Greek Geometry: Formative and Curricular Relevance in Mexico
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20983/culcyt.2026.3.3e.1Keywords:
Euclidean geometry, mathematical proof, mathematics curriculum, upper-secondary education, dynamic geometryAbstract
This paper argues that the Euclidean tradition (construction, definition, theorem, and proof) retains formative value in Mexican basic and upper-secondary education. Drawing on a review of recent mathematics education literature (2013–2025) published in leading international journals and handbooks, and on current national curricula (2022 Basic Education Study Plan and the 2025 Common Curricular Framework for Upper-Secondary Education), key points of articulation between classical Greek geometry practices and contemporary pedagogical demands are identified. A dual-comparison strategy (synthetic route and analytic route) is proposed as a didactic device that integrates deductive reasoning with dynamic geometry environments (DGE). Curricular analysis reveals genuine niches for reinstating proof culture within the critical approach of both frameworks without altering existing programs. The proposal has direct implications for the design of teaching sequences and for initial and continuing teacher education in mathematics in Mexico.
Downloads
References
H. G. Weigand, K. Hollebrands y M. Maschietto, “Geometry education at secondary level – a systematic literature review”, ZDM–Mathematics Education, vol. 57, pp. 829-843, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s11858-025-01703-1.
D. De Bock, ed., Modern Mathematics: An International Movement? Cham, Suiza: Springer, 2023, doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-11166-2.
J. Kilpatrick, “The new math as an international phenomenon”, ZDM–Mathematics Education, vol. 44, n.º 4, pp. 563-571, 2012, doi: 10.1007/s11858-012-0393-2.
N. Sinclair, M. G. Bartolini Bussi, M. de Villiers, K. Jones, U. Kortenkamp, A. Leung y K. Owens, “Recent research on geometry education: An ICME-13 survey team report”, ZDM–Mathematics Education, vol. 48, n.º 5, pp. 691-719, 2016, doi: 10.1007/s11858-016-0796-6.
N. Sinclair y O. Robutti, “Technology and the role of proof: The case of dynamic geometry”, en Third International Handbook of Mathematics Education, M. A. Clements et al., Eds. Nueva York: Springer, 2013, pp. 571-596, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-4684-2_19.
A. Baccaglini-Frank, “Dragging, instrumented abduction and evidence, in processes of conjecture generation in a dynamic geometry environment”, ZDM–Mathematics Education, vol. 51, n.º 5, pp. 779-791, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s11858-019-01046-8.
G. J. Stylianides, A. J. Stylianides y A. Moutsios-Rentzos, “Proof and proving in school and university mathematics education research: a systematic review”, ZDM–Mathematics Education, vol. 56, pp. 47-59, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11858-023-01518-y.
G. Harel, “Epistemological justification”, ZDM–Mathematics Education, vol. 56, pp. 1489-1501, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11858-024-01603-w.
A. J. Stylianides, K. Komatsu, K. Weber y G. J. Stylianides, “Teaching and learning authentic mathematics: The case of proving”, en Handbook of Cognitive Mathematics, M. Danesi, ed. Cham: Springer, 2022, pp. 727-761, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-44982-7_9-1.
P. C. Dawkins, “Identifying aspects of mathematical epistemology that might influence productively student reasoning beyond mathematics”, ZDM–Mathematics Education, vol. 52, n.º 6, pp. 1177-1186, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11858-020-01167-5.
R. Duval, Understanding the Mathematical Way of Thinking – The Registers of Semiotic Representations. Cham: Springer, 2017, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-56910-9.
K. Weber, P. C. Dawkins y J. P. Mejía-Ramos, “The relationship between mathematical practice and mathematics pedagogy in mathematics education research”, ZDM–Mathematics Education, vol. 52, n.º 6, pp. 1063-1074, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11858-020-01173-7.
É. Barbin y M. Menghini, “History of Teaching Geometry”, en Handbook on the History of Mathematics Education, A. Karp y G. Schubring, eds. Nueva York: Springer, 2014, pp. 473-492, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-9155-2_23.
J. B. P. de Carvalho, “Mathematics Education in Latin America”, en Handbook on the History of Mathematics Education, A. Karp y G. Schubring, eds. Nueva York: Springer, 2014, pp. 335-359, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-9155-2_17.
U. D'Ambrosio, “Mathematics Education in Latin America, in the Premodern Period”, en Handbook on the History of Mathematics Education, A. Karp y G. Schubring, eds. Nueva York: Springer, 2014, pp. 186-196, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-9155-2_9.
R. Chorlay, K. M. Clark y C. Tzanakis, “History of mathematics in mathematics education: Recent developments in the field”, ZDM–Mathematics Education, vol. 54, n.º 7, pp. 1407-1420, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s11858-022-01442-7.
F. Furinghetti, “Rethinking history and epistemology in mathematics education”, Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol., vol. 51, n.º 6, pp. 967-994, 2020, doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2019.1565454.
K. M. Clark, T. H. Kjeldsen, S. Schorcht y C. Tzanakis eds., Mathematics, Education and History: Towards a Harmonious Partnership. Cham: Springer, 2018, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-73924-3.
M. N. Fried, “History of Mathematics in Mathematics Education”, en International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching, M. R. Matthews, ed. Dordrecht: Springer, 2014, pp. 669-703, doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_21.
M. Miyazaki, T. Fujita y K. Jones, “Students' understanding of the structure of deductive proof”, Educ. Stud. Math., vol. 94, n.º 2, pp. 223-239, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s10649-016-9720-9.
T. G. Campbell, J. D. Boyle y S. King, “Proof and argumentation in K-12 mathematics: a review of conceptions, content, and support”, Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol., vol. 51, n.º 5, pp. 754-774, 2020, doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2019.1626503.
K. Weber y F. S. Tanswell, “Instructions and recipes in mathematical proofs”, Educ. Stud. Math., vol. 111, n.º 1, pp. 73-87, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10649-022-10156-2.
K.-L. Yang y F.-L. Lin, “A model of reading comprehension of geometry proof”, Educ. Stud. Math., vol. 67, n.º 1, pp. 59-76, 2008, doi: 10.1007/s10649-007-9080-6.
K. L. Yang y J. L. Li, “A framework for assessing reading comprehension of geometric construction texts”, Int J of Sci and Math Educ, vol. 16, n.º 1, pp. 109-124, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s10763-016-9770-6.
M. Miyazaki, T. Fujita y K. Jones, “Flow-chart proofs with open problems as scaffolds for learning about geometrical proofs”, ZDM–Mathematics Education, vol. 47, n.º 7, pp. 1211-1224, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s11858-015-0712-5.
K. Komatsu y K. Jones, “Interplay between paper-and-pencil activity and dynamic-geometry-environment use during generalisation and proving”, Digit. Exp. Math. Educ., vol. 6, pp. 199-227, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s40751-020-00067-3.
A. Leung, A. Baccaglini-Frank y M. A. Mariotti, “Discernment of invariants in dynamic geometry environments”, Educ. Stud. Math., vol. 84, n.º 3, pp. 439-460, 2013, doi: 10.1007/s10649-013-9492-4.
Secretaría de Educación Pública, Plan de Estudio para la Educación Preescolar, Primaria y Secundaria 2022. Nueva Escuela Mexicana. México: SEP, 2022. [En línea]. Disponible: https://educacionbasica.sep.gob.mx/wp-content/uploads/2025/Plan_y_programas_de_estudio_2025/Plan de Estudio 2025 -WEB-.pdf
Secretaría de Educación Pública, Marco Curricular Común de la Educación Media Superior 2025. Pensamiento Matemático. México: SEP, 2025. [En línea]. Disponible: https://educacionmediasuperior.sep.gob.mx/modeloeducativo2025.html
Secretaría de Educación Pública, Programas de Matemáticas I-IV. México: SEP, 2017.
G. Harel y K. Weber, “Deductive Reasoning in Mathematics Education”, en Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education, S. Lerman, ed. Cham: Springer, 2020, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_43.
J. D. Viramontes y H. C. Chavira, “Uso de las fuentes originales, el caso de la justificación de las construcciones geométricas”, en Perspectivas actuales de la Educación Matemática, M. Sánchez, M. S. García y A. Castañeda, eds. México: SOMIDEM, 2024, pp. 341-346, doi: 10.24844/SOMIDEM/S3/2024/01-40.
K. Komatsu, “Fostering empirical examination after proof construction in secondary school geometry”, Educ. Stud. Math., vol. 96, n.º 2, pp. 129-144, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s10649-016-9731-6.
A. Erickson y P. Herbst, “Will teachers create opportunities for discussion when teaching proof in a geometry classroom?”, Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ., vol. 16, pp. 167-181, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s10763-016-9764-4.
Y. Karpuz y E. Atasoy, “High school mathematics teachers' content knowledge of the logical structure of proof deriving from figural-concept interaction in geometry”, Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol., vol. 51, n.º 4, pp. 585-603, 2020, doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2020.1736347.
N. Ruiz-López, “The instrumental genesis process in future primary teachers using Dynamic Geometry Software”, Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol., vol. 49, n.º 4, pp. 481-500, 2018, doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2017.1377302.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Juan de Dios Viramontes-Miranda
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Todos los contenidos de CULCYT se distribuyen bajo una licencia de uso y distribución “Creative Commons Reconocimiento-No Comercial 4.0 Internacional” (CC-BY-NC). Puede consultar desde aquí la versión informativa de la licencia.
Los autores/as que soliciten publicar en esta revista, aceptan los términos siguientes: a) los/las autores/as conservarán sus derechos de autor y garantizarán a la revista el derecho de primera publicación de su obra; y b) se permite y recomienda a los/las autores/as agregar enlaces de sus artículos en CULCYT en la página web de su institución o en la personal, debido a que ello puede generar intercambios interesantes y aumentar las citas de su obra publicada.
