Typification of arguments produced by the mathematical practices of middle level students in dynamic geometry environments

This paper analyzes arguments presented by a group of high school students (between ages 15 and 18) in Mexico, when solving activities in the context of isometric plane transformations, applying dynamic geometry software (GeoGebra). The study is qualitative and descriptive, in which argumentation schemes (empirical, analytical, factual, and symbolic) are used to typify the arguments expressed by the students of this study, supported by an analysis of the ontosemiotic configurations (epistemic and cognitive) of the Ontosemiotic Approach to Mathematical Knowledge and Instruction (OSA) for the description of the associated argumentative practice. Results suggest that the students resort to types of empirical arguments based on visual perceptions, leaving evidence of little organization of ideas in the development of their argumentative practice. Moreover, the application of the specific software tools played a role of argument for the student and not as support for their argumentation process. Furthermore, the informal language used by the students showed little command of the mathematical language.