed the
questions in pairs and focused their attention on how each
question could be answered. It is important to mention that
the participants initially relied on the YouTube video to
verbalize their questions and when they wrote them, they
did not include all pertinent labels or notation to refer to
13
836 M. Santos-Trigo et al.

problem information. Figure 9 does not include explicitly

labels for the rectangle vertices.

1. At which point should I situate vertex P to get three

right triangles?
2. When is the area of triangle 2 equal to zero?
3. In which interval can point P be located?
4. What happens to area of triangle 1 when the area of
triangle 2 is a minimum?
5. How does diagonal QR change for different positions
Fig. 10  Representing the task
of P?
6. Is there any position for point P where only one trian-
gle is formed? Is there an interval to situate P in order
to always have two triangles?
7. How does segment QR (folding line) behave?
8. When does polygon 3 get its maximum area?
9. Can point P be situated at any position and form the
three figures? Are the possible positions of P covering
the entire opposite side?

The participants, in general, did not look under what

conditions their questions could be answered; instead
they seemed to focus on what they visualized in terms of
the resulting figures and their positions as point P moves
along the side. That is, they posed questions without Fig. 11  Expressing the area of right triangle in terms of one variable
examining whether the situation provided data or informa-
tion to answer to those questions. It was later, when they
worked in pairs and tried to answer the questions, that they
realized that in order to make sense of the questions, it was
important to identify relevant data and ways to express
some relationships. In addition, the participants did not
explicitly describe the folding sheet procedure to formu-
late the question; rather they relied on the video or on a
representation they sketched of the situation. The partici-
pants’ cognitive behaviors seem to focus on posing ques-
tions inspired by the drawing without reflecting on possi-
Fig. 12  Posing the task
ble answers.

5.1 Making sense of questions and looking
for relationships
The participants examined in pairs the proposed questions.
Some pairs assigned values to sides of the sheet of paper (3
and 6 units) and began to find some relations and properties
of the formed figures. Based on representation (Figs. 10,
11), they observed that: (1) Segment DH becomes the
hypotenuse of right triangle HGB and segment ID becomes
segment IG (Fig. 10); (2) the area of triangles could be
expressed in terms of one variable (Fig. 11); and (3) when
vertex G moves along side AB of the rectangle, then a fam-
ily of right triangles emerged and at some positions, trian-
gle GHI (Fig. 12) will disappear (when GB is longer than
BD). At this stage, two pairs decided to find an algebraic
expression for the triangle GBH area and two pairs began
to construct a dynamic model of the task.
During the pairs’ discussion, the participants analyzed
the set of questions and focused on finding out what infor-
mation and-or data they needed to answer those questions.
When some of the pairs introduced a notation and data
in their representation of the task, they observed that tri-
angle GBH (Fig. 12) included all information needed to
determine its area. That is, the consideration of a particular
case, a sheet of paper with dimensions 3 × 6 units, became
important for them to focus on particular relationships.
Then, a task that all agreed to formulate and pursue was
stated as:
A sheet of paper ABDE is folded in such a way that one
of its vertices (D) will lie on the side AB that is opposite

13
Problem solving and the use of digital technologies within the Mathematical Working Space…
Fig. 13  Graphing the function area of triangle GBH
√
Fig. 14  Finding maximum value ( 23) of the function at point
√
x = 3 using the Wolfram Alpha tool
to side ED (Fig. 12). Thus, there will be different folding
lines depending on the position of vertex D on side AB. For
example, vertex D becomes point G to form triangle GBH.
If the length of side DB is 3 dm, explore what happens to
the area of triangle GBH when point G is moved along side
AB. What about the length of the folding segment?
5.2 The construction and exploration of the area
function using an algebraic approach and a
dynamic model
In this phase, two pairs that decided to approach the task
algebraically focused on expressing the area of the right tri-
angle in terms of the variable x being the length of GB.
Their goal was to find an algebraic model to express the
area of triangle GBH. To this end, they recognized that the
length of segment GH was 3-h, and they used the Pythago-
rean theorem to express h in terms of x. That is,
2
h = −x6 + 23, the area of triangle GBH being
3 3x 1
A(x) = −x 12 + 4 . Then they used the WolframAlpha tool
to graph the function and to find its local maximum
(Figs.  13, 14) (http://www.wolframalpha.com/share/clip?f
=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e4es2su16aq&m
ail=1).
The contributions of these pairs were discussed later
during the plenary session and the presenters were ques-
tioned on the meaning of the graphic representation in
accordance to the context of the task. The discussion led
the group to address the issue of the domain of the function.
The two pairs that decided to construct a dynamic model of
1 Teachers and instructors rely on mathematical tasks to
  Wolfram Alpha (http://www.wolframalpha.com) is an online com-
putational knowledge machine that includes computer algebra sys-
tems.
837
the task showed two ways of building the model. One was
constructed by considering two sliders that represented the
dimensions of the sheet (rectangle). The values of the slid-
ers could change by moving a point on the slider. Then they
located point G on side AB and constructed the perpendicu-
lar bisector of GD that is the folding line. Figure 15 shows
the complete model of the task.
It is important to mention that the initial statement of
the task did not include the two dimensions of the sheet
of paper. One dimension was enough to find the algebraic
model for the area of triangle BHG. However, to determine
the domain for moving the point G, the second dimension
was necessary. The second slider then became useful, to
explore the area behavior of a family of rectangles, just by
changing the rectangle dimensions via the sliders. In terms
of the MWS, both dynamic and algebraic approaches to the
task were interrelated and what the participants visualized
in the dynamic model was explained or interpreted via the
algebraic or geometric reasoning.
In http://www.geogebratube.org/student/m60052, the
model can be explored by moving point G. The red graph
corresponds to the area variation of triangle GBH, the blue
graph to the area variation of triangle GHI and the black
graph is the length variation of the folding segment HI as
point G is moved.
It also can be observed that point G can be moved on
segment AB from a√point located at 3 units from point A to
a point located at 27 units from point A. Thus, with this
model, all questions posed in phase I could be answered.
An important issue that emerged immediately when
the participants focused on the construction of a dynamic
model of the task was to determine the domain in which
to move point G on segment AB. They observed that for a
certain position of point G on segment AB, the folding line
disappears and to explain this, they needed to find the inter-
val for moving point G so that the folding process can be
done. In addition, the dynamic model led them to examine
the variation of other involved figures (lengths of folding
segment HI and polygon AGIE).
6 Discussion of results
It is important to discuss the extent to which the episte-
mological and learners’ cognitive actions were expressed
through three intertwined dimensions: the instrumental,
semiotic, and discursive genesis.
6.1 The importance of mathematical tasks
construct and orchestrate or mobilize a working space
and learning activities to foster learner’s development of
13
838
Fig. 15  A dynamic model of the task
mathematical thinking. To this end, two tasks that involved
a geometric configuration (first one) and the folding of a
sheet of paper (second one) were used as springboard to
engage prospective high school teachers in problem solv-
ing activities. In this process, the participants worked as a
community and contributed to the solution and discussion
of concepts and strategies used to make sense, represent,
explore and extend the tasks. In the first task, an initial
empirical approach led the participants to identify a con-
jecture or relationship involving some elements of the
configuration based on the use of GeoGebra that also was
supported through a mathematical argument. Similarly, the
reproduction of the given configuration let them to question
the given order of the elements in the configuration: Given
a circle, then inscribe an equilateral triangle or given an
equilateral triangle, then draw a circle that passes through
its three vertices. This reflection led them to find several
ways of inscribing an equilateral triangle in a given circle.
In this process, they relied on the use of GeoGebra to use
concepts such as parallelism, similarity, locus, etc., to con-
struct such a triangle. In the second task, the participants
posed initial questions that later were refined in terms of
identifying available data and solution methods. The use of
13
M. Santos-Trigo et al.
GeoGebra provided the participants a means to visualize
dynamically not only the relation between the position of
the movable point P and the folding line, but also the vari-
ation of the attributes (area of embedded figures and length
of the folding line). Thus, the participants made sense of
the algebraic model of area variation of triangle GBH
(Fig. 14) and its graphic representation.
6.2 The instrumental genesis
The participants relied on GeoGebra affordances to rep-
resent and explore the tasks. During the plenary discus-
sions, all the pair’s contributions were presented and
examined. All participants recognized that formulating
and re-constructing (Fig. 1) the problems and looking for
different ways to solve them is an important activity that
allowed them to think of different concepts and strategies
to approach the tasks. In this context, the use of the tool
became important, for example, to relate the area variation
of a circle that circumscribes an equilateral triangle (Fig. 6)
to the goal of inscribing an equilateral triangle in a given
circle. That is, the locus of the relation that associates the
position of a movable point on the given circle and the
Problem solving and the use of digital technologies within the Mathematical Working Space…
area of the circle that circumscribes the equilateral triangle
(simpler case) not only was important to solve the task, but
also to relate the locus with an ellipse (Figs. 6, 7). Simi-
larly, the use of sliders, dragging points and tracing loci
are affordances that were important for the participants to
represent and explore the tasks dynamically. Indeed, in the
second task, the dragging and locus tools were crucial to
examine the area and length variation of embedded figures
without expressing such a variation in terms of an algebraic
representation.
6.3 The semiotic genesis
In both tasks, the participants generated several represen-
tations that include the quantification of attributes (areas,
perimeters, lengths, angles, etc.), loci, family of trian-
gles, rectangles, and graph of functions. These represen-
tations were essential to delve into the problems and to
relate visual and algebraic approaches. Thus, the folding
line, in the second task, was represented through the per-
pendicular bisector that not only was used to make sense
of the folding process, but also to focus on the variation of
attributes of other objects that appear in the dynamic con-
figuration. Similarly, in the first task, the initial empirical
approach based on measuring lengths and angles in the
dynamic configuration (Fig. 3) led the participants to for-
mulate a conjecture that also was supported with a formal
argument based on identifying proportional relations in two
similar triangles. This process required that the participants
identified a correspondence relation between the triangles
and the use of proper notation to carry out the operations
involved in the proportional relations. That is, learners or
problem solvers can rely on technology affordances to rep-
resent and explore the tasks through empirical and visual
approaches that can provide useful information to think of
formal arguments. Thus, the coordination of registers gen-
erated through the tool affordances and those involved in
algebraic approaches is crucial to make sense of the tasks
and results or solutions (Duval, 2006).
6.4 The discursive genesis of proof
What type of validating discourse did the participants
exhibit throughout the solution process of the tasks? The
participants systematically got involved in both informal
and formal validation of conjectures and relations. They
relied on GeoGebra to explore that for any position of point
P on the arc AB, the length of CP is the same as the sum
of the lengths AP and PB (Fig. 3). The initial argument
that they used to validate this relation involves observing
that for any position of point P on the arc AB, the relation
is true. In addition, the tool helped them focus on par-
ticular triangles to construct a formal argument based on
839
properties of similar triangles. That is, the use of the tool
had a dual purpose: the formulation of a conjecture and
the search for properties of objects within the configura-
tion to eventually provide a formal argument. Likewise,
in the second task, it has been possible to generate, via the
locus command, the area variation of some figures within
the dynamic configuration that let the participants to iden-
tify and visualize in some cases the maximum area value,
but later the algebra provided a formal argument to support
that result. In general, the participants seem to rely on the
tool affordances in exploring the behaviors of mathematical
objects to eventually formulate conjectures and also, in the
process of looking for properties that can be used to prove
them formally.
6.5 Extending mathematical discussion
The construction and understanding of mathematical
knowledge is a continuous process, where learners share
individual ideas and get involved in collective discussions.
In this context, it was important to follow up some tasks
discussion beyond formal sessions. For example, finding
several ways to inscribe an equilateral triangle became a
task that allowed the participants to share and discuss con-
cepts and strategies to achieve this task. Thus, some partici-
pants sent via email ideas that involved the area variation
of a circle circumscribing a particular equilateral triangle
with an ellipse, or to find the locus of a vertex of a partial
solution. Although the MWS framework does not address
explicitly the importance of extending the learning environ-
ment to considering community discussions beyond formal
settings, it is important to recognize that following up the
participants’ discussion not only helped the participants
think of other approaches to the tasks, but also to refine and
reflect on approaches that were discussed during the formal
sessions.
6.6 Task contexts
Another issue that emerged here was the importance of
linking the problem representation with the context of
the task. For instance, those who worked on the algebraic
model immediately relied on the Wolfram Alpha tool to
draw the corresponding graph and then found its maximum
value without making explicit the particular domain of the
function. During the discussion, they were asked to explain
the graph behavior in terms of the task context and then
they realized that for some points on segment AB, the graph
did not make sense in terms of the folding process and this
realization drew their attention to defining the function
domain. The pairs that presented the dynamic models rec-
ognized that situating the movable point G on side AB not
only led them to introduce the perpendicular bisector into
13
840
the model, but also to visualize a possible domain or inter-
val for moving point G. That is, the domain of point G was
contextualized. It was also argued that the use of sliders to
draw the rectangle allows considering and examining the
area behavior of a family of rectangles as a result of chang-
ing the sliders’ lengths. In addition, the dynamic model of
the task provides affordances to focus on the behavior of
other embedded figures, such as the length of segment HI
or the area behavior of triangle GHI (Fig. 15).
7 Elements of a didactic route to implement the
tasks
The participants relied on the GeoGebra affordances to
re-produce the configuration of the first task and to repre-
sent the folding sheet task. Both dynamic configurations
of the tasks became a trigger for formulating questions and
to look for several ways to answer to those questions. In
this process, it was important to work as a problem solv-
ing community that shares and discusses both individual
and collective contributions. In this context, the participants
were asked to outline a possible didactic route for structur-
ing a lesson to be further implemented in their teaching
practices. The idea was to organize such a route in terms of
questions that could guide the implementation of the tasks.
1. All participants agreed that a lesson should engage stu-
dents in activities that foster problem solving formula-
tion; and that the use of YouTube videos can foster not
only the students’ problem posing approaches, but also
ways of discussing different statements of the same
task. Here, they recognized the importance of paying
attention to or looking at the situation in terms of math-
ematical objects and their properties (Santos-Trigo
and Reyes-Rodríguez, 2015). How can you inscribe an
equilateral triangle in a given circle? If you move point
P on the circle what elements within the configuration
change? Which ones are kept invariant? What figures
do you see when the sheet is folded? Is it possible to
calculate their areas/perimeters? What are the needed
data? Addressing these types of questions could help
learners focus on the way of finding mathematical rela-
tions among objects attributes (lengths, perimeters,
areas, etc.). Again, with the use of digital tools, the
strategy of re-constructing the dynamic model of the
task becomes powerful not only to identify key con-
cepts and properties, but also to formulate new ques-
tions or mathematical relations.
2. The participants recognized that students, during
the lesson, should be encouraged to express verbally
and to write all the questions they are formulating.
These questions should be examined and contrasted
13
M. Santos-Trigo et al.
in terms of what concepts are involved and what data
are needed. The goal here is to identify those ques-
tions or problems that the group should follow up and
solve. Can you write down all questions or conjectures
you propose? Are those questions different from those
posed by your classmates?
3. The group also recognized and valued the importance
for students of looking for different ways of solving
and answering the posed question (Santos-Trigo, 2014;
Santos-Trigo and Reyes-Rodríguez, 2015). It was clear
that both dynamic and analytic approaches play an
important role in developing problem solving strate-
gies. Thus, during the classroom session, some students
could focus on constructing a dynamic representa-
tion of the problem via the use of a dynamic geometry
environment. Others could work on representing the
problem algebraically. At the end, both groups would
present their approaches to the task and discuss advan-
tages and limitations associated with both approaches.
For example, the construction of a dynamic model
demands that students think of the problem in terms of
geometric meaning to be able to represent it. And this
representation becomes important for students to visu-
alize the objects’ or parameters’ behavior as a result of
orderly moving of another object within the configu-
ration. Can you draw an equilateral triangle by select-
ing two points on the given circle and joining them to
form a side of such triangle? Explain what happens to
the triangle when you move one of those points on the
circle? Can you draw the circle that passes through the
three vertices of the equilateral triangle? Can you graph
the area variation of that circle in terms of the position
of the movable point? How is that graph related to the
inscribed triangle? In the folded sheet task, is there any
relation between the folding line and the perpendicular
bisector of the segment that joins the initial position of
the sheet corner and the position it takes on the side
after the folding? Is that perpendicular bisector useful
to construct a dynamic model of the task?
4. All participants recognized that the use of digital
technologies plays a crucial role to connect empiri-
cal and formal reasoning. The participants examined
the behavior of parameters and possible relations by
measuring particular objects attributes (length, areas,
angles) to detect possible patterns or invariance. In
Fig.  3, moving point P on the circle led them to con-
jecture that d(A, P) + d(P, B) = d(C, P) for any posi-
tion of P on arc AB. Later, this conjecture was sup-
ported through a formal argument that involves the
use of properties of similar triangles. Similarly, Fig. 15
shows the graph of the area variation of triangle GBH
when point G is moved along an interval on AB. This
graph shows approximately the position of G at which
Problem solving and the use of digital technologies within the Mathematical Working Space…
the triangle reaches its maximum area. The generation
and treatment of the corresponding algebraic model
(Fig. 13) let the participants not only to find that maxi-
mum value, but also the interval to move point G on
side AB.
Thus, dragging and measuring strategies orient the
students to think of a kind of semantic proof based on
visual arguments at the beginning and, afterwards, this
contributes to open the way to more formal proofs by
promoting links between leaners’ empirical and deduc-
tive reasoning. That is, a dynamic geometry system
incorporates plasticity in figures or configurations that
enables the students to become acquainted with struc-
tural aspects that, in the past (even in the recent past),
were quite hard to discover. Now, geometric figures are
not just drawn or static representations, they live in a
(geometric) film and this film exhibits what is perma-
nent and what is accidental in a geometric configura-
tion.
5. Finally, the participants agreed on incorporating prob-
lem solving activities that include looking for exten-
sions or generalization of the task. For example, when
a task involves analyzing properties or relationships
associated with particular figures or initial data, a
questions to ask is: What happens when the dimen-
sions of the sheet become a and b units respectively?
In addition, it is also important to reflect on the extent
to which methods used to construct dynamic and alge-
braic models can be used to approach new problems.
That is, to some extent, the ways of representing and
exploring the problems should become a method to
approach a family of problems.
8 Concluding remarks
The Mathematical Working Space framework empha-
sizes the importance of providing a learning environment
where subjects articulate explicitly epistemological or
disciplinary foundations with their cognitive systems. In
this context, the coordinated use of digital technologies
plays an essential role to present, represent and explore
dynamically mathematical tasks. An online-video could be
used to provide the context for the participants to look at
and examine the situation in order to formulate questions.
Later, the proposed questions were analyzed in terms of
identifying possible ways to respond to each question and
the use of other digital tools became relevant to represent
and explore those questions. The participants recognized
that the analysis of algebraic models that involves the use
of a tool requires making sense of results and tasks’ con-
texts. In addition, dynamic models seem to favor learners’
engagement in making sense from the activities throughout
841
the explorations of the model. In both tasks, dynamic mod-
els became a platform to explore not only different forms
of representing emerging relations, but also ways to extend
and interpret results in terms of the context of the initial
statement of the tasks. In such a process, it has been possi-
ble to generate graphic behavior of particular relations such
as the triangle area variation, without defining the algebraic
model. In addition, concepts like the perpendicular bisector
and loci of points were relevant to explain and justify such
relations. Finally, the online-video, dynamic models of the
inscribed triangle, and Wolfram Alpha results are available
online and learners can have access to them any time for
their analysis and continual mathematical discussion. That
is, the coordinated use of several digital technologies offers
diverse opportunities for learners not only to communicate
and discuss mathematical task and ways to formulate prob-
lems, but also to represent, extend, and explore new tasks
from diverse angles and perspectives.
Acknowledgments  The authors would like to acknowledge the
support received from projects Conacyt-168543 and Plan Nacional
I + D + I del MCIN, Reference EDU2011-29328 during the develop-
ment of this study.
References
Blume, W. (2013). Introduction: Content related research on PISA.
In M. Prenzel, M. Kobarg, K. Schöps & S. Rönnebeck (Eds.),
Research on PISA. Research outcomes of the PISA research con-
ference 2009 (pp. 2–5). New York: Springer.
Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problem of comprehension
in a learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathemat-
ics, 61, 103–131.
Ellis, W., Bauldry, W. C., Fiedler, J. R., Giordano, F. R., Judson, P.
T., Lodi, E., et al. (1999). Calculus, mathematics and modeling.
New York: Addison-Wesley.
Geeraerts, L., Venant, F., & Tanguay, D. (2014). Subterranean struc-
tures of technological tools and teaching issues in geometry. Pro-
ceedings of EDULEARN14 conference (pp. 257–264). Spain.
Hegedus, S. J., & Moreno-Armella, L. (2009). Introduction: the trans-
formative nature of ‘dynamic’ educational technology. ZDM - The
International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41(4), 397–398.
Hegedus, S. J., & Tall, D. O. (2016). Foundations for the future: The
potential of multimodal technologies for learning mathematics.
In L. English & D. Kirshner (Eds.), Handbook of international
research in mathematics education (3rd ed., pp. 543–562). New
York: Taylor & Francis.
Kuzniak, A., Parzysz, B., & Vivier, L. (2013). Trajectory of a prob-
lem: a study in teacher training. The Mathematics Enthusiast,
10(1&2), 407–440.
Kuzniak, A., & Richard, P.R. (2014). Spaces for mathematical work:
Viewpoints and perspectives. Revista Latinoamericana de Inves-
tigación en Matemática Educative, RELIME, 17(4-I), 17–26.
Leung, A. (2011). An epistemic model of task design in dynamic
geometry environment. ZDM - The International Journal on
Mathematics Education, 43(3), 325–336.
Leung, A., & Bolite-Frant, J. (2015). Designing mathematics tasks:
The role of tools. In A. Watson & M. Ohtani (Eds.), Task design
in mathematics education (pp. 191–225). New ICMI Study
Series. New York: Springer.
13
842
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content
knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teacher Col-
lege Record, 108(6), 1017–1024.
Moreno-Armella, L., & Santos-Trigo, M. (2016). The use of digital
technologies in mathematical practices: Reconciling traditional
and emerging approaches. In L. English & D. Kirshner (Eds.),
Handbook of international research in mathematics education
(3rd ed., pp. 595–616). New York: Taylor & Francis.
NCTM. (2009). Focus in high school mathematics reasoning and
sense making. Reston, VA: NCTM.
Rabardel, P. (1995). Les Hommes et les Technologies. Paris: Armand
Colin.
Santos-Trigo, M. (2014). Problem solving in mathematics education.
In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp.
496–501). New York: Springer.
Santos-Trigo, L.M., & Camacho, M. (2009). Towards the construction
of a framework to deal with routine problems to foster mathe-
matical inquiry. Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics
Undergraduate Studies (PRIMUS), 19(3), 260–279.
Santos-Trigo, M., & Camacho-Machín, M. (2013). A problem solving
framework that enhances the use of computational technology.
The Mathematics Enthusiast Journal, 10(1 & 2), 279–302.
13
M. Santos-Trigo et al.
Santos-Trigo, M., & Ortega-Moreno, F. (2013). Digital technology,
dynamic representations, and mathematical reasoning: Extend-
ing problem solving frameworks. International Journal Learning
Technology, 8(2), 186–200.
Santos-Trigo, M., & Reyes-Rodríguez, A. (2015). The use of digi-
tal technology in finding multiple paths to solve and extend an
equilateral triangle task. International Journal of Mathemati-
cal Education in Science and Technology,. doi:10.1080/00207
39X.2015.1049228.
Sinclair, N., & Baccaglini-Frank, A. (2016). Digital technologies in
the early primary school classroom. In L. English & D. Kirshner
(Eds.), Handbook of international research in mathematics edu-
cation (3rd ed., pp. 662–685). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Trouche, L. (2004). Managing the complexity of human/machine
interactions in computerized learning environments: Guiding
students’ command process through instrumental orchestrations.
International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning,
9(3), 281–307.