research questions in mathematics education

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education

An official journal of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), JRME is the premier research journal in mathematics education and is devoted to the interests of teachers and researchers at all levels--preschool through college.

• eTOC Alerts
• Latest Issue TOC RSS

A Way to Consider Balance Among JRME Publications: Descriptive, Transformative, and Reflective Research

Looking inside the black box: measuring implementation and detecting group-level impact of cognitively guided instruction.

Studies have found that some teacher professional development programs that are based on Cognitively Guided Instruction (CGI) can increase student mathematics achievement. The mechanism through which those effects are realized has been theorized, but more empirical study is needed. In service of this need, we designed a novel measure of instructional practice to assess the extent to which observable features of mathematics instruction are consistent with the principles of CGI. We describe the conceptual foundations and first use of the instrument, which we call M-CLIPS. We found that teachers involved in the first 2 years of a CGI program were using methods consistent with the principles. In contrast, instructional practice in the comparison condition was mostly inconsistent with those principles.

Understanding Preservice Elementary Teachers as Mathematical Modelers and Their Perceptions of the Process

A growing consensus holds that preservice K–8 teachers (PSTs) need to experience the modeling process as learners to understand it and envision teaching modeling in their future classrooms. We examine this recommendation by exploring how PSTs construct models and how collaborative learning practices influence them in revising and refining their models. We also explore their reflections on modeling as a pedagogical experience. We introduce Modeling Decision Maps as a tool to examine how PSTs construct and refine mathematical models, and we draw on reflective journal entries to capture PSTs’ perspectives on the process. Our findings indicate that realistic modeling tasks provide opportunities to foster PSTs’ understanding of modeling, grow their mathematical modeling skills, and attune them to important pedagogical practices.

The Journal for Research in Mathematics Education is published online five times a year—January, March, May, July, and November—at 1906 Association Dr., Reston, VA 20191-1502. Each volume’s index is in the November issue. JRME is indexed in Contents Pages in Education, Current Index to Journals in Education, Education Index, Psychological Abstracts, Social Sciences Citation Index, and MathEduc.

An official journal of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), JRME is the premier research journal in mathematics education and is devoted to the interests of teachers and researchers at all levels--preschool through college. JRME presents a variety of viewpoints. The views expressed or implied in JRME are not the official position of the Council unless otherwise noted.

JRME is a forum for disciplined inquiry into the teaching and learning of mathematics. The editors encourage submissions including:

• Research reports, addressing important research questions and issues in mathematics education,
• Brief reports of research,
• Research commentaries on issues pertaining to mathematics education research.

More information about each type of submission is available here . If you have questions about the types of manuscripts JRME publishes, please contact [email protected].

Editorial Board

The  JRME  Editorial Board consists of the Editorial Team and Editorial Panel.  The Editorial team, led by JRME Editor Patricio Herbst, leads the review, decision and editorial/publication process for manuscripts.  The Editorial Panel reviews manuscripts, sets policy for the journal, and continually seeks feedback from readers. The following are members of the current JRME Editorial Board.

Editorial Staff   

Editorial Panel  

International Advisory Board   

Headquarters Journal Staff  

The editors of the  Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (JRME)  encourage the submission of a variety of manuscripts.

Manuscripts must be submitted through the JRME Online Submission and Review System . 

Research Reports

JRME publishes a wide variety of research reports that move the field of mathematics education forward. These include, but are not limited to, various genres and designs of empirical research; philosophical, methodological, and historical studies in mathematics education; and literature reviews, syntheses, and theoretical analyses of research in mathematics education. Papers that review well for JRME generally include these Characteristics of a High-Quality Manuscript . The editors strongly encourage all authors to consider these characteristics when preparing a submission to JRME. 

The maximum length for Research Reports is 13,000 words including abstract, references, tables, and figures.

Brief Reports

Brief reports of research are appropriate when a fuller report is available elsewhere or when a more comprehensive follow-up study is planned.

• A brief report of a first study on some topic might stress the rationale, hypotheses, and plans for further work.
• A brief report of a replication or extension of a previously reported study might contrast the results of the two studies, referring to the earlier study for methodological details.
• A brief report of a monograph or other lengthy nonjournal publication might summarize the key findings and implications or might highlight an unusual observation or methodological approach.
• A brief report might provide an executive summary of a large study.

The maximum length for Brief Reports is 5,000 words including abstract, references, tables, and figures. If source materials are needed to evaluate a brief report manuscript, a copy should be included.

Other correspondence regarding manuscripts for Research Reports or Brief Reports should be sent to

Ilana Seidel Horn, JRME Editor, [email protected] .

Research Commentaries

The journal publishes brief (5,000 word), peer-reviewed commentaries on issues that reflect on mathematics education research as a field and steward its development. Research Commentaries differ from Research Reports in that their focus is not to present new findings or empirical results, but rather to comment on issues of interest to the broader research community. 

Research Commentaries are intended to engage the community and increase the breadth of topics addressed in  JRME . Typically, Research Commentaries —

• address mathematics education research as a field and endeavor to move the field forward;
• speak to the readers of the journal as an audience of researchers; and
• speak in ways that have relevance to all mathematics education researchers, even when addressing a particular point or a particular subgroup.

Authors of Research Commentaries should share their perspectives while seeking to invite conversation and dialogue, rather than close off opportunities to learn from others, especially those whose work they might be critiquing. 

Foci of Research Commentaries vary widely. They may include, but are not restricted to the following:

• Discussion of connections between research and NCTM-produced documents
• Advances in research methods
• Discussions of connections among research, policy, and practice
• Analyses of trends in policies for funding research
• Examinations of evaluation studies
• Critical essays on research publications that have implications for the mathematics education research community
• Interpretations of previously published research in JRME that bring insights from an equity lens
• Exchanges among scholars holding contrasting views about research-related issues

Read more about Research Commentaries in our May 2023 editorial . 

The maximum length for Research Commentaries is 5,000 words, including abstract, references, tables, and figures.

Other correspondence regarding Research Commentary manuscripts should be sent to: 

Tesha Sengupta-Irving, JRME Research Commentary Editor, [email protected] .

Editorial Policies

Appeals Process Policy

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy

Tools for Authors

The forms below provide information to authors and help ensure that NCTM complies with all copyright laws: 

Student Work Release

Photographer Copyright Release

Video Permission

Want to Review?

Find more information in this flyer  about how to become a reviewer for JRME . 

The  Journal for Research in Mathematics Education  is available to individuals as part of an  NCTM membership  or may be accessible through an  institutional subscription .

The  Journal for Research in Mathematics Education  ( JRME ), an official journal of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), is the premier research journal in math education and devoted to the interests of teachers and researchers at all levels--preschool through college.

JRME is published five times a year—January, March, May, July, and November—and presents a variety of viewpoints.  Learn more about   JRME .

© 2024 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)

Powered by: PubFactory

• [195.158.225.230]
• 195.158.225.230

Character limit 500 /500

Trends in mathematics education and insights from a meta-review and bibliometric analysis of review studies

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 15 May 2024
• Volume 56 , pages 165–188, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Mustafa Cevikbas   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7844-4707 1 ,
• Gabriele Kaiser 2 , 3 &
• Stanislaw Schukajlow 4  

2625 Accesses

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Review studies are vital for advancing knowledge in many scientific fields, including mathematics education, amid burgeoning publications. Based on an extensive consideration of existing review typologies, we conducted a meta-review and bibliometric analysis to provide a comprehensive overview of and deeper insights into review studies within mathematics education. After searching Web of Science, we identified 259 review studies, revealing a significant increase in such studies over the last five years. Systematic reviews were the most prevalent type, followed by meta-analyses, generic literature reviews, and scoping reviews. On average, the review studies had a sample size of 99, with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines commonly employed. Despite certain studies offering nuanced distinctions among review types, ambiguity persisted. Only about a quarter of the studies explicitly reported employing specific theoretical frameworks (particularly, technology, knowledge, and competence models). Co-authored publications were most common within American institutions and the leading countries are the United States, Germany, China, Australia, and England in publishing most review studies. Educational review journals, educational psychology journals, special education journals, educational technology journals, and mathematics education journals provided platforms for review studies, and prominent research topics included digital technologies, teacher education, mathematics achievement, and learning disabilities. In this study, we synthesised a range of reviews to facilitate readers’ comprehension of conceptual congruities and disparities across various review types, as well as to track current research trends. The results suggest that there is a need for discipline-specific standards and guidelines for different types of mathematics education reviews, which may lead to more high-quality review studies to enhance progress in mathematics education.

Similar content being viewed by others

Looking Back and Taking Stock: Reflections on the MERGA Research Review 2012–2015

Educational Studies in Mathematics: Shaping the Field

Adult education in mathematics and numeracy: a scoping review of recent research

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Comprehensive literature reviews serve as foundational pillars for advancing scholarly discourse, offering critical insights into existing research and shaping future inquiries across disciplines. In the realm of academic writing, spanning from journal articles to dissertations, literature reviews are highly regarded for their capacity to synthesize knowledge, identify gaps, and provide a cohesive framework for understanding complex topics (Boote & Beile, 2005 ). Moreover, reviews play a significant role in academia by setting new research agendas and informing decision-making processes in practice, policy, and society (Kunisch et al., 2023 ).

As empirical and theoretical research burgeons in diverse fields, the need for literature review studies has become even more pronounced, facilitating a deeper understanding of specific research areas or themes (Hart, 2018 ; Nane et al., 2023 ). Additional factors contributing to the popularity of review studies in recent years include the rise of specialized review journals (Kunisch et al., 2023 ), challenges associated with conducting various types of empirical studies during the prolonged COVID-19 crisis (Cevikbas & Kaiser, 2023 ), and a competitive research climate wherein factors such as impact factors and citations hold significant weight (Ketcham & Crawford, 2007 ). Review studies are particularly attractive as they often garner a substantial number of citations, thereby enhancing researchers’ visibility and scholarly impact (Grant & Booth, 2009 ; Taherdoost, 2023 ).

The importance of review studies has been duly acknowledged in mathematics education, as evidenced by the inclusion of review papers in thematically oriented special issues of journals such as ZDM– Mathematics Education (Kaiser & Schukajlow, 2024 ), which has been originally founded as review journal. Several upcoming or already published special issues of ZDM– Mathematics Education , which emphasise ‘reviews on important themes in mathematics education’, highlight the importance of review studies as valuable contributions to the field.

The proliferation of literature reviews has increased interest in developing typologies to categorise them and understand different literature review approaches (Grant & Booth, 2009 ; Paré et al., 2015 ; Schryen & Sperling, 2023 ). Despite its significance, there remains a notable lack of research aimed at comprehensively understanding review studies within the field of mathematics education from a meta-perspective. In response to this gap, we conducted a systematic meta-review with the aim of providing an overview of different types of review studies in mathematics education over the past few decades and consolidating insights from multiple high-level review studies (Becker & Oxman, 2008 ; Schryen & Sperling, 2023 ). Meta-reviews offer concise yet comprehensive synopses and curated lists of pertinent reviews, adeptly addressing the perennial challenge of balancing thorough coverage with focused specificity (Grant & Booth, 2009 ).

In addition, we applied bibliometric analysis as a valuable tool for identifying research trends, progress, reliable sources, and future directions within the field. The bibliometric analysis aids in identifying hot research topics and trends (Song et al., 2019 ), assessing progress, identifying reliable sources, recognising major contributors, and predicting future research success (Geng et al., 2017 ). Furthermore, it helps researchers to pinpoint potential topics, suitable institutions for cooperation, and potential scholars for scientific collaboration (Martínez et al., 2015 ). By combining a meta-review and bibliometric analysis, we aim to offer a comprehensive overview of and deeper insights into state-of-the-art review studies within mathematics education.

Specifically, we seek to understand how the distribution and development of literature review studies in mathematics education have evolved over the years, examining factors such as publication years, publishers, review types, sample sizes, and the use of theoretical or conceptual frameworks. Additionally, we aim to assess adherence to review study guidelines and protocols, providing insights into the rigor and quality of research methodologies employed, particularly in light of the lack of clear guidance on producing rigorous and impactful literature reviews (Kunisch et al., 2023 ).

Furthermore, we endeavour to identify authors who have made contribution to the field of mathematics education through review studies, as well as those whose work is most frequently cited. We also identify co-authorship network analysis as understanding research networks allows researchers to identify potential collaborators and build partnerships with other scholars in various countries. Collaborative research endeavours can lead to enhanced research outcomes, broader dissemination of findings, and increased opportunities for funding and professional development. It can also highlight interdisciplinary connections and collaborations within and across fields, leading to innovative approaches and solutions to complex research questions (RQs) that transcend disciplinary boundaries.

Moreover, we analysed the distribution of common keywords across review studies, identifying focal subjects and thematic areas prevalent in mathematics education research. This analysis can provide valuable insights into key topics and trends shaping the field, guiding future research directions and priorities.

Lastly, we identified the most cited review papers in mathematics education and the journals in which they have been published, recognizing seminal works and influential publications that have contributed to the advancement of the field.

Overall, in light of the preceding discourse, we addressed the following RQs to uncover the characteristics of review studies, identify research trends, and delineate future research directions in mathematics education:

How can the distribution and development of review studies in mathematics education over time be characterised according to the number of manuscripts, publishers, review types, sample sizes, the use of theoretical or conceptual frameworks, and adherence to review study guidelines and protocols?

Which authors have contributed the largest number of review studies in mathematics education, and which authors’ review papers are most frequently cited in the literature?

From which countries are the authors of the review studies in mathematics education?

Which author keywords can be identified in the review studies in mathematics education, how are these keywords distributed across the analysed review studies, and which focal topics do these keywords indicate?

What are the most cited review papers in mathematics education, and in which journals have they been published?

2 Literature review studies and review typologies– background information

In this chapter, we provide a thorough analysis of different typologies for review studies, as we seek to elucidate the primary characteristics of various review studies conducted within mathematics education (Sect.  2.1 ). This effort led to the identification of 28 review types presented in Table  1 , which were used in the current study’s literature search processes to access existing review studies and the analysis of identified studies in the field of mathematics education. Furthermore, we discuss the advancement of guidelines and protocols, highlighting their role in shaping the conduct of review studies (Sect. 2.2). Finally, we conclude the chapter by underscoring the importance and potential impact of meta-reviews and bibliometric analyses in the context of mathematics education (Sect. 2.3).

2.1 Literature review typologies

Researchers have defined and emphasized different review types with distinct features, objectives, and methodologies. To address the challenge of ambiguous review categorisations, we conducted an extensive search and analysis of the literature on Web of Science (WoS) using the search strings ‘typology of reviews’ and ‘taxonomy of reviews’ to search the titles of studies. We focused particularly on influential theoretical, conceptual, and review papers discussing the taxonomy and typology of review studies and recent advances driven by scholars across diverse fields.

2.1.1 Seminal work by Grant and Booth ( 2009 ) on the discourse of literature review typologies

The categorisation of literature reviews has been profoundly influenced by the seminal work of Grant and Booth ( 2009 ), on which typologies of literature reviews are often based. Their paper garnered significant attention, with over 10,304 citations as of 20 April 2024 according to Google Scholar. Originally in the field of health information theory and practice, these authors founded their work on earlier approaches, notably Cochrane’s ( 1979 ) approach. Grant and Booth ( 2009 ) claimed that the developed typology could standardise the diverse terminology used. They distinguished 14 review types, which we summarise below, highlighting the main scope and search methodologies (Grant & Booth, 2009 , pp. 94–95):

A critical review ‘goes beyond mere description of identified articles and includes a degree of analysis and conceptual innovation’; no formalised or systematic approach is required because the aim of such a review is ‘to identify conceptual contributions to embody existing or derive new theory’.

A generic literature review incorporates ‘published materials that provide examination of recent of current literature’; comprehensive searching may or may not be necessary.

A mapping review/systematic mapping is used to ‘categorize existing literature’ and identify gaps in the research literature. The completeness of a search is important, but no formal quality assessment is needed.

A meta-analysis is a ‘technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results’; a comprehensive search is conducted based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

A mixed-studies review/mixed-methods review incorporates ‘a combination of review approaches, for example combining quantitative with qualitative research… and requires a very sensitive search’.

An overview is a generic term describing a ‘summary of the… literature that attempts to survey the literature and describe its characteristics’; it may or may not include comprehensive searching and quality assessment.

A qualitative systematic review/qualitative evidence synthesis is a ‘method for integrating or comparing the findings from qualitative studies’, and it may involve selective sampling.

A rapid review comprises an ‘assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research’; a characteristic of such a review is that the ‘completeness of searching is determined by time constraints’.

A scoping review is a ‘preliminary assessment of the potential size and scope of available research literature’, with the ‘completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints’.

A state-of-the-art review ‘tend[s] to address more current matters in contrast to other combined retrospective and current approaches’ and ‘aims for comprehensive searching of current literature’.

A systematic review ‘seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesise research evidence’ and should be comprehensive and based on inclusion/exclusion criteria.

A systematic search and review ‘combines [the] strengths of critical review with a comprehensive search process’, typically addressing broad questions to produce ‘best evidence synthesis’ based on ‘exhaustive, comprehensive searching’.

A systematised review ‘include[s] elements of systematic review process while stopping short of systematic review’, ‘typically conducted as postgraduate student assignment’; it ‘may or may not include comprehensive searching’.

An umbrella review ‘specifically refers to review compiling evidence from multiple reviews into one accessible and usable document’ via ‘identification of component reviews, but no search for primary studies’. ‘Primary studies’ refer to original research studies or individual studies conducted by researchers to gather data first-hand.

Booth with colleagues later expanded the typology by introducing the concept of a review family construct and amalgamating various types of reviews for further refinement, such as traditional reviews, systematic reviews, review of reviews, rapid reviews, mixed-methods reviews, and purpose-specific reviews (for details, see Sutton et al., 2019 ).

2.1.2 Further development of the review typologies

Many classifications for review studies have been developed, and in the following section, we present more recent approaches. Paré et al. ( 2015 ), in another highly cited study (2,059 Google Scholar citations as of 20 April 2024) considered seven recurrent dimensions: the goal of the review, the scope of the review questions, the search strategy, the nature of the primary sources, the explicitness of the study selection, quality appraisal, and the methods used to analyse/synthesise the findings. Based on these dimensions, they formulated nine different literature review types: narrative reviews, descriptive reviews, scoping/mapping reviews, meta-analyses, qualitative systematic reviews, umbrella reviews, critical reviews, theoretical reviews, and realist reviews.

In Paré et al.’s ( 2015 ) classification, the review categories that differ from Grant and Booth’s ( 2009 ) classification are theoretical reviews, realist reviews, narrative reviews, and descriptive reviews, which we therefore describe them briefly. A theoretical review draws on conceptual and empirical studies to develop a conceptual framework or model using structured approaches, such as taxonomies, to discover patterns or commonalities. The aim of a realist review (also called a meta-narrative review) is to formulate explanations; such reviews ‘are theory-driven interpretative reviews which were developed to inform, enhance, extend, or alternatively supplement conventional systematic reviews by making sense of heterogeneous evidence about complex interventions applied in diverse contexts in a way that informs policy decision making’ (Paré et al., 2015 , p. 188). The purpose of a narrative review is to survey the existing literature on a particular subject or topic without necessarily seeking generalisations or cumulative insights from the material reviewed (Davies, 2000 ). Typically, such reviews do not detail the underpinning review processes or involve systematic and exhaustive searches of all pertinent literature. This category resembles Grant and Booth’s ( 2009 ) description of ‘literature reviews’ and overlaps with Samnani et al.’s ( 2017 ) narrative reviews, literature reviews, and overviews, resulting in a somewhat ambiguous typology. The aim of a descriptive review is to identify patterns and trends across a set of empirical studies within a specific research field, encompassing pre-existing propositions, theories, methodological approaches, or findings. To accomplish this objective, descriptive reviews collect, structure, and analyse numerical data that reflect the frequency distribution of research elements.

MacEntee ( 2019 ), Samnani et al. ( 2017 ), Schryen et al. ( 2020 ), and Taherdoost ( 2023 ) corroborated Grant and Booth’s ( 2009 ) and Paré et al.’s ( 2015 ) classifications, identifying various common review categories (see Table  1 ). In Samnani et al.’s ( 2017 ) classification, a distinct review type based on the previously mentioned categories is meta-synthesis , the aim of which is to provide explanations for phenomena, in contrast to meta-analysis, which focuses on quantitative outcomes.

Later, Schryen and Sperling ( 2023 ) introduced a slightly revised typology of literature review studies, which they applied to a meta-review of operations research. Their study distinguished nine types of literature reviews, newly introduced categories included tutorial reviews, selective reviews, algorithmic reviews, computational reviews, and meta-reviews. The objective of a tutorial review is to offer a research-oriented summary of principles, mathematical fundamentals, and concepts, aiming to inspire and direct future research endeavours. The authors’ emphasis on foundational aspects has often provided a launching pad for research advances. A selective review typically has a limited scope because it is not based on a thorough search of all relevant literature. This type of review concentrates on specific segments of the literature, such as journals, time periods, methodologies, or issues, to delve deeper into specific questions and phenomena. An algorithmic review focuses on advances in algorithms and frameworks in the literature that address a spectrum of problems. It employs either selective or comprehensive search strategies, predominantly examining algorithm-related sources. A computational review investigates algorithms and/or parameterisations proposed in the literature, largely considering implementations and computational studies, measurement efficiency, effectiveness, and different forms of robustness. Finally, Schryen and Sperling ( 2023 ) defined a meta-review as an overview of systematic reviews or a systematic review of reviews and pointed out that a meta-review can also be called an umbrella review (which is the case by Grant and Booth), again confirming the fuzzy nature of the currently available typologies. According to Schryen and Sperling ( 2023 ), meta-reviews primarily aim to furnish descriptive overviews of literature reviews, serving as tertiary studies that integrate evidence from multiple (qualitative or quantitative) reviews into unified and user-friendly documents (Becker & Oxman, 2008 ; Paré et al., 2015 ). In contrast to the previously mentioned perspectives, Schryen and Sperling ( 2023 ) argued that meta-reviews are not limited to addressing specific research questions but can also address a wide range of enquiries.

Chigbu et al. ( 2023 , pp. 5–6) emphasised that there ‘is a continuum of literature types’ (p. 4) and distinguished twelve different types of literature reviews, six of which were not covered by the classifications provided by previously mentioned studies: integrated reviews, interpretative reviews, iterative reviews, semi-systematic reviews, and bibliometric reviews. According to their approach, an integrative review builds ‘new knowledge based on the existing body of literature following a rationalist perspective’, an interpretative review ‘interprets what other scholars have written to put into specific perspectives’, and an iterative review is an ‘algorithm-based approach performed to collate all studies in a specific field of research’. Moreover, a meta-synthesis review examines and analyses qualitative study findings and is often employed to clarify specific concepts. Additionally, a semi-systematic review analyses the data and findings of other studies to address specific research inquiries, using a partial systematic review methodology. Lastly, a bibliometric review systematically examines the literature on a specific subject or research discipline by quantitatively measuring indicators such as authors, citations, journals, countries, and years of publications.

As previously noted in this paper, this detailed description of review types is instrumental in facilitating our investigation of various review studies in the realm of mathematics education.

2.2 Advancements in guidelines and protocols for review studies

Various researchers have developed guidelines, protocols, and statements to assist authors in conducting, evaluating, and reporting their review studies. This academic endeavour has predominantly focused on enhancing the rigour and transparency of systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and, more recently, scoping reviews. For instance, the population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) model, originally conceived to support evidence-based healthcare, serves as a cornerstone for establishing review criteria, crafting research questions and search strategies, and delineating the characteristics of included studies or meta-analyses (Richardson et al., 1995 ). In response to the observed deficiencies in reporting standards within meta-analyses, an international consortium introduced the Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses (QUOROM) statement in 1996, primarily to enhance the reporting quality of meta-analyses involving randomised controlled trials (Moher et al., 1999 ). Subsequently, Moher et al. ( 2009 ) updated these guidelines, which are now known as the PRISMA guidelines, and incorporated various conceptual and methodological advances in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Additionally, Shea et al. ( 2007 ) introduced the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist to evaluate methodological quality and guide the conduct of systematic reviews, while Grant and Booth ( 2009 ) developed the search, appraisal, synthesis, and analysis (SALSA) framework to analyse and characterise review types. Most recently, Page et al. ( 2021 ) updated the PRISMA guidelines, providing updated reporting standards that reflect advances in methods for identifying, selecting, appraising, and synthesising studies, with the aim of promoting more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. An extension of PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews, known as PRISMA-ScR, aids readers in understanding relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items for reporting scoping reviews (Tricco et al., 2018 ). Despite the value of these efforts, further studies are warranted, particularly comprehensive guidelines for each type of review studies.

2.3 Literature reviews in mathematics education

The preceding section delineates various types of review studies, underscoring their key methodological attributes. Within the realm of mathematics education, akin to other disciplines, literature review studies, particularly systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, received considerable attention (Cevikbas et al., 2022 ; Cevikbas & Kaiser, 2023 ; Kaiser & Schukajlow, 2024 ). However, the understanding of the prevailing characteristics of review studies in mathematics education, including prevalent review types, trends, gaps, and avenues for future improvement, remains limited.

Meta-reviews can offer a promising avenue for pinpointing research gaps, evaluating evidence quality, and informing policy and intervention strategies and guiding evidence-based decision-making processes by synthesizing findings from multiple review studies (Schryen & Sperling, 2023 ). In addition to meta-reviews, the bibliometric analyses serve to ascertain the scope of prior research, discern contemporary review trends, identify literature gaps, and propose future research agendas (Chigbu et al., 2023 ). While meta-reviews provide a comprehensive assessment of the literature, bibliometric analyses aid in systematically screening literature on a specific subject, topic, or research discipline by quantitatively measuring various indicators such as authors, citations, journals, countries, and years of publication. These methodological approaches hold promise for instituting a systematic, transparent, and reproducible review process, thereby augmenting the overall quality of reviews in mathematics education. Bibliometric techniques serve as valuable tools in literature reviews, guiding researchers by pinpointing influential works and impartially mapping the research landscape prior to in-depth exploration (Zupic & Cater, 2015 ).

Despite their significance, meta-reviews and bibliometric analyses remain seldom within the domain of mathematics education, signifying a substantial gap in the literature. Our comprehensive literature review underscores an urgent need for meta-review studies encompassing literature review studies in the realm of mathematics education. Additionally, while no bibliometric analysis study specifically focusing on review studies in mathematics education was identified, several bibliometric studies in mathematics education on various topics were noted, such as mathematics anxiety (Radevic & Milovanovic, 2023 ), problem-solving (Suseelan et al., 2022 ), and teacher noticing (Wei et al., 2023 ).

Overall, there exists a compelling need for meta-reviews enriched by bibliometric analyses to explore the current state of literature review research in mathematics education, and the current study aims to address this gap in a timely manner.

3 Methodology

3.1 literature search and manuscript selection process.

In this study, following the latest PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021 ), we aimed to conduct a systematic review of previous review studies in mathematics education. Specifically, we employed the meta-review (umbrella review) method supplemented by bibliometric analyses. We processed the manuscript selection under three stages: identification, screening, and included.

3.1.1 Identification

On 10 January 2024 (last access), we conducted an extensive literature search using the WoS electronic database, which includes publications in high-ranking peer-reviewed journals and is widely acknowledged as a primary source of review and bibliometric data that meet high quality standards (Korom, 2019 ). WoS facilitates effective literature searches, supports various information purposes, and aids research topic mapping, trend monitoring as well as scholarly activity analysis (Birkle et al., 2020 ).

To comprehensively identify potentially relevant review studies in mathematics education, we developed an inclusive search query targeting specific terms in the titles, abstracts, and keywords of papers. The query comprised terms that we extracted from the typologies of literature reviews described in Chap. 2, particularly the more general, commonly used types of reviews:

( TOPIC ) ((literature review*OR literature survey* OR systematic review* OR rapid review* OR scoping review* OR critical review* OR meta-analysis OR narrative review* OR umbrella review* OR meta review* OR meta-review OR bibliometric review OR bibliometric analysis OR mapping review OR mixed-methods review OR integrative review OR interpretative review OR iterative review OR meta-synthesis OR descriptive review OR theoretical review OR realist review OR selective review OR algorithmic review OR computational review)) AND ( TOPIC ) ((math* OR geometry OR algebra OR calculus OR probability OR statistics OR arithmetic).

Based on these search strings, we conducted an online search that initially yielded 63,462 records.

3.1.2 Screening

In this stage, we applied data cleaning filters based on the manuscript inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Table  2 ). First, we electronically filtered the identified records based on language, resulting in the retention of 61,787 papers published in English. Subsequently, we narrowed down the selection to 10,098 papers using the following five categories of research areas within the WoS: ‘education/educational research, psychology, social sciences other topics, mathematics, or science technology other topics’. Following this categorisation, we further refined the dataset by excluding non-review papers and accessing 3,344 records within the ‘review article’ and ‘early access’ categories of the WoS database. We categorised records lacking a final publication date that had undergone peer review and acceptance as ‘early access’. Notably, to comprehensively capture publication trends, we imposed no restrictions on the publication years of the studies. In the subsequent phase, a meticulous manual screening of the titles, abstracts, and keywords of 3,344 papers led to the identification of 357 studies in mathematics education.

3.1.3 Included

Ultimately, after an extensive review of the full-text versions of initially identified 357 papers, 259 eligible review articles remained for analysis as these papers fulfilled our criteria comprehensively (see the Appendix for the list of included studies; see Fig.  1 for the flow diagram of the entire manuscript selection process). Subsequently, as detailed below, the data analysis process commenced with the inclusion of these eligible review papers in mathematics education.

Flow diagram of the manuscript selection process

3.2 Data analysis

After incorporating 259 studies into this meta-review and bibliometric analysis, we compiled the identified records into a marked list on WoS. Subsequently, we exported the records into Excel, EndNote, and plain text file formats for analysis. The analysis consisted of content analysis and bibliometric analysis (see Fig.  2 , adapted from Wei et al., 2023 ).

For the content analysis, we meticulously organised the records using EndNote reference management software and Excel worksheets. We scrutinised the full-text versions of all included articles, coding them based on (1) publication year, (2) publisher, (3) review type, (4) number of included studies (sample size), (5) guidelines and protocols for the article selection process, and (6) the theoretical and conceptual framework of the studies.

Our coding manual, informed by prior studies (Cevikbas et al., 2022 , 2024 ), guided this process (see appendix for a sample of the coding manual). After completing the content analysis coding procedure, 20% of the papers ( n  = 52) were double-coded based on the initial coding protocol. The intercoder reliability, gauged at 0.92, signifies the presence of a coding system that exhibits satisfactory reliability (Creswell, 2013 ). Any discrepancies were addressed through discussions among the coders until consensus was reached.

For the bibliometric analysis, we employed VOSviewer software (version 1.6.20), which is widely recognised and extensively used in various fields, including the educational sciences (van Eck & Waltman, 2010 ). Chigbu et al. ( 2023 ) pointed out that the WoS database plays a pivotal role in facilitating bibliometric analyses across various disciplines. These analyses help establish trends in the development and application of knowledge within specific subjects and disciplines.

In our study, the bibliometric network presented in the results chapter consists of nodes and edges, with nodes representing entities such as publications, journals, researchers, or keywords. Edges denote relationships between pairs of nodes, indicating not only the presence or absence of connections but also conveying the intensity or strength of relationships (van Eck & Waltman, 2010 ). For distance-based approaches, the positioning of nodes in a bibliometric network reflects their approximate relatedness based on proximity.

Utilising VOSviewer software, we conducted (1) co-authorship analysis (authors and countries) to elucidate collaboration patterns and contributions, (2) co-occurrence analysis (focusing Author Keywords) to scrutinise knowledge structures and the distribution and development of key research topics in mathematics education, and (3) citation analysis to delve deeper into research influences and citation networks, drawing insights from the documents and sources.

This multifaceted approach allowed us to gain a comprehensive understanding of the bibliometric landscape and unravel collaborative structures, thematic foci, and the influence of key works on mathematics education.

Analytical process for this study

In this chapter, we present the key results of the meta-review and bibliometric analyses divided into two main categories: an overview of the review studies in mathematics education based on the content analysis, addressing RQ1, and the results of the bibliometric analysis, addressing RQ2 – RQ5.

4.1 Overview of review studies in mathematics education (RQ1)

To discern the research trends and essential attributes of review studies in mathematics education, we conducted a content analysis within our meta-review to examine the 259 included review studies. Our analysis encompassed publication years, publishers, review types, guidelines, protocols used, sample sizes, and the theoretical and conceptual frameworks employed in these review studies. A general overview of the included studies is presented in Table  3 .

Our literature search with no restriction on the publication years yielded review studies published between 1996 and 2023, with a notable increase within the last five years (2019–2023, see Fig.  3 ).

Distribution of publications from 1996 to 2023

The analysis showed that the Springer Group is the primary publisher of review articles in mathematics education, followed by Taylor & Francis, Elsevier, Sage, Frontiers, Wiley, MDPI, and the American Psychological Association (APA) (see Table  4 ). Other publishers published the remaining review articles ( n  = 43). This result may be attributed to the predominance of mathematics education journals published by Springer within the WoS database.

To explore the prevailing types of review studies in mathematics education, we scrutinised the review methodologies of the included studies, considering the review types presented earlier in Table  1 . The findings revealed that researchers conducted (according to their own classification) 10 different types of reviews in mathematics education as outlined in Fig.  4 .

Types of review studies Note: *systematic reviews and meta-analyses ( n  = 6), systematic reviews and bibliometric analyses ( n  = 3), meta-analyses and narrative reviews ( n  = 2), and meta-analysis and critical review ( n  = 1)

Our analysis did not yield further review types in mathematics education. Time-related analysis showed that recent studies were systematic reviews, meta-analyses, literature reviews, and scoping reviews, whereas early examples of review studies in mathematics education were primarily narrative or critical reviews or were not explicitly classified according to review type by their authors. Figure  4 shows that some researchers ( n  = 18) described their studies as literature reviews using Grant and Booth’s ( 2009 ) generic term, without providing further details about the type of review.

To comprehend the methodologies employed by researchers to conduct reviews and select eligible studies, we conducted an analysis of the guidelines and protocols the researchers used. The findings revealed that the PRISMA guidelines were the most frequently employed ( n  = 121), aligning with the distribution of review types—PRISMA guidelines are basically recommended for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Page et al., 2021 ). For scoping reviews, the guidelines developed by Arksey and O’Malley ( 2005 ) were the most prevalent and were used in seven studies. In six instances, researchers applied various guidelines (e.g. PICO or SALSA guidelines) sourced from the literature. Almost half of the studies ( n  = 125) did not specify the use of guidelines for conducting literature searches and selecting eligible studies. Additionally, three studies aimed to provide protocols for conducting review studies. Furthermore, seven studies were preregistered as review studies, following the Open Science Framework (OSF) and/or the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) protocol.

A prevalent discourse among researchers in review studies revolved around determining the most suitable number of studies to include in reviews. Our results revealed that the sample sizes of the included studies (i.e. the number of primary studies) in the field of mathematics education ranged from 8 to 3,485. Unfortunately, this information was not reported in 19 review articles. In the remaining 240 review articles, the average was 99 included studies, with an overall total of 23,761. Most of the studies ( n  = 202) had sample sizes of less than 100, with an average of 34 (see Table  5 ). Although we harboured concerns that the review studies identified in this investigation might not have been aptly named and conceptualised by their authors, we deliberately refrained from addressing this issue because it fell outside the scope of our study. While including a substantial number of studies is common and potentially suitable for bibliometric analyses and meta-analyses, conducting a systematic review, scoping review, or narrative review that critically analyses exceptionally high volumes of studies may pose challenges. In this meta-review, for example, we observed that five articles included more than 1,000 studies in the review process. Two studies, enriched by bibliometric analysis, took this approach, while another study was identified by the authors as a scoping review with a sample size of 2,433. Additionally, two studies were labelled as systematic reviews with sample sizes of 1,968, and 3,485, respectively.

Finally, we conducted a content analysis to scrutinise the theoretical and conceptual frameworks underpinning the included review studies in mathematics education. The findings revealed that out of 259 review studies, only 61 incorporated any theoretical or conceptual framework. Notably, a subset of studies ( n  = 14) was based on technology-related conceptual frameworks, such as Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), frameworks pertaining to augmented and virtual reality, embodied design, artificial intelligence, big data, and the European Framework for the Digital Competence for Educators (DigCompEdu). Another prevalent category ( n  = 10) relied on frameworks related to the knowledge and competence of individuals (e.g. teachers and/or students), encompassing models such as the competence as continuum framework, TPACK, the didactic-mathematical knowledge and competencies model, mathematical content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, mathematical knowledge for teaching, teacher noticing competence, and an integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theories (e.g. ecological theory of human development, bioecological model of human development, ecological systems theory, and ecological dynamics—a blend of dynamic-systems theory and ecological psychology) were employed by researchers in five review studies in mathematics education. In a limited subset of the studies, social and cultural theories (e.g. sociocultural theory, social learning theory, and cultural activity theory ( n  = 3)), cognitive theories (e.g. cognitive developmental theory ( n  = 2)), affective theories (e.g. self-determination theory and expectancy-value theory ( n  = 2)), linguistic theories ( n  = 2), and constructivist theories ( n  = 2) were used as frameworks. Additionally, researchers used conceptual frameworks concerning computational thinking ( n  = 2) and engagement ( n  = 3) alongside a few less frequently reported frameworks.

4.2 Results of the bibliometric analysis (RQ2–RQ5)

To identify productive and most cited authors, important journals, and countries of origin of the authors, along with the underlying research collaborations between researchers and countries, as well as research trends and key topics of review studies in mathematics education, we conducted a bibliometric analysis based on co-authorship, co-occurrence, and citations.

4.2.1 Co-authorship analysis

We conducted a co-authorship analysis according to authors and countries within the units of analysis.

Co-authorship and author analysis

The bibliometric analysis, using VOSviewer, revealed that 761 authors contributed to mathematics education, each of whom conducted at least one review study. The review papers were predominantly authored through collaboration, with most being written by two authors (30,2%), followed by three authors (20,2%), four authors (19,4%), a single author (10,1%), five authors (8,9%), six authors (6,2%), seven authors (3,5%), eight authors (1,6%), and nine authors (0,4%). These results showed that researchers primarily collaborate with their colleagues in conducting review studies—a practice vital for reducing workload and enhancing the quality of analyses—with the advantage of incorporating the various perspectives of different authors.

Table  6 highlights the top 17 authors who published a minimum of three review papers each. Notably, Lieven Verschaffel is the only scholar present in both lists of prolific and highly cited authors. The researchers listed in Table  7 , except Lieven Verschaffel, contributed to the field with a single review study. Consequently, while these researchers rank among most cited authors, the low total link strength (TLS) values indicate their limited collaboration with other scholars. The TLS was automatically calculated by VOSviewer and represents the overall intensity of co-authorship connections between a particular researcher and others. According to the co-authorship analysis, it is also noteworthy that many of the highly cited authors’ review studies typically date back over ten years, which is expected as citations tend to accumulate gradually over time. The results from the detailed citation analyses provided in Sect. 4.2.3.

Upon examining the research domains of prolific and highly cited authors, we found a diverse range of topics spanning mathematics education, psychology, educational psychology, special education, and neuroscience. This diversity highlights the interdisciplinary nature of research in mathematics education, with contributions to the literature review studies from psychologists and special education and neuroscience scholars alongside mathematics educators.

Figure  5 shows a co-authorship network map for the authors of the included review studies based on the TLS. We set the minimum number of documents for an author as one, which encompassed 761 authors who contributed to review papers in mathematics education. This bibliometric co-authorship analysis yielded 51 clusters, each containing a minimum of five items (researchers). The prominent co-authorship clusters included a green cluster (led by Lieven Verschaffel), a blue cluster (led by Gabriele Kaiser and Mustafa Cevikbas), a red cluster (led by Nelson Gena), and a yellow cluster (led by Diane P. Bryant). Nelson Gena had the highest number of collaboration links, with a TLS of 26, followed by Lieven Verschaffel (TLS = 22), Gabriele Kaiser (TLS = 16), Soyoung Park (TLS = 16), Tassia Bradford (TLS = 13), Diane P. Bryant (TLS = 12), Johannes König (TLS = 12), Mikyung Shin (TLS = 12), Min Wook Ok (TLS = 12), Bert de Smedt (TLS = 10), Fred Spooner (TLS = 10), Jihyun Lee (TLS = 10), Mustafa Cevikbas (TLS = 10), Rosella Santagata (TLS = 10), Sarah R. Powell (TLS = 10), and Thorsten Scheiner (TLS = 10).

Co-authorship and author networks

Co-authorship and country analysis

We conducted a co-authorship–country analysis, setting the minimum number of documents for a country as one, and identified 50 countries. This selection resulted in five clusters, each containing a minimum of five items (countries).

The most prominent cluster was the green cluster, encompassing eight countries from various global regions: the United States (US; TLS = 30), Germany (TLS = 23), Australia (TLS = 21), China (TLS = 11), South Korea (TLS = 6), Sweden (TLS = 4), New Zealand (TLS = 2), and Jordan (TLS = 1). The US dominated research collaborations both within this cluster and overall.

The red cluster included nine countries, predominantly Nordic and European countries: Norway (TLS = 13), Finland (TLS = 7), Belgium (TLS = 6), the Netherlands (TLS = 6), Lithuania (TLS = 1), Portugal (TLS = 1), Luxembourg (TLS = 1), Scotland (TLS = 1), and Israel (TLS = 1).

The yellow cluster contained seven countries: Canada (TLS = 7), Malaysia (TLS = 7), Denmark (TLS = 3), Libya (TLS = 2), Singapore (TLS = 2), Indonesia (TLS = 1), and the United Arab Emirates (TLS = 1).

The blue cluster primarily highlighted European collaborations and included seven countries: England (TLS = 22), Switzerland (TLS = 4), Italy (TLS = 3), France (TLS = 3), Greece (TLS = 1), Chile (TLS = 1), and Saudi Arabia (TLS = 1).

Lastly, the purple cluster represented a network of predominantly South and North American countries featuring, among others, Brazil (TLS = 6), Ireland (TLS = 5), Mexico (TLS = 4), Ecuador (TLS = 2), and Cuba (TLS = 2)(See Fig. 6 ).

Co-authorship and country networks

4.2.2 Co-occurrence analysis

To explore the research hotspots within mathematics education, we ran a keyword co-occurrence analysis using Author Keywords.

Co-occurrence analysis based on author keywords

The author keyword co-occurrence analysis indicated that our repository contained 691 keywords (see Fig.  7 , left side), of which 23 met the minimum occurrence threshold of five occurrences ( n  = 5) (see Fig.  7 , right side). In the figure, the size of a node corresponds to the frequency of a keyword co-selected in review studies in mathematics education. The distance between any two keywords reflects their relative strength and topic similarity. Nodes within the same colour cluster indicate similar topics among these publications.

The red cluster comprises 11 closely related items, including ‘mathematics, meta-analysis, mathematics achievement, intervention, scoping review, bibliometric analysis, review, technology, learning disabilities, children, and math anxiety’. The green cluster emerges as the second prominent cluster, featuring 8 interrelated items such as ‘mathematics education, systematic review, systematic literature review, literature review, teacher education, education, teaching, and flipped classroom’. Lastly, the blue cluster consists of 4 items, namely ‘math, science, early childhood, and identity’.

Co-occurrence analysis of author keywords

Notably, the most frequently cited author keyword was ‘mathematics education’ ( n  = 55), followed by ‘systematic review’ ( n  = 44), ‘mathematics’ ( n  = 41), ‘meta-analysis’ ( n  = 34), ‘systematic literature review’ ( n  = 14), ‘literature review’ ( n  = 11), ‘teacher education’ ( n  = 9), ‘mathematics achievement’ ( n  = 8), ‘intervention’ ( n  = 6), ‘education’ ( n  = 6), ‘teaching’ ( n  = 6), ‘science’ ( n  = 6), ‘scoping review’ ( n  = 5), ‘bibliometric analysis’ ( n  = 5), ‘review’ ( n  = 5), ‘math’ ( n  = 5), ‘technology’ ( n  = 5), ‘flipped classroom’ ( n  = 5), ‘early childhood’ ( n  = 5), ‘children’ ( n  = 5), ‘identity’ ( n  = 5), ‘learning disabilities’ ( n  = 5), and ‘math anxiety’ ( n  = 6).

The keywords chosen by the authors highlighted the focus areas of reviews in mathematics education, emphasising themes such as mathematics achievement, teacher education, interventions, technology, and technology-enhanced approaches (e.g. flipped classrooms), special education, and early childhood education. Furthermore, the author keywords reflected the prevalent review types in mathematics education, specifically systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Additionally, they highlighted the interdisciplinary nature of reviews in mathematics education, encompassing both mathematics education and science education.

Furthermore, we conducted distinct author keyword co-occurrence analyses for review studies published within the periods of 2019 to 2023 and those preceding 2019, aiming to discern temporal trends in author keywords, particularly in recent years. The analysis yielded 606 keywords for the 2019–2023 period and 144 keywords for the period before 2019 (see Table  8 for the most popular 15 author keywords). A noteworthy disparity in prevalent keywords was observed between the two temporal segments. While predominant keyword regarding the review types prior to 2019 was meta-analysis, followed by literature review and systematic review, over the past five years, additional keywords such as scoping review and bibliometric analysis emerged, signalling an augmentation in the diversity of review types and methodologies. The findings indicated a notable increase in the popularity of systematic reviews over the past five years.

4.2.3 Citation analysis

To explore the most cited publications and journals in mathematics education, we conducted a citation analysis based on the units of analysis in documents and sources.

Citation and document analysis

The analysis of the 259 review papers in mathematics education included in this study indicated that they received a total of 7,050 citations between 1996 and 2023, averaging 251.79 citations per year and 27.22 citations per paper. Notably, 67% of these citations were received in the last five years (2019–2023).

The threshold for the minimum number of citations of documents was set at one, which 221 review studies out of 259 met. Figure  8 visualises the network between these review papers with the largest citation links and Table  9 shows the most cited documents. Not all the studies listed in Table  9 are among the top 10 studies with the highest TLS. Among them, only Gersten et al. ( 2009 ), Cheung and Slavin ( 2008 ), and Slavin and Lake ( 2008 ) are within the top 10 review studies in mathematics education with the highest TLS. While highly cited documents are influential in terms of direct references, the TLS metric provides additional insights into the collaborative relationships and connections between researchers and their work, which may not always correlate perfectly with citation counts as seen in our findings.

Our results showed that the largest number of citation links were for meta-analyses and systematic review studies. The most prominent review type among the most cited studies listed in Table  9 is meta-analysis ( n  = 6), followed by literature review ( n  = 2), systematic review ( n  = 1), and narrative review ( n  = 1). This result indicates the potential of meta-analysis studies in terms of citation performance. Most of these review studies were primarily published in high-ranking educational review journals ( n  = 6). Other review papers published in teacher education ( n  = 2), psychology ( n  = 1), and behavioural science and neuroscience journals ( n  = 1). These ten most cited review articles were all published in SSCI journals over a decade ago. Regarding research topics in the most cited papers, the dominant topics were mathematics achievement, content knowledge, working memory, learning disabilities, and educational technologies.

Specifically, we analysed the citation trends of the most cited 10 review papers over time and separately for the first five years after publication and the past five years (2019–2023). The results indicate a significant increase in the citations review studies have received in the last five years. We found that eight out of the ten most cited papers received more citations in the past five years (2019–2023) than in the first five years after their publication. The analysis revealed that the average annual citations for each paper ranged from 7 to 30. While the majority of these review studies ( n  = 8) received the least citations in the year of their publication, they received the most citations on average approximately 12 years after publication. This indicates that the peak citation period for review articles in mathematics education extends beyond the first decade following their publication.

Additionally, we investigated the ‘Enriched Cited References’ feature, which provides insight into why an author cited a particular reference; this beta enhancement is only available in selected journals (Clarivate, 2024 ). These references are presented to aid readers in quickly assessing sections of a review paper, allowing them to identify the most closely related or impactful references and infer their purpose. Articles containing enriched cited references are marked with the following labels (Clarivate, 2024 ):

Previously published research that contextualizes the current study within an academic domain.

References that supply the datasets, methodologies, concepts, and ideas directly utilized by the author or upon which the author’s work relies.

References introduced because the current study engages in a more thorough discussion.

References cited by the current study as yielding similar results. This may encompass methodological similarities or, in certain instances, replication of findings.

References noted by the current study as presenting contrasting results. This may also involve disparities in methodology or sample differences, influencing the outcomes.

The results, displayed in Table  10 , pertain to the classification of references based on the Enriched Cited References analysis conducted automatically by WoS. These results suggest that the most cited review studies in mathematics education were predominantly utilized by researchers to establish the background for their own research. Furthermore, these reviews also frequently employed to shape the discussion within the papers. In addition, some researchers utilize the mentioned most cited review studies to establish a conceptual, theoretical, or methodological basis. While the limited number of the studies cited these reviews to support their findings, they were not used to present opposing evidence. This suggests a reliance on existing literature review studies to inform, validate, or potentially challenge new research within the field.

Citation and source analysis

We conducted a citation source analysis and present the citation network map for the journals in Fig.  9 , listing the top 15 journals in Table  11 based on the citation and TLS metrics to represent the frequency of citations between articles in any two journals. The threshold for the minimum number of documents citing a source was one, and 103 records met the minimum number of citations of a source, also set at one. The network map shown in Fig.  9 indicates prominent clusters. The red cluster included 23 items (mostly special education, educational psychology, and educational review journals). The blue cluster included 16 items (predominantly educational psychology, educational technology, and educational review journals). The green cluster comprised 17 items (including mathematics and mathematics education journals, educational technology journals, and educational psychology journals).

The number of articles and the distribution of journals across various research fields were as follows: 25 educational sciences journals (43 papers), 20 psychology and educational psychology journals (41 papers), 15 special education journals (32 papers), 12 mathematics education journals (52 papers), 10 educational review journals (41 papers), 9 educational technology journals (28 papers), 3 mathematics journals (14 papers), and 9 other journals (8 articles).

Our findings indicate that ZDM– Mathematics Education ( n  = 16) has, so far, published the most review studies focusing on mathematics education, which is not unexpected due to the origin of the journal as a review journal publishing only special issues, for which a review article is compulsory in each issue. This was followed by Frontiers in Psychology ( n  = 14), Educational Research Review ( n  = 13), and Mathematics ( n  = 10) (see Table  11 for the top 15 journals).

The results highlighted that the most frequently cited papers were often published in specific educational review journals (e.g. Review of Educational Research , Educational Research Review , and Educational Psychology Review ), psychology and educational psychology journals (e.g. Frontiers in Psychology , Educational Psychology Review , European Journal of Cognitive Psychology , and Psychological Bulletin ), special education journals (e.g. Exceptional Children , Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , Learning Disability Quarterly , and Remedial and Special Educati on), educational technology journals (e.g. Computers & Education , Journal of Computer Assisted Learning , and Education and Information Technologies ), and mathematics and mathematics education journals (e.g. ZDM– Mathematics Education , Educational Studies in Mathematics , and Mathematics ).

Although the most visible mathematics education journals in citation network map were ZDM– Mathematics Education and Educational Studies in Mathematics (see Fig.  9 ), as mentioned earlier, twelve mathematics education journals provided platforms for review studies. These were ZDM– Mathematics Education ( n  = 16), Educational Studies in Mathematics ( n  = 5), International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education ( n  = 5), International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology ( n  = 5), International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education ( n  = 3), Mathematics Education Research Journal ( n  = 3), International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education ( n  = 3), International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology ( n  = 3), Journal for Research in Mathematics Education ( n  = 2), Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education ( n  = 1), Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik ( n  = 1), and Research in Mathematics Education ( n  = 1).

5 Discussion, conclusions, and limitations

In this study, we conducted a meta-review of literature review studies in mathematics education, enriched by a comprehensive bibliometric analysis. This paper significantly contributes to scholarly discourse by unravelling nuanced research trends, the most common review methodologies, and prevalent theoretical approaches in review studies in mathematics education. Based on content and bibliometric analysis, it delves into the research foci, providing an understanding of the relevant academic landscape. Additionally, it illuminates intricate connections among researchers, countries, and journals, elucidating collaborative networks in mathematics education research.

5.1 Insights from the meta-review and implications

The findings revealed a significant increase in the number of literature reviews in mathematics education, particularly in the past five years; 79% of the reviews we examined were published during this period. Multiple factors may have contributed to this surge, including researchers’ increased publication output during the pandemic (Cevikbas & Kaiser, 2023 ; Nane et al., 2023 ), challenges in collecting empirical data during the pandemic crisis (Uleanya & Yu, 2023 ), the relatively high citation rates associated with literature review studies, the growing prestige of educational review journals based on their increased impact factors (Miranda & Garcia-Carpintero, 2018 ), and the publication of review-oriented special issues in mathematics education journals.

Our findings revealed a prevalence of systematic reviews and meta-analyses; however, researchers also conducted diverse types of reviews, including scoping reviews, critical reviews, narrative reviews, theoretical reviews, and tutorial reviews. This methodological diversity is important as the advantages of one method can potentially overcome the disadvantages of another and combining different approaches can mitigate disadvantages (Taherdoost, 2023 ). Furthermore, our study revealed that rapid reviews, meta-reviews, umbrella reviews, mapping reviews, mixed-methods reviews, integrative reviews, interpretative reviews, iterative reviews, meta-syntheses, descriptive reviews, realist reviews, selective reviews, algorithmic reviews, and computational reviews indexed in WoS were not represented in mathematics education. The well-established PRISMA guidelines offer a defined framework for systematic reviews and meta-analyses to assist researchers in conducting reviews while adhering to quality and transparency criteria (Moher et al., 2009 ; Page et al., 2021 ). This adherence may have encouraged researchers to undertake such reviews, and future advancements in the development of specific guidelines and methodologies for each review type may further motivate researchers to conduct other types of reviews in mathematics education more frequently.

There were nuanced overlaps between the review types, leading to ambiguous distinctions. For instance, the structural similarity between systematic reviews and scoping reviews has led to misunderstandings. Munn et al. ( 2018 ) confirm inconsistency and confusion regarding the differentiation between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and offered guidelines for this decision-making process: a systematic review is preferable when addressing specific questions regarding the feasibility, appropriateness, significance, or efficacy of a specific treatment or practice. However, if the authors intend to demarcate the research field and explore its potential size and scope, a scoping review is more appropriate. Grant and Booth ( 2009 ) and Munn et al. ( 2018 ) clarified that a scoping review is preparation for a systematic literature review, not a deep study for a systematic literature review. The diverse taxonomies proposed by researchers have contributed to this complexity, with some employing various terms for similar review characteristics, and others applying the same terms to studies with distinct review attributes. Consequently, a consensus regarding the categorisation of review studies, both in a broad context and specifically in mathematics education, remains elusive. We also observed instances of researchers labelling their reviews inaccurately. However, we refrained from judging the appropriateness of these terminologies as they fall outside the scope of our study and may be difficult to justify due to the ambiguity of the current typologies. Borges Migliavaca et al. ( 2020 ) expressed a similar concern, highlighting substantial disparities in review studies concerning their conceptualisation, conduct, reporting, risk of bias assessment, and data synthesis. They called for the evidence synthesis community to promptly develop guidance and reporting standards for review studies. Future researchers could potentially examine inconsistencies in the conducting of review studies and their categorisation in mathematics education. In this study, we distilled the various existing types of review studies to provide clear explanations of the main review types and to help researchers and readers understand the key characteristics of various review studies (see Chap. 2).

An additional noteworthy consideration pertains to the sample sizes of review studies. A prevalent discourse considers the appropriate number of studies to be included in a review, but establishing such a minimum or maximum number may be challenging and not appropriate because this depends on various contextual factors, such as the research area, topic, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and applied protocols. For example, in technical terms, a systematic review can be conducted with as few as two studies or as many as a thousand. A review study with a small sample (e.g. two or three studies) may be due to the literature search methods used or insufficient number of existing studies in a particular field, suggesting a limited demand for such a review. As previously noted, the primary function of review studies is to inform readers in the relevant field about published studies to address the challenge posed by an increasing number of studies and to identify trends and research gaps (Fusar-Poli & Radua, 2018 ). Conversely, although it is technically feasible to include a substantial number of studies in a review (e.g. 1,000 or 2,000), conducting a comprehensive analysis (e.g. content analysis) of such a large dataset can present major time, cost, storage, memory, bias, and security challenges (Cohen et al., 2015 ). Nevertheless, the findings of our study provide insight into this issue. Notably, the sample size of the studies we analysed varied from 8 to 3,485, with an average of 99. Notably, most of these studies (78%) had sample sizes of less than 100, with an average of 34. Although this observation does not serve as a prescriptive recommendation, it offers valuable insights into the typical sample sizes with which mathematics education researchers have tended to work in the past.

Furthermore, as evidenced by our findings, literature reviews may serve various purposes, such as assessing the use of theoretical models or conceptual and methodological approaches, or advancing new theories, concepts, or research models through critical appraisal of previous research within a specific subject area (Cooper, 1988 ). However, our findings also indicate that it is not common in practice to use or develop a theoretical or conceptual framework in mathematics education review studies. Only 24% of the reviewed studies explicitly reported employing a specific framework, and very few sought to formulate a framework based on the literature under scrutiny. The results highlighted the researchers’ interest in frameworks related to technology, knowledge, and competence models. A few studies incorporated grand theories, such as constructivism, sociocultural theory, and cognitive development theory.

It is remarkable that despite focusing on mathematics education, there is a notable scarcity of review studies employing content-specific frameworks in mathematics education, such as those centred on problem-solving, reasoning, and mathematical thinking. Only a minority of the studies used frameworks related to mathematical modelling and mathematical content knowledge. This observation may reflect a gap in the literature, suggesting a need for greater integration of domain-specific frameworks into review studies in mathematics education to enhance the depth and specificity of the studies. Moreover, this trend prompts a critical examination of potential underlying factors. One plausible explanation lies in the interdisciplinary nature of review studies in mathematics education, which draws contributions from diverse fields including psychology, educational technology, special education, and neuroscience. The diverse disciplinary backgrounds of the researchers may influence their preferences for frameworks that are not necessarily specific to mathematics education but rather draw from broader fields.

5.2 Insights from the bibliometric analyses and implications

The bibliometric analysis revealed contributions to mathematics education, with 761 authors from 50 countries conducting review studies. In future studies, researchers may consider conducting detailed analyses of how these initiatives have influenced the landscape of mathematics education, examining their specific impacts on various subfields, and assessing their overall influence.

Our findings reveal a notable participation in literature review studies within mathematics education by scholars from diverse backgrounds, including educational psychologists, mathematics educators, and specialists in special education and neuroscience. This multidisciplinary engagement underscores the broader interest of researchers beyond the field of mathematics education. Notably, co-authorship connections within US institutions were the most extensive. The leading countries that published review studies included the US, Germany, China, Australia, and England. A robust network emerged among researchers in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia, emphasising collaboration opportunities that warrant exploration by African and South American researchers.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses stood out as the predominant review types in mathematics education, both in terms of the number of publications and citation counts. Systematic reviews offer rigorous and comprehensive syntheses of existing literature on specific research questions, providing valuable insights, identifying gaps in knowledge, and informing evidence-based decision-making in various fields. Moreover, meta-analyses enhance statistical power, resolve conflicting findings, and offer more precise estimates of effect sizes by combining data from various sources. However, there is a discernible need to diversify the types of reviews conducted in mathematics education.

The findings underscore a significant surge in both the quantity of review studies and their citation counts within mathematics education especially over the recent five-year period (2019–2023). This trend suggests a prevalent practice among authors to draw upon previously published reviews to contextualize their own studies, frequently engaging in discussions and citing references to corroborate or challenge existing findings. Such reliance on established literature highlights the discipline’s emphasis on leveraging prior knowledge to inform and substantiate new research endeavours.

The most cited review papers were associated with specific educational review journals, educational psychology journals, special education journals, educational technology journals, and mathematics education journals, further highlighting the interdisciplinary nature of impactful research in the field. The results revealed that ZDM– Mathematics Education , Educational Studies in Mathematics , International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , and International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology were the key mathematics education journals committed to publishing review studies. The performance of these journals, particularly in recent years, reflects the escalating significance of review studies in mathematics education. Nevertheless, the limited visibility of some mathematics education journals in publishing review studies could be attributed, among other factors, to their restricted representation in the WoS database or to the overall small number of studies published yearly in particular mathematics education journals.

Prominent research topics in mathematics education review studies are digital technologies, technology-enhanced approaches (e.g. flipped classrooms), teacher education, mathematics achievement, early childhood education, and learning disabilities. Recent technological advances, including artificial intelligence and augmented/virtual reality, may soon attract mathematics education researchers’ attention to emerging technologies (Cevikbas, Bulut et al., 2023 ; Cevikbas, Greefrath et al., 2023 ). In addition to technology-enhanced mathematics education and special education, researchers have also explored the cognitive and affective aspects of learning and teaching mathematics.

In short, the absence of high-quality research syntheses may impede theoretical and conceptual advances within mathematics education (Webster & Watson, 2002 ). Therefore, future researchers may endeavour to develop discipline-specific standards and guidelines for conducting various types of review studies in mathematics education. Moreover, they could focus on expanding the content of mathematics education journals to accommodate a greater number of review studies. The scientific influence of review journals may also provide an opportunity to establish a dedicated review journal with a pronounced focus on mathematics education.

5.3 Limitations and conclusion

Finally, we want to point out that in this comprehensive meta-review, enriched by bibliometric analysis, we meticulously compiled and scrutinised the largest dataset of reviews in mathematics education available within the WoS database. Although this was a substantial sample ( n  = 259) that was reasonably representative of published review studies in mathematics education, it is important to acknowledge certain limitations. Our search was confined to WoS, and we specifically focused on review articles published in English. It is worth noting that the characteristics of review studies published in journals, international handbooks, or conference proceedings not indexed in WoS or published in a language other than English could potentially differ from those we examined. In addition, despite studies indexed in WoS theoretically being of high quality, we identified inconsistencies and variability in the review studies we examined, and it is possible that a more extensive search would have yielded different results.

In conclusion, we advocate producing high-quality review papers that adeptly synthesise available knowledge to improve professional practice (Templier & Paré, 2015 ). Such efforts may further advance mathematics education and contribute to the continuous improvement of teaching and learning activities, despite the demanding nature of comprehensive review studies.

Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology , 8 (1), 19–32.

Article   Google Scholar  

Becker, L. A., & Oxman, A. D. (2008). Overviews of reviews. In J. P. T. Higgins, & S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (pp. 607–631). Wiley.

Birkle, C., Pendlebury, D. A., Schnell, J., & Adams, J. (2020). Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quantitative Science Studies , 1 (1), 363–376.

Boote, D., & Beile, N. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher , 34 (6), 3–15.

Borges Migliavaca, C., Stein, C., Colpani, V., et al. (2020). How are systematic reviews of prevalence conducted? A methodological study. BMC Medical Research Methodology , 20 , 96.

Cevikbas, M., & Kaiser, G. (2023). Can flipped classroom pedagogy offer promising perspectives for mathematics education on pandemic-related issues? A systematic literature review. ZDM–Mathematics Education , 55 , 177–191.

Cevikbas, M., Kaiser, G., & Schukajlow, S. (2022). A systematic literature review of the current discussion on mathematical modelling competencies: State-of-the-art developments in conceptualizing, measuring, and fostering. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 109 (2), 205–236.

Cevikbas, M., Greefrath, G., & Siller, H. S. (2023). Advantages and challenges of using digital technologies in mathematical modelling education–a descriptive systematic literature review. Frontiers in Education , 8 , 1142556.

Cevikbas, M., Bulut, N., & Kaiser, G. (2023). Exploring the benefits and drawbacks of AR and VR technologies for learners of mathematics: Recent developments. Systems , 11 (5), 244.

Cevikbas, M., König, J., & Rothland, M. (2024). Empirical research on teacher competence in mathematics lesson planning: Recent developments. ZDM–Mathematics Education , 56 , 101–113.

Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. (2013). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing mathematics achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review , 9 , 88–113.

Chigbu, U. E., Atiku, S. O., & Du Plessis, C. C. (2023). The science of literature reviews: Searching, identifying, selecting, and synthesising. Publications , 11 (1), 2.

Clarivate (2024). Citation context in Web of Science . URL.

Cochrane, A. L. (1979). 1931–1971: A critical review with particular reference to the medical profession. In G. Teeling Smith, & N. Wells (Eds.), Medicines for the year 2000 (pp. 2–12). Office of Health Economics.

Cohen, B., Vawdrey, D. K., Liu, J., Caplan, D., Furuya, E. Y., Mis, F. W., & Larson, E. (2015). Challenges associated with using large data sets for quality assessment and research in clinical settings. Policy Politics & Nursing Practice , 16 (3–4), 117–124.

Cooper, H. M. (1988). Organizing knowledge syntheses: A taxonomy of literature reviews. Knowledge in Society , 1 (1), 104–126.

Google Scholar  

Cooper, H., Nye, B., Charlton, K., Lindsay, J., & Greathouse, S. (1996). The effects of summer vacation on achievement test scores: A narrative and meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research , 66 (3), 227–268.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design; choosing among five approaches . Sage.

Davies, P. (2000). The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education , 26 (3–4), 365–378.

Depaepe, F., Verschaffel, L., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Pedagogical content knowledge: A systematic review of the way in which the concept has pervaded mathematics educational research. Teaching and Teacher Education , 34 , 12–25.

DeStefano, D., & LeFevre, J. A. (2004). The role of working memory in mental arithmetic. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology , 16 (3), 353–386.

Friso-van den Bos, I., Van der Ven, S. H., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. (2013). Working memory and mathematics in primary school children: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review , 10 , 29–44.

Fusar-Poli, P., & Radua, J. (2018). Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews. Evidence-Based Mental Health , 21 (3), 95.

Geary, D. C. (1996). Sexual selection and sex differences in mathematical abilities. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 19 (2), 229–247.

Geng, Y., Chen, W., Liu, Z., Chiu, A. S., Han, W., Liu, Z., & Cui, X. (2017). A bibliometric review: Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in the residential sector. Journal of Cleaner Production , 159 , 301–316.

Gersten, R., Chard, D. J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S. K., Morphy, P., & Flojo, J. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research , 79 (3), 1202–1242.

Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal , 26 (2), 91–108.

Hart, C. (2018). Doing a literature review: Releasing the research imagination (2nd edition). Sage.

Kaiser, G., & Schukajlow, S. (2024). Literature reviews in mathematics education and their significance to the field. ZDM–Mathematics Education , 56 , 1–3.

Ketcham, C. M., & Crawford, J. M. (2007). The impact of review articles. Laboratory Investigation , 87 (12), 1174–1185.

Korom, P. (2019). A bibliometric visualization of the economics and sociology of wealth inequality: A world apart? Scientometrics , 118 , 849–868.

Kunisch, S., Denyer, D., Bartunek, J. M., Menz, M., & Cardinal, L. B. (2023). Review research as scientific inquiry. Organizational Research Methods , 26 (1), 3–45.

Li, Q., & Ma, X. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effects of computer technology on school students’ mathematics learning. Educational Psychology Review , 22 , 215–243.

MacEntee, M. I. (2019). A typology of systematic reviews for synthesising evidence on health care. Gerodontology , 36 (4), 303–312.

Martin, D. B. (2009). Researching race in mathematics education. Teachers College Record , 111 (2), 295–338.

Martínez, M. A., Cobo, M. J., Herrera, M., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2015). Analyzing the scientific evolution of social work using science mapping. Research on Social Work Practice , 25 (2), 257–277.

Miranda, R., & Garcia-Carpintero, E. (2018). Overcitation and overrepresentation of review papers in the most cited papers. Journal of Informetrics , 12 (4), 1015–1030.

Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999). Improving the quality of reporting of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Lancet , 354 , 1896–1900.

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Plos Medicine , 6(7), e1000097.

Munn, Z., Peters, M. D., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology , 18 , 1–7.

Nane, G. F., Robinson-Garcia, N., van Schalkwyk, F., & Torres-Salinas, D. (2023). COVID-19 and the scientific publishing system: Growth, open access and scientific fields. Scientometrics , 128 (1), 345–362.

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., McDonald, S., & Moher, D. (2021). (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ , 372 (71), 1–9.

Paré, G., Trudel, M. C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature reviews. Information & Management , 52 (2), 183–199.

Radevic, L., & Milovanovic, I. (2023). Current trends in math anxiety research: A bibliometric approach. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-023-10424-4 .

Richardson, W. S., Wilson, M. C., Nishikawa, J., & Hayward, R. S. (1995). The well-built clinical question: A key to evidence-based decisions. ACP Journal Club , 123 (3), A12–A13.

Samnani, S. S., Vaska, M., Ahmed, S., & Turin, T. C. (2017). Review typology: The basic types of reviews for synthesizing evidence for the purpose of knowledge translation. Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan , 27 (10), 635–641.

Schryen, G., & Sperling, M. (2023). Literature reviews in operations research: A new taxonomy and a meta review. Computers & Operations Research , 106269.

Schryen, G., Wagner, G., Benlian, A., & Paré, G. (2020). A knowledge development perspective on literature reviews: Validation of a new typology in the IS field. Communications of the AIS , 46 , 134–186.

Shea, B. J., Grimshaw, J. M., Wells, G. A., Boers, M., Andersson, N., Hamel, C., & Bouter, L. M. (2007). Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology , 7 , 1–7.

Slavin, R. E., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective programs in elementary mathematics: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research , 78 (3), 427–515.

Song, Y., Chen, X., Hao, T., Liu, Z., & Lan, Z. (2019). Exploring two decades of research on classroom dialogue by using bibliometric analysis. Computers & Education , 137 , 12–31.

Suseelan, M., Chew, C. M., & Chin, H. (2022). Research on Mathematics Problem solving in Elementary Education conducted from 1969 to 2021: A bibliometric review. IJEMST , 10 (4), 1003–1029.

Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal , 36 (3), 202–222.

Taherdoost, H. (2023). Towards nuts and bolts of conducting literature review: A typology of literature review. Electronics , 12 (4), 800.

Templier, M., & Paré, G. (2015). A framework for guiding and evaluating literature reviews. Communications of the Association for Information Systems , 37 (1), 6.

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., et al. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine , 169 (7), 467–473.

Uleanya, C., & Yu, K. (2023). Data collection in times of pandemic: A self-study and revisit of research practices during a crisis. Sage Open , 13 (1), 21582440231160698.

van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics , 84 (2), 523–538.

Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly , 26 (2), xiii–xxiii.

Wei, Y., Zhang, Q., Guo, J., & Chen, M. (2023). Learning to teach through noticing: A bibliometric review of teacher noticing research in mathematics education during 2006–2021. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications , 10 (1), 1–15.

Zupic, I., & Cater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods , 18 (3), 429–472.

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Institute of Educational Sciences, Unter den Linden 6, 10099, Berlin, Germany

Mustafa Cevikbas

Faculty of Education, Universität Hamburg, Von-Melle-Park 8, 20146, Hamburg, Germany

Gabriele Kaiser

Nord University, Bodø, Norway

Institute of Mathematics Education and Computer Science Education, Universität Münster, Henriette-Son Str. 19, 48149, Münster, Germany

Stanislaw Schukajlow

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mustafa Cevikbas .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised: the style of table 1 was not good

The electronic supplementary material includes the list of the reviewed studies and a sample of the coding manual.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cevikbas, M., Kaiser, G. & Schukajlow, S. Trends in mathematics education and insights from a meta-review and bibliometric analysis of review studies. ZDM Mathematics Education 56 , 165–188 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01587-7

Download citation

Accepted : 02 May 2024

Published : 15 May 2024

Issue Date : May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01587-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Bibliometric analysis
• Critical review
• Literature review
• Mapping review
• Mathematics education
• Meta-review
• Narrative review
• Systematic review
• Scoping review
• Theoretical review
• Tutorial review
• Umbrella review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Future themes of mathematics education research: an international survey before and during the pandemic

Arthur bakker.

1 Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands

2 University of Delaware, Newark, DE USA

Linda Zenger

Before the pandemic (2019), we asked: On what themes should research in mathematics education focus in the coming decade? The 229 responses from 44 countries led to eight themes plus considerations about mathematics education research itself. The themes can be summarized as teaching approaches, goals, relations to practices outside mathematics education, teacher professional development, technology, affect, equity, and assessment. During the pandemic (November 2020), we asked respondents: Has the pandemic changed your view on the themes of mathematics education research for the coming decade? If so, how? Many of the 108 respondents saw the importance of their original themes reinforced (45), specified their initial responses (43), and/or added themes (35) (these categories were not mutually exclusive). Overall, they seemed to agree that the pandemic functions as a magnifying glass on issues that were already known, and several respondents pointed to the need to think ahead on how to organize education when it does not need to be online anymore. We end with a list of research challenges that are informed by the themes and respondents’ reflections on mathematics education research.

An international survey in two rounds

Around the time when Educational Studies in Mathematics (ESM) and the Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (JRME) were celebrating their 50th anniversaries, Arthur Bakker (editor of ESM) and Jinfa Cai (editor of JRME) saw a need to raise the following future-oriented question for the field of mathematics education research:

Q2019: On what themes should research in mathematics education focus in the coming decade?

To that end, we administered a survey with just this one question between June 17 and October 16, 2019.

When we were almost ready with the analysis, the COVID-19 pandemic broke out, and we were not able to present the results at the conferences we had planned to attend (NCTM and ICME in 2020). Moreover, with the world shaken up by the crisis, we wondered if colleagues in our field might think differently about the themes formulated for the future due to the pandemic. Hence, on November 26, 2020, we asked a follow-up question to those respondents who in 2019 had given us permission to approach them for elaboration by email:

Q2020: Has the pandemic changed your view on the themes of mathematics education research for the coming decade? If so, how?

In this paper, we summarize the responses to these two questions. Similar to Sfard’s ( 2005 ) approach, we start by synthesizing the voices of the respondents before formulating our own views. Some colleagues put forward the idea of formulating a list of key themes or questions, similar to the 23 unsolved mathematical problems that David Hilbert published around 1900 (cf. Schoenfeld, 1999 ). However, mathematics and mathematics education are very different disciplines, and very few people share Hilbert’s formalist view on mathematics; hence, we do not want to suggest that we could capture the key themes of mathematics education in a similar way. Rather, our overview of themes drawn from the survey responses is intended to summarize what is valued in our global community at the time of the surveys. Reasoning from these themes, we end with a list of research challenges that we see worth addressing in the future (cf. Stephan et al., 2015 ).

Methodological approach

Themes for the coming decade (2019).

We administered the 1-question survey through email lists that we were aware of (e.g., Becker, ICME, PME) and asked mathematics education researchers to spread it in their national networks. By October 16, 2019, we had received 229 responses from 44 countries across 6 continents (Table 1 ). Although we were happy with the larger response than Sfard ( 2005 ) received (74, with 28 from Europe), we do not know how well we have reached particular regions, and if potential respondents might have faced language or other barriers. We did offer a few Chinese respondents the option to write in Chinese because the second author offered to translate their emails into English. We also received responses in Spanish, which were translated for us.

Numbers of responses per continent (2019)

Note : When a respondent filled in two countries on two continents, we attributed half to one and the other half to the other continent

Ethical approval was given by the Ethical Review Board of the Faculties of Science and Geo-science of Utrecht University (Bèta L-19247). We asked respondents to indicate if they were willing to be quoted by name and if we were allowed to approach them for subsequent information. If they preferred to be named, we mention their name and country; otherwise, we write “anonymous.” In our selection of quotes, we have focused on content, not on where the response came from. On March 2, 2021, we approached all respondents who were quoted to double-check if they agreed to be quoted and named. One colleague preferred the quote and name to be deleted; three suggested small changes in wording; the others approved.

On September 20, 2019, the three authors met physically at Utrecht University to analyze the responses. After each individual proposal, we settled on a joint list of seven main themes (the first seven in Table ​ Table2), 2 ), which were neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive. The third author (Zenger, then still a student in educational science) next color coded all parts of responses belonging to a category. These formed the basis for the frequencies and percentages presented in the tables and text. The first author (Bakker) then read all responses categorized by a particular code to identify and synthesize the main topics addressed within each code. The second author (Cai) read all of the survey responses and the response categories, and commented. After the initial round of analysis, we realized it was useful to add an eighth theme: assessment (including evaluation).

Percentages of responses mentioned in each theme (2019)

Note. Percentages do not add up to 100, because many respondents mentioned multiple themes

Moreover, given that a large number of respondents made comments about mathematics education research itself, we decided to summarize these separately. For analyzing this category of research, we used the following four labels to distinguish types of comments on our discipline of mathematics education research: theory, methodology, self-reflection (including ethical considerations), interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity. We then summarized the responses per type of comment.

It has been a daunting and humbling experience to study the huge coverage and diversity of topics that our colleagues care about. Any categorization felt like a reduction of the wealth of ideas, and we are aware of the risks of “sorting things out” (Bowker & Star, 2000 ), which come with foregrounding particular challenges rather than others (Stephan et al., 2015 ). Yet the best way to summarize the bigger picture seemed by means of clustering themes and pointing to their relationships. As we identified these eight themes of mathematics education research for the future, a recurring question during the analysis was how to represent them. A list such as Table ​ Table2 2 does not do justice to the interrelations between the themes. Some relationships are very clear, for example, educational approaches (theme 2) working toward educational or societal goals (theme 1). Some themes are pervasive; for example, equity and (positive) affect are both things that educators want to achieve but also phenomena that are at stake during every single moment of learning and teaching. Diagrams we considered to represent such interrelationships were either too specific (limiting the many relevant options, e.g., a star with eight vertices that only link pairs of themes) or not specific enough (e.g., a Venn diagram with eight leaves such as the iPhone symbol for photos). In the end, we decided to use an image and collaborated with Elisabeth Angerer (student assistant in an educational sciences program), who eventually made the drawing in Fig. ​ Fig.1 1 to capture themes in their relationships.

Artistic impression of the future themes

Has the pandemic changed your view? (2020)

On November 26, 2020, we sent an email to the colleagues who responded to the initial question and who gave permission to be approached by email. We cited their initial response and asked: “Has the pandemic changed your view on the themes of mathematics education research for the coming decade? If so, how?” We received 108 responses by January 12, 2021. The countries from which the responses came included China, Italy, and other places that were hit early by the COVID-19 virus. The length of responses varied from a single word response (“no”) to elaborate texts of up to 2215 words. Some people attached relevant publications. The median length of the responses was 87 words, with a mean length of 148 words and SD = 242. Zenger and Bakker classified them as “no changes” (9 responses) or “clearly different views” (8); the rest of the responses saw the importance of their initial themes reinforced (45), specified their initial responses (43), or added new questions or themes (35). These last categories were not mutually exclusive, because respondents could first state that they thought the initial themes were even more relevant than before and provide additional, more specified themes. We then used the same themes that had been identified in the first round and identified what was stressed or added in the 2020 responses.

The most frequently mentioned theme was what we labeled approaches to teaching (64% of the respondents, see Table ​ Table2). 2 ). Next was the theme of goals of mathematics education on which research should shed more light in the coming decade (54%). These goals ranged from specific educational goals to very broad societal ones. Many colleagues referred to mathematics education’s relationships with other practices (communities, institutions…) such as home, continuing education, and work. Teacher professional development is a key area for research in which the other themes return (what should students learn, how, how to assess that, how to use technology and ensure that students are interested?). Technology constitutes its own theme but also plays a key role in many other themes, just like affect. Another theme permeating other ones is what can be summarized as equity, diversity, and inclusion (also social justice, anti-racism, democratic values, and several other values were mentioned). These values are not just societal and educational goals but also drivers for redesigning teaching approaches, using technology, working on more just assessment, and helping learners gain access, become confident, develop interest, or even love for mathematics. To evaluate if approaches are successful and if goals have been achieved, assessment (including evaluation) is also mentioned as a key topic of research.

In the 2020 responses, many wise and general remarks were made. The general gist is that the pandemic (like earlier crises such as the economic crisis around 2008–2010) functioned as a magnifying glass on themes that were already considered important. Due to the pandemic, however, systemic societal and educational problems were said to have become better visible to a wider community, and urge us to think about the potential of a “new normal.”

Approaches to teaching

We distinguish specific teaching strategies from broader curricular topics.

Teaching strategies

There is a widely recognized need to further design and evaluate various teaching approaches. Among the teaching strategies and types of learning to be promoted that were mentioned in the survey responses are collaborative learning, critical mathematics education, dialogic teaching, modeling, personalized learning, problem-based learning, cross-curricular themes addressing the bigger themes in the world, embodied design, visualization, and interleaved learning. Note, however, that students can also enhance their mathematical knowledge independently from teachers or parents through web tutorials and YouTube videos.

Many respondents emphasized that teaching approaches should do more than promote cognitive development. How can teaching be entertaining or engaging? How can it contribute to the broader educational goals of developing students’ identity, contribute to their empowerment, and help them see the value of mathematics in their everyday life and work? We return to affect in Section 3.7 .

In the 2020 responses, we saw more emphasis on approaches that address modeling, critical thinking, and mathematical or statistical literacy. Moreover, respondents stressed the importance of promoting interaction, collaboration, and higher order thinking, which are generally considered to be more challenging in distance education. One approach worth highlighting is challenge-based education (cf. Johnson et al. 2009 ), because it takes big societal challenges as mentioned in the previous section as its motivation and orientation.

Approaches by which mathematics education can contribute to the aforementioned goals can be distinguished at various levels. Several respondents mentioned challenges around developing a coherent mathematics curriculum, smoothing transitions to higher school levels, and balancing topics, and also the typical overload of topics, the influence of assessment on what is taught, and what teachers can teach. For example, it was mentioned that mathematics teachers are often not prepared to teach statistics. There seems to be little research that helps curriculum authors tackle some of these hard questions as well as how to monitor reform (cf. Shimizu & Vithal, 2019 ). Textbook analysis is mentioned as a necessary research endeavor. But even if curricula within one educational system are reasonably coherent, how can continuity between educational systems be ensured (cf. Jansen et al., 2012 )?

In the 2020 responses, some respondents called for free high-quality curriculum resources. In several countries where Internet access is a problem in rural areas, a shift can be observed from online resources to other types of media such as radio and TV.

Goals of mathematics education

The theme of approaches is closely linked to that of the theme of goals. For example, as Fulvia Furinghetti (Italy) wrote: “It is widely recognized that critical thinking is a fundamental goal in math teaching. Nevertheless it is still not clear how it is pursued in practice.” We distinguish broad societal and more specific educational goals. These are often related, as Jane Watson (Australia) wrote: “If Education is to solve the social, cultural, economic, and environmental problems of today’s data-driven world, attention must be given to preparing students to interpret the data that are presented to them in these fields.”

Societal goals

Respondents alluded to the need for students to learn to function in the economy and in society more broadly. Apart from instrumental goals of mathematics education, some emphasized goals related to developing as a human being, for instance learning to see the mathematics in the world and develop a relation with the world. Mathematics education in these views should empower students to combat anti-expertise and post-fact tendencies. Several respondents mentioned even larger societal goals such as avoiding extinction as a human species and toxic nationalism, resolving climate change, and building a sustainable future.

In the second round of responses (2020), we saw much more emphasis on these bigger societal issues. The urgency to orient mathematics education (and its research) toward resolving these seemed to be felt more than before. In short, it was stressed that our planet needs to be saved. The big question is what role mathematics education can play in meeting these challenges.

Educational goals

Several respondents expressed a concern that the current goals of mathematics education do not reflect humanity’s and societies’ needs and interests well. Educational goals to be stressed more were mathematical literacy, numeracy, critical, and creative thinking—often with reference to the changing world and the planet being at risk. In particular, the impact of technology was frequently stressed, as this may have an impact on what people need to learn (cf. Gravemeijer et al., 2017 ). If computers can do particular things much better than people, what is it that students need to learn?

Among the most frequently mentioned educational goals for mathematics education were statistical literacy, computational and algorithmic thinking, artificial intelligence, modeling, and data science. More generally, respondents expressed that mathematics education should help learners deploy evidence, reasoning, argumentation, and proof. For example, Michelle Stephan (USA) asked:

What mathematics content should be taught today to prepare students for jobs of the future, especially given growth of the digital world and its impact on a global economy? All of the mathematics content in K-12 can be accomplished by computers, so what mathematical procedures become less important and what domains need to be explored more fully (e.g., statistics and big data, spatial geometry, functional reasoning, etc.)?

One challenge for research is that there is no clear methodology to arrive at relevant and feasible learning goals. Yet there is a need to choose and formulate such goals on the basis of research (cf. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, 2005 ).

Several of the 2020 responses mentioned the sometimes problematic way in which numbers, data, and graphs are used in the public sphere (e.g., Ernest, 2020 ; Kwon et al., 2021 ; Yoon et al., 2021 ). Many respondents saw their emphasis on relevant educational goals reinforced, for example, statistical and data literacy, modeling, critical thinking, and public communication. A few pandemic-specific topics were mentioned, such as exponential growth.

Relation of mathematics education to other practices

Many responses can be characterized as highlighting boundary crossing (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011 ) with disciplines or communities outside mathematics education, such as in science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics education (STEM or STEAM); parents or families; the workplace; and leisure (e.g., drama, music, sports). An interesting example was the educational potential of mathematical memes—“humorous digital objects created by web users copying an existing image and overlaying a personal caption” (Bini et al., 2020 , p. 2). These boundary crossing-related responses thus emphasize the movements and connections between mathematics education and other practices.

In the 2020 responses, we saw that during the pandemic, the relationship between school and home has become much more important, because most students were (and perhaps still are) learning at home. Earlier research on parental involvement and homework (Civil & Bernier, 2006 ; de Abreu et al., 2006 ; Jackson, 2011 ) proves relevant in the current situation where many countries are still or again in lockdown. Respondents pointed to the need to monitor students and their work and to promote self-regulation. They also put more stress on the political, economic, and financial contexts in which mathematics education functions (or malfunctions, in many respondents’ views).

Teacher professional development

Respondents explicitly mentioned teacher professional development as an important domain of mathematics education research (including teacher educators’ development). For example, Loide Kapenda (Namibia) wrote, “I am supporting UNESCO whose idea is to focus on how we prepare teachers for the future we want.” (e.g., UNESCO, 2015 ) And, Francisco Rojas (Chile) wrote:

Although the field of mathematics education is broad and each time faced with new challenges (socio-political demands, new intercultural contexts, digital environments, etc.), all of them will be handled at school by the mathematics teacher, both in primary as well as in secondary education. Therefore, from my point of view, pre-service teacher education is one of the most relevant fields of research for the next decade, especially in developing countries.

It is evident from the responses that teaching mathematics is done by a large variety of people, not only by people who are trained as primary school teachers, secondary school mathematics teachers, or mathematicians but also parents, out-of-field teachers, and scientists whose primary discipline is not mathematics but who do use mathematics or statistics. How teachers of mathematics are trained varies accordingly. Respondents frequently pointed to the importance of subject-matter knowledge and particularly noted that many teachers seem ill-prepared to teach statistics (e.g., Lonneke Boels, the Netherlands).

Key questions were raised by several colleagues: “How to train mathematics teachers with a solid foundation in mathematics, positive attitudes towards mathematics teaching and learning, and wide knowledge base linking to STEM?” (anonymous); “What professional development, particularly at the post-secondary level, motivates changes in teaching practices in order to provide students the opportunities to engage with mathematics and be successful?” (Laura Watkins, USA); “How can mathematics educators equip students for sustainable, equitable citizenship? And how can mathematics education equip teachers to support students in this?” (David Wagner, Canada)

In the 2020 responses, it was clear that teachers are incredibly important, especially in the pandemic era. The sudden change to online teaching means that

higher requirements are put forward for teachers’ educational and teaching ability, especially the ability to carry out education and teaching by using information technology should be strengthened. Secondly, teachers’ ability to communicate and cooperate has been injected with new connotation. (Guangming Wang, China)

It is broadly assumed that education will stay partly online, though more so in higher levels of education than in primary education. This has implications for teachers, for instance, they will have to think through how they intend to coordinate teaching on location and online. Hence, one important focus for professional development is the use of technology.

Technology deserves to be called a theme in itself, but we want to emphasize that it ran through most of the other themes. First of all, some respondents argued that, due to technological advances in society, the societal and educational goals of mathematics education need to be changed (e.g., computational thinking to ensure employability in a technological society). Second, responses indicated that the changed goals have implications for the approaches in mathematics education. Consider the required curriculum reform and the digital tools to be used in it. Students do not only need to learn to use technology; the technology can also be used to learn mathematics (e.g., visualization, embodied design, statistical thinking). New technologies such as 3D printing, photo math, and augmented and virtual reality offer new opportunities for learning. Society has changed very fast in this respect. Third, technology is suggested to assist in establishing connections with other practices , such as between school and home, or vocational education and work, even though there is a great disparity in how successful these connections are.

In the 2020 responses, there was great concern about the current digital divide (cf. Hodgen et al., 2020 ). The COVID-19 pandemic has thus given cause for mathematics education research to understand better how connections across educational and other practices can be improved with the help of technology. Given the unequal distribution of help by parents or guardians, it becomes all the more important to think through how teachers can use videos and quizzes, how they can monitor their students, how they can assess them (while respecting privacy), and how one can compensate for the lack of social, gestural, and embodied interaction that is possible when being together physically.

Where mobile technology was considered very innovative before 2010, smartphones have become central devices in mathematics education in the pandemic with its reliance on distance learning. Our direct experience showed that phone applications such as WhatsApp and WeChat have become key tools in teaching and learning mathematics in many rural areas in various continents where few people have computers (for a report on podcasts distributed through WhatsApp, community loudspeakers, and local radio stations in Colombia, see Saenz et al., 2020 ).

Equity, diversity, and inclusion

Another cross-cutting theme can be labeled “equity, diversity, and inclusion.” We use this triplet to cover any topic that highlights these and related human values such as equality, social and racial justice, social emancipation, and democracy that were also mentioned by respondents (cf. Dobie & Sherin, 2021 ). In terms of educational goals , many respondents stressed that mathematics education should be for all students, including those who have special needs, who live in poverty, who are learning the instruction language, who have a migration background, who consider themselves LGBTQ+, have a traumatic or violent history, or are in whatever way marginalized. There is broad consensus that everyone should have access to high-quality mathematics education. However, as Niral Shah (USA) notes, less attention has been paid to “how phenomena related to social markers (e.g., race, class, gender) interact with phenomena related to the teaching and learning of mathematical content.”

In terms of teaching approaches , mathematics education is characterized by some respondents from particular countries as predominantly a white space where some groups feel or are excluded (cf. Battey, 2013 ). There is a general concern that current practices of teaching mathematics may perpetuate inequality, in particular in the current pandemic. In terms of assessment , mathematics is too often used or experienced as a gatekeeper rather than as a powerful resource (cf. Martin et al., 2010 ). Steve Lerman (UK) “indicates that understanding how educational opportunities are distributed inequitably, and in particular how that manifests in each end every classroom, is a prerequisite to making changes that can make some impact on redistribution.” A key research aim therefore is to understand what excludes students from learning mathematics and what would make mathematics education more inclusive (cf. Roos, 2019 ). And, what does professional development of teachers that promotes equity look like?

In 2020, many respondents saw their emphasis on equity and related values reinforced in the current pandemic with its risks of a digital divide, unequal access to high-quality mathematics education, and unfair distribution of resources. A related future research theme is how the so-called widening achievement gaps can be remedied (cf. Bawa, 2020 ). However, warnings were also formulated that thinking in such deficit terms can perpetuate inequality (cf. Svensson et al., 2014 ). A question raised by Dor Abrahamson (USA) is, “What roles could digital technology play, and in what forms, in restoring justice and celebrating diversity?”

Though entangled with many other themes, affect is also worth highlighting as a theme in itself. We use the term affect in a very broad sense to point to psychological-social phenomena such as emotion, love, belief, attitudes, interest, curiosity, fun, engagement, joy, involvement, motivation, self-esteem, identity, anxiety, alienation, and feeling of safety (cf. Cobb et al., 2009 ; Darragh, 2016 ; Hannula, 2019 ; Schukajlow et al., 2017 ). Many respondents emphasized the importance of studying these constructs in relation to (and not separate from) what is characterized as cognition. Some respondents pointed out that affect is not just an individual but also a social phenomenon, just like learning (cf. Chronaki, 2019 ; de Freitas et al., 2019 ; Schindler & Bakker, 2020 ).

Among the educational goals of mathematics education, several participants mentioned the need to generate and foster interest in mathematics. In terms of approaches , much emphasis was put on the need to avoid anxiety and alienation and to engage students in mathematical activity.

In the 2020 responses, more emphasis was put on the concern about alienation, which seems to be of special concern when students are socially distanced from peers and teachers as to when teaching takes place only through technology . What was reiterated in the 2020 responses was the importance of students’ sense of belonging in a mathematics classroom (cf. Horn, 2017 )—a topic closely related to the theme of equity, diversity, and inclusion discussed before.

Assessment and evaluation were not often mentioned explicitly, but they do not seem less important than the other related themes. A key challenge is to assess what we value rather than valuing what we assess. In previous research, the assessment of individual students has received much attention, but what seems to be neglected is the evaluation of curricula. As Chongyang Wang (China) wrote, “How to evaluate the curriculum reforms. When we pay much energy in reforming our education and curriculum, do we imagine how to ensure it will work and there will be pieces of evidence found after the new curricula are carried out? How to prove the reforms work and matter?” (cf. Shimizu & Vithal, 2019 )

In the 2020 responses, there was an emphasis on assessment at a distance. Distance education generally is faced with the challenge of evaluating student work, both formatively and summatively. We predict that so-called e-assessment, along with its privacy challenges, will generate much research interest in the near future (cf. Bickerton & Sangwin, 2020 ).

Mathematics education research itself

Although we only asked for future themes, many respondents made interesting comments about research in mathematics education and its connections with other disciplines and practices (such as educational practice, policy, home settings). We have grouped these considerations under the subheadings of theory, methodology, reflection on our discipline, and interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. As with the previous categorization into themes, we stress that these four types are not mutually exclusive as theoretical and methodological considerations can be intricately intertwined (Radford, 2008 ).

Several respondents expressed their concern about the fragmentation and diversity of theories used in mathematics education research (cf. Bikner-Ahsbahs & Prediger, 2014 ). The question was raised how mathematics educators can “work together to obtain valid, reliable, replicable, and useful findings in our field” and “How, as a discipline, can we encourage sustained research on core questions using commensurable perspectives and methods?” (Keith Weber, USA). One wish was “comparing theoretical perspectives for explanatory power” (K. Subramaniam, India). At the same time, it was stressed that “we cannot continue to pretend that there is just one culture in the field of mathematics education, that all the theoretical framework may be applied in whichever culture and that results are universal” (Mariolina Bartolini Bussi, Italy). In addition, the wish was expressed to deepen theoretical notions such as numeracy, equity, and justice as they play out in mathematics education.

Methodology

Many methodological approaches were mentioned as potentially useful in mathematics education research: randomized studies, experimental studies, replication, case studies, and so forth. Particular attention was paid to “complementary methodologies that bridge the ‘gap’ between mathematics education research and research on mathematical cognition” (Christian Bokhove, UK), as, for example, done in Gilmore et al. ( 2018 ). Also, approaches were mentioned that intend to bridge the so-called gap between educational practice and research, such as lesson study and design research. For example, Kay Owens (Australia) pointed to the challenge of studying cultural context and identity: “Such research requires a multi-faceted research methodology that may need to be further teased out from our current qualitative (e.g., ethnographic) and quantitative approaches (‘paper and pencil’ (including computing) testing). Design research may provide further possibilities.”

Francisco Rojas (Chile) highlighted the need for more longitudinal and cross-sectional research, in particular in the context of teacher professional development:

It is not enough to investigate what happens in pre-service teacher education but understand what effects this training has in the first years of the professional career of the new teachers of mathematics, both in primary and secondary education. Therefore, increasingly more longitudinal and cross-sectional studies will be required to understand the complexity of the practice of mathematics teachers, how the professional knowledge that articulates the practice evolves, and what effects have the practice of teachers on the students’ learning of mathematics.

Reflection on our discipline

Calls were made for critical reflection on our discipline. One anonymous appeal was for more self-criticism and scientific modesty: Is research delivering, or is it drawing away good teachers from teaching? Do we do research primarily to help improve mathematics education or to better understand phenomena? (cf. Proulx & Maheux, 2019 ) The general gist of the responses was a sincere wish to be of value to the world and mathematics education more specifically and not only do “research for the sake of research” (Zahra Gooya, Iran). David Bowers (USA) expressed several reflection-inviting views about the nature of our discipline, for example:

• We must normalize (and expect) the full taking up the philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of all of our work (even work that is not considered “philosophical”). Not doing so leads to uncritical analysis and implications.
• We must develop norms wherein it is considered embarrassing to do “uncritical” research.
• There is no such thing as “neutral.” Amongst other things, this means that we should be cultivating norms that recognize the inherent political nature of all work, and norms that acknowledge how superficially “neutral” work tends to empower the oppressor.
• We must recognize the existence of but not cater to the fragility of privilege.

In terms of what is studied, some respondents felt that the mathematics education research “literature has been moving away from the original goals of mathematics education. We seem to have been investigating everything but the actual learning of important mathematics topics.” (Lyn English, Australia) In terms of the nature of our discipline, Taro Fujita (UK) argued that our discipline can be characterized as a design science, with designing mathematical learning environments as the core of research activities (cf. Wittmann, 1995 ).

A tension that we observe in different views is the following: On the one hand, mathematics education research has its origin in helping teachers teach particular content better. The need for such so-called didactical, topic-specific research is not less important today but perhaps less fashionable for funding schemes that promote innovative, ground-breaking research. On the other hand, over time it has become clear that mathematics education is a multi-faceted socio-cultural and political endeavor under the influence of many local and global powers. It is therefore not surprising that the field of mathematics education research has expanded so as to include an increasingly wide scope of themes that are at stake, such as the marginalization of particular groups. We therefore highlight Niral Shah’s (USA) response that “historically, these domains of research [content-specific vs socio-political] have been decoupled. The field would get closer to understanding the experiences of minoritized students if we could connect these lines of inquiry.”

Another interesting reflective theme was raised by Nouzha El Yacoubi (Morocco): To what extent can we transpose “research questions from developed to developing countries”? As members of the plenary panel at PME 2019 (e.g., Kazima, 2019 ; Kim, 2019 ; Li, 2019 ) conveyed well, adopting interventions that were successful in one place in another place is far from trivial (cf. Gorard, 2020 ).

Juan L. Piñeiro (Spain in 2019, Chile in 2020) highlighted that “mathematical concepts and processes have different natures. Therefore, can it be characterized using the same theoretical and methodological tools?” More generally, one may ask if our theories and methodologies—often borrowed from other disciplines—are well suited to the ontology of our own discipline. A discussion started by Niss ( 2019 ) on the nature of our discipline, responded to by Bakker ( 2019 ) and Cai and Hwang ( 2019 ), seems worth continuing.

An important question raised in several comments is how close research should be to existing curricula. One respondent (Benjamin Rott, Germany) noted that research on problem posing often does “not fit into school curricula.” This makes the application of research ideas and findings problematic. However, one could argue that research need not always be tied to existing (local) educational contexts. It can also be inspirational, seeking principles of what is possible (and how) with a longer-term view on how curricula may change in the future. One option is, as Simon Zell (Germany) suggests, to test designs that cover a longer timeframe than typically done. Another way to bridge these two extremes is “collaboration between teachers and researchers in designing and publishing research” (K. Subramaniam, India) as is promoted by facilitating teachers to do PhD research (Bakx et al., 2016 ).

One of the responding teacher-researchers (Lonneke Boels, the Netherlands) expressed the wish that research would become available “in a more accessible form.” This wish raises the more general questions of whose responsibility it is to do such translation work and how to communicate with non-researchers. Do we need a particular type of communication research within mathematics education to learn how to convey particular key ideas or solid findings? (cf. Bosch et al., 2017 )

Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity

Many respondents mentioned disciplines which mathematics education research can learn from or should collaborate with (cf. Suazo-Flores et al., 2021 ). Examples are history, mathematics, philosophy, psychology, psychometry, pedagogy, educational science, value education (social, emotional), race theory, urban education, neuroscience/brain research, cognitive science, and computer science didactics. “A big challenge here is how to make diverse experts approach and talk to one another in a productive way.” (David Gómez, Chile)

One of the most frequently mentioned disciplines in relation to our field is history. It is a common complaint in, for instance, the history of medicine that historians accuse medical experts of not knowing historical research and that medical experts accuse historians of not understanding the medical discipline well enough (Beckers & Beckers, 2019 ). This tension raises the question who does and should do research into the history of mathematics or of mathematics education and to what broader purpose.

Some responses go beyond interdisciplinarity, because resolving the bigger issues such as climate change and a more equitable society require collaboration with non-researchers (transdisciplinarity). A typical example is the involvement of educational practice and policy when improving mathematics education (e.g., Potari et al., 2019 ).

Let us end this section with a word of hope, from an anonymous respondent: “I still believe (or hope?) that the pandemic, with this making-inequities-explicit, would help mathematics educators to look at persistent and systemic inequalities more consistently in the coming years.” Having learned so much in the past year could indeed provide an opportunity to establish a more equitable “new normal,” rather than a reversion to the old normal, which one reviewer worried about.

The themes in their coherence: an artistic impression

As described above, we identified eight themes of mathematics education research for the future, which we discussed one by one. The disadvantage of this list-wise discussion is that the entanglement of the themes is backgrounded. To compensate for that drawback, we here render a brief interpretation of the drawing of Fig. ​ Fig.1. 1 . While doing so, we invite readers to use their own creative imagination and perhaps use the drawing for other purposes (e.g., ask researchers, students, or teachers: Where would you like to be in this landscape? What mathematical ideas do you spot?). The drawing mainly focuses on the themes that emerged from the first round of responses but also hints at experiences from the time of the pandemic, for instance distance education. In Appendix 1 , we specify more of the details in the drawing and we provide a link to an annotated image (available at https://www.fisme.science.uu.nl/toepassingen/28937/ ).

The boat on the river aims to represent teaching approaches. The hand drawing of the boat hints at the importance of educational design: A particular approach is being worked out. On the boat, a teacher and students work together toward educational and societal goals, further down the river. The graduation bridge is an intermediate educational goal to pass, after which there are many paths leading to other goals such as higher education, citizenship, and work in society. Relations to practices outside mathematics education are also shown. In the left bottom corner, the house and parents working and playing with children represent the link of education with the home situation and leisure activity.

The teacher, represented by the captain in the foreground of the ship, is engaged in professional development, consulting a book, but also learning by doing (cf. Bakkenes et al., 2010 , on experimenting, using resources, etc.). Apart from graduation, there are other types of goals for teachers and students alike, such as equity, positive affect, and fluent use of technology. During their journey (and partially at home, shown in the left bottom corner), students learn to orient themselves in the world mathematically (e.g., fractal tree, elliptical lake, a parabolic mountain, and various platonic solids). On their way toward various goals, both teacher and students use particular technology (e.g., compass, binoculars, tablet, laptop). The magnifying glass (representing research) zooms in on a laptop screen that portrays distance education, hinting at the consensus that the pandemic magnifies some issues that education was already facing (e.g., the digital divide).

Equity, diversity, and inclusion are represented with the rainbow, overarching everything. On the boat, students are treated equally and the sailing practice is inclusive in the sense that all perform at their own level—getting the support they need while contributing meaningfully to the shared activity. This is at least what we read into the image. Affect is visible in various ways. First of all, the weather represents moods in general (rainy and dark side on the left; sunny bright side on the right). Second, the individual students (e.g., in the crow’s nest) are interested in, anxious about, and attentive to the things coming up during their journey. They are motivated to engage in all kinds of tasks (handling the sails, playing a game of chance with a die, standing guard in the crow’s nest, etc.). On the bridge, the graduates’ pride and happiness hints at positive affect as an educational goal but also represents the exam part of the assessment. The assessment also happens in terms of checks and feedback on the boat. The two people next to the house (one with a camera, one measuring) can be seen as assessors or researchers observing and evaluating the progress on the ship or the ship’s progress.

More generally, the three types of boats in the drawing represent three different spaces, which Hannah Arendt ( 1958 ) would characterize as private (paper-folded boat near the boy and a small toy boat next to the girl with her father at home), public/political (ships at the horizon), and the in-between space of education (the boat with the teacher and students). The students and teacher on the boat illustrate school as a special pedagogic form. Masschelein and Simons ( 2019 ) argue that the ancient Greek idea behind school (σχολή, scholè , free time) is that students should all be treated as equal and should all get equal opportunities. At school, their descent does not matter. At school, there is time to study, to make mistakes, without having to work for a living. At school, they learn to collaborate with others from diverse backgrounds, in preparation for future life in the public space. One challenge of the lockdown situation as a consequence of the pandemic is how to organize this in-between space in a way that upholds its special pedagogic form.

Research challenges

Based on the eight themes and considerations about mathematics education research itself, we formulate a set of research challenges that strike us as deserving further discussion (cf. Stephan et al., 2015 ). We do not intend to suggest these are more important than others or that some other themes are less worthy of investigation, nor do we suggest that they entail a research agenda (cf. English, 2008 ).

Aligning new goals, curricula, and teaching approaches

There seems to be relatively little attention within mathematics education research for curricular issues, including topics such as learning goals, curriculum standards, syllabi, learning progressions, textbook analysis, curricular coherence, and alignment with other curricula. Yet we feel that we as mathematics education researchers should care about these topics as they may not necessarily be covered by other disciplines. For example, judging from Deng’s ( 2018 ) complaint about the trends in the discipline of curriculum studies, we cannot assume scholars in that field to address issues specific to the mathematics-focused curriculum (e.g., the Journal of Curriculum Studies and Curriculum Inquiry have published only a limited number of studies on mathematics curricula).

Learning goals form an important element of curricula or standards. It is relatively easy to formulate important goals in general terms (e.g., critical thinking or problem solving). As a specific example, consider mathematical problem posing (Cai & Leikin, 2020 ), which curriculum standards have specifically pointed out as an important educational goal—developing students’ problem-posing skills. Students should be provided opportunities to formulate their own problems based on situations. However, there are few problem-posing activities in current mathematics textbooks and classroom instruction (Cai & Jiang, 2017 ). A similar observation can be made about problem solving in Dutch primary textbooks (Kolovou et al., 2009 ). Hence, there is a need for researchers and educators to align problem posing in curriculum standards, textbooks, classroom instruction, and students’ learning.

The challenge we see for mathematics education researchers is to collaborate with scholars from other disciplines (interdisciplinarity) and with non-researchers (transdisciplinarity) in figuring out how the desired societal and educational goals can be shaped in mathematics education. Our discipline has developed several methodological approaches that may help in formulating learning goals and accompanying teaching approaches (cf. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, 2005 ), including epistemological analyses (Sierpinska, 1990 ), historical and didactical phenomenology (Bakker & Gravemeijer, 2006 ; Freudenthal, 1986 ), and workplace studies (Bessot & Ridgway, 2000 ; Hoyles et al., 2001 ). However, how should the outcomes of such research approaches be weighed against each other and combined to formulate learning goals for a balanced, coherent curriculum? What is the role of mathematics education researchers in relation to teachers, policymakers, and other stakeholders (Potari et al., 2019 )? In our discipline, we seem to lack a research-informed way of arriving at the formulation of suitable educational goals without overloading the curricula.

Researching mathematics education across contexts

Though methodologically and theoretically challenging, it is of great importance to study learning and teaching mathematics across contexts. After all, students do not just learn at school; they can also participate in informal settings (Nemirovsky et al., 2017 ), online forums, or affinity networks (Ito et al., 2018 ) where they may share for instance mathematical memes (Bini et al., 2020 ). Moreover, teachers are not the only ones teaching mathematics: Private tutors, friends, parents, siblings, or other relatives can also be involved in helping children with their mathematics. Mathematics learning could also be situated on streets or in museums, homes, and other informal settings. This was already acknowledged before 2020, but the pandemic has scattered learners and teachers away from the typical central school locations and thus shifted the distribution of labor.

In particular, physical and virtual spaces of learning have been reconfigured due to the pandemic. Issues of timing also work differently online, for example, if students can watch online lectures or videos whenever they like (asynchronously). Such reconfigurations of space and time also have an effect on the rhythm of education and hence on people’s energy levels (cf. Lefebvre, 2004 ). More specifically, the reconfiguration of the situation has affected many students’ levels of motivation and concentration (e.g., Meeter et al., 2020 ). As Engelbrecht et al. ( 2020 ) acknowledged, the pandemic has drastically changed the teaching and learning model as we knew it. It is quite possible that some existing theories about teaching and learning no longer apply in the same way. An interesting question is whether and how existing theoretical frameworks can be adjusted or whether new theoretical orientations need to be developed to better understand and promote productive ways of blended or online teaching, across contexts.

Focusing teacher professional development

Professional development of teachers and teacher educators stands out from the survey as being in need of serious investment. How can teachers be prepared for the unpredictable, both in terms of beliefs and actions? During the pandemic, teachers have been under enormous pressure to make quick decisions in redesigning their courses, to learn to use new technological tools, to invent creative ways of assessment, and to do what was within their capacity to provide opportunities to their students for learning mathematics—even if technological tools were limited (e.g., if students had little or no computer or internet access at home). The pressure required both emotional adaption and instructional adjustment. Teachers quickly needed to find useful information, which raises questions about the accessibility of research insights. Given the new situation, limited resources, and the uncertain unfolding of education after lockdowns, focusing teacher professional development on necessary and useful topics will need much attention. In particular, there is a need for longitudinal studies to investigate how teachers’ learning actually affects teachers’ classroom instruction and students’ learning.

In the surveys, respondents mainly referred to teachers as K-12 school mathematics teachers, but some also stressed the importance of mathematics teacher educators (MTEs). In addition to conducting research in mathematics education, MTEs are acting in both the role of teacher educators and of mathematics teachers. There has been increased research on MTEs as requiring professional development (Goos & Beswick, 2021 ). Within the field of mathematics education, there is an emerging need and interest in how mathematics teacher educators themselves learn and develop. In fact, the changing situation also provides an opportunity to scrutinize our habitual ways of thinking and become aware of what Jullien ( 2018 ) calls the “un-thought”: What is it that we as educators and researchers have not seen or thought about so much about that the sudden reconfiguration of education forces us to reflect upon?

Using low-tech resources

Particular strands of research focus on innovative tools and their applications in education, even if they are at the time too expensive (even too labor intensive) to use at large scale. Such future-oriented studies can be very interesting given the rapid advances in technology and attractive to funding bodies focusing on innovation. Digital technology has become ubiquitous, both in schools and in everyday life, and there is already a significant body of work capitalizing on aspects of technology for research and practice in mathematics education.

However, as Cai et al. ( 2020 ) indicated, technology advances so quickly that addressing research problems may not depend so much on developing a new technological capability as on helping researchers and practitioners learn about new technologies and imagine effective ways to use them. Moreover, given the millions of students in rural areas who during the pandemic have only had access to low-tech resources such as podcasts, radio, TV, and perhaps WhatsApp through their parents’ phones, we would like to see more research on what learning, teaching, and assessing mathematics through limited tools such as Whatsapp or WeChat look like and how they can be improved. In fact, in China, a series of WeChat-based mini-lessons has been developed and delivered through the WeChat video function during the pandemic. Even when the pandemic is under control, mini-lessons are still developed and circulated through WeChat. We therefore think it is important to study the use and influence of low-tech resources in mathematics education.

Staying in touch online

With the majority of students learning at home, a major ongoing challenge for everyone has been how to stay in touch with each other and with mathematics. With less social interaction, without joint attention in the same physical space and at the same time, and with the collective only mediated by technology, becoming and staying motivated to learn has been a widely felt challenge. It is generally expected that in the higher levels of education, more blended or distant learning elements will be built into education. Careful research on the affective, embodied, and collective aspects of learning and teaching mathematics is required to overcome eventually the distance and alienation so widely experienced in online education. That is, we not only need to rethink social interactions between students and/or teachers in different settings but must also rethink how to engage and motivate students in online settings.

Studying and improving equity without perpetuating inequality

Several colleagues have warned, for a long time, that one risk of studying achievement gaps, differences between majority and minority groups, and so forth can also perpetuate inequity. Admittedly, pinpointing injustice and the need to invest in particular less privileged parts of education is necessary to redirect policymakers’ and teachers’ attention and gain funding. However, how can one reorient resources without stigmatizing? For example, Svensson et al. ( 2014 ) pointed out that research findings can fuel political debates about groups of people (e.g., parents with a migration background), who then may feel insecure about their own capacities. A challenge that we see is to identify and understand problematic situations without legitimizing problematic stereotyping (Hilt, 2015 ).

Furthermore, the field of mathematics education research does not have a consistent conceptualization of equity. There also seem to be regional differences: It struck us that equity is the more common term in the responses from the Americas, whereas inclusion and diversity were more often mentioned in the European responses. Future research will need to focus on both the conceptualization of equity and on improving equity and related values such as inclusion.

Assessing online

A key challenge is how to assess online and to do so more effectively. This challenge is related to both privacy, ethics, and performance issues. It is clear that online assessment may have significant advantages to assess student mathematics learning, such as more flexibility in test-taking and fast scoring. However, many teachers have faced privacy concerns, and we also have the impression that in an online environment it is even more challenging to successfully assess what we value rather than merely assessing what is relatively easy to assess. In particular, we need to systematically investigate any possible effect of administering assessments online as researchers have found a differential effect of online assessment versus paper-and-pencil assessment (Backes & Cowan, 2019 ). What further deserves careful ethical attention is what happens to learning analytics data that can and are collected when students work online.

Doing and publishing interdisciplinary research

When analyzing the responses, we were struck by a discrepancy between what respondents care about and what is typically researched and published in our monodisciplinary journals. Most of the challenges mentioned in this section require interdisciplinary or even transdisciplinary approaches (see also Burkhardt, 2019 ).

An overarching key question is: What role does mathematics education research play in addressing the bigger and more general challenges mentioned by our respondents? The importance of interdisciplinarity also raises a question about the scope of journals that focus on mathematics education research. Do we need to broaden the scope of monodisciplinary journals so that they can publish important research that combines mathematics education research with another disciplinary perspective? As editors, we see a place for interdisciplinary studies as long as there is one strong anchor in mathematics education research. In fact, there are many researchers who do not identify themselves as mathematics education researchers but who are currently doing high-quality work related to mathematics education in fields such as educational psychology and the cognitive and learning sciences. Encouraging the reporting of high-quality mathematics education research from a broader spectrum of researchers would serve to increase the impact of the mathematics education research journals in the wider educational arena. This, in turn, would serve to encourage further collaboration around mathematics education issues from various disciplines. Ultimately, mathematics education research journals could act as a hub for interdisciplinary collaboration to address the pressing questions of how mathematics is learned and taught.

Concluding remarks

In this paper, based on a survey conducted before and during the pandemic, we have examined how scholars in the field of mathematics education view the future of mathematics education research. On the one hand, there are no major surprises about the areas we need to focus on in the future; the themes are not new. On the other hand, the responses also show that the areas we have highlighted still persist and need further investigation (cf. OECD, 2020 ). But, there are a few areas, based on both the responses of the scholars and our own discussions and views, that stand out as requiring more attention. For example, we hope that these survey results will serve as propelling conversation about mathematics education research regarding online assessment and pedagogical considerations for virtual teaching.

The survey results are limited in two ways. The set of respondents to the survey is probably not representative of all mathematics education researchers in the world. In that regard, perhaps scholars in each country could use the same survey questions to survey representative samples within each country to understand how the scholars in that country view future research with respect to regional needs. The second limitation is related to the fact that mathematics education is a very culturally dependent field. Cultural differences in the teaching and learning of mathematics are well documented. Given the small numbers of responses from some continents, we did not break down the analysis for regional comparison. Representative samples from each country would help us see how scholars from different countries view research in mathematics education; they will add another layer of insights about mathematics education research to complement the results of the survey presented here. Nevertheless, we sincerely hope that the findings from the surveys will serve as a discussion point for the field of mathematics education to pursue continuous improvement.

Acknowledgments

We thank Anna Sfard for her advice on the survey, based on her own survey published in Sfard ( 2005 ). We are grateful for Stephen Hwang’s careful copyediting for an earlier version of the manuscript. Thanks also to Elisabeth Angerer, Elske de Waal, Paul Ernest, Vilma Mesa, Michelle Stephan, David Wagner, and anonymous reviewers for their feedback on earlier drafts.

Appendix 1: Explanation of Fig. ​ Fig.1 1

We have divided Fig. ​ Fig.1 1 in 12 rectangles called A1 (bottom left) up to C4 (top right) to explain the details (for image annotation go to https://www.fisme.science.uu.nl/toepassingen/28937 )

Declarations

In line with the guidelines of the Code of Publication Ethics (COPE), we note that the review process of this article was blinded to the authors.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Akkerman SF, Bakker A. Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research. 2011; 81 (2):132–169. doi: 10.3102/0034654311404435. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Arendt, H. (1958/1998). The human condition (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
• Backes B, Cowan J. Is the pen mightier than the keyboard? The effect of online testing on measured student achievement. Economics of Education Review. 2019; 68 :89–103. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.12.007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakkenes, I., Vermunt, J. D., & Wubbels, T. (2010). Teacher learning in the context of educational innovation: Learning activities and learning outcomes of experienced teachers. Learning and Instruction , 20 (6), 533–548. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.09.001
• Bakker A. What is worth publishing? A response to Niss. For the Learning of Mathematics. 2019; 39 (3):43–45. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakker A, Gravemeijer KP. An historical phenomenology of mean and median. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 2006; 62 (2):149–168. doi: 10.1007/s10649-006-7099-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bakx A, Bakker A, Koopman M, Beijaard D. Boundary crossing by science teacher researchers in a PhD program. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2016; 60 :76–87. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2016.08.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Battey, D. (2013). Access to mathematics: “A possessive investment in whiteness”. Curriculum Inquiry , 43 (3), 332–359.
• Bawa, P. (2020). Learning in the age of SARS-COV-2: A quantitative study of learners’ performance in the age of emergency remote teaching. Computers and Education Open , 1 , 100016. 10.1016/j.caeo.2020.100016
• Beckers D, Beckers A. ‘Newton was heel exact wetenschappelijk – ook in zijn chemische werk’. Nederlandse wetenschapsgeschiedenis in niet-wetenschapshistorische tijdschriften, 1977–2017. Studium. 2019; 12 (4):185–197. doi: 10.18352/studium.10203. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bessot, A., & Ridgway, J. (Eds.). (2000). Education for mathematics in the workplace . Springer.
• Bickerton, R. T., & Sangwin, C. (2020). Practical online assessment of mathematical proof. arXiv preprint:2006.01581 . https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.01581.pdf .
• Bikner-Ahsbahs, A., & Prediger, S. (Eds.). (2014). Networking of theories as a research practice in mathematics education . Springer.
• Bini, G., Robutti, O., & Bikner-Ahsbahs, A. (2020). Maths in the time of social media: Conceptualizing the Internet phenomenon of mathematical memes. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology , 1–40. 10.1080/0020739x.2020.1807069
• Bosch, M., Dreyfus, T., Primi, C., & Shiel, G. (2017, February). Solid findings in mathematics education: What are they and what are they good for? CERME 10 . Ireland: Dublin https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01849607
• Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences . MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/6352.001.0001
• Burkhardt, H. (2019). Improving policy and practice. Educational Designer , 3 (12) http://www.educationaldesigner.org/ed/volume3/issue12/article46/
• Cai J, Hwang S. Constructing and employing theoretical frameworks in (mathematics) education research. For the Learning of Mathematics. 2019; 39 (3):44–47. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cai J, Jiang C. An analysis of problem-posing tasks in Chinese and U.S. elementary mathematics textbooks. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2017; 15 (8):1521–1540. doi: 10.1007/s10763-016-9758-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cai, J., & Leikin, R. (2020). Affect in mathematical problem posing: Conceptualization, advances, and future directions for research. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 105 , 287–301. 10.1007/s10649-020-10008-x
• Cai, J., Morris, A., Hohensee, C., Hwang, S., Robison, V., Cirillo, M., … Hiebert, J. (2020). Improving the impact of research on practice: Capitalizing on technological advances for research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 51 (5), 518–529 https://pubs.nctm.org/view/journals/jrme/51/5/article-p518.xml
• Chronaki, A. (2019). Affective bodying of mathematics, children and difference: Choreographing ‘sad affects’ as affirmative politics in early mathematics teacher education. ZDM-Mathematics Education , 51 (2), 319–330. 10.1007/s11858-019-01045-9
• Civil, M., & Bernier, E. (2006). Exploring images of parental participation in mathematics education: Challenges and possibilities. Mathematical Thinking and Learning , 8 (3), 309–330. 10.1207/s15327833mtl0803_6
• Cobb P, Gresalfi M, Hodge LL. An interpretive scheme for analyzing the identities that students develop in mathematics classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 2009; 40 (1):40–68. [ Google Scholar ]
• Darragh L. Identity research in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 2016; 93 (1):19–33. doi: 10.1007/s10649-016-9696-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Abreu, G., Bishop, A., & Presmeg, N. C. (Eds.). (2006). Transitions between contexts of mathematical practices . Kluwer.
• de Freitas, E., Ferrara, F., & Ferrari, G. (2019). The coordinated movements of collaborative mathematical tasks: The role of affect in transindividual sympathy. ZDM-Mathematics Education , 51 (2), 305–318. 10.1007/s11858-018-1007-4
• Deng, Z. (2018). Contemporary curriculum theorizing: Crisis and resolution. Journal of Curriculum Studies , 50 (6), 691–710. 10.1080/00220272.2018.1537376
• Dobie, T. E., & Sherin, B. (2021). The language of mathematics teaching: A text mining approach to explore the zeitgeist of US mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics . 10.1007/s10649-020-10019-8
• Eames, C., & Eames, R. (1977). Powers of Ten [Film]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fKBhvDjuy0
• Engelbrecht, J., Borba, M. C., Llinares, S., & Kaiser, G. (2020). Will 2020 be remembered as the year in which education was changed? ZDM-Mathematics Education , 52 (5), 821–824. 10.1007/s11858-020-01185-3 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• English, L. (2008). Setting an agenda for international research in mathematics education. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (2nd ed., pp. 3–19). Routledge.
• Ernest, P. (2020). Unpicking the meaning of the deceptive mathematics behind the COVID alert levels. Philosophy of Mathematics Education Journal , 36 http://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/education/research/centres/stem/publications/pmej/pome36/index.html
• Freudenthal, H. (1986). Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures . Springer.
• Gilmore, C., Göbel, S. M., & Inglis, M. (2018). An introduction to mathematical cognition . Routledge.
• Goos, M., & Beswick, K. (Eds.). (2021). The learning and development of mathematics teacher educators: International perspectives and challenges . Springer. 10.1007/978-3-030-62408-8
• Gorard, S. (Ed.). (2020). Getting evidence into education. Evaluating the routes to policy and practice . Routledge.
• Gravemeijer, K., Stephan, M., Julie, C., Lin, F.-L., & Ohtani, M. (2017). What mathematics education may prepare students for the society of the future? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education , 15 (1), 105–123. 10.1007/s10763-017-9814-6
• Hannula, M. S. (2019). Young learners’ mathematics-related affect: A commentary on concepts, methods, and developmental trends. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 100 (3), 309–316. 10.1007/s10649-018-9865-9
• Hilt, L. T. (2015). Included as excluded and excluded as included: Minority language pupils in Norwegian inclusion policy. International Journal of Inclusive Education , 19 (2), 165–182.
• Hodgen, J., Taylor, B., Jacques, L., Tereshchenko, A., Kwok, R., & Cockerill, M. (2020). Remote mathematics teaching during COVID-19: Intentions, practices and equity . UCL Institute of Education https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10110311/
• Horn, I. S. (2017). Motivated: Designing math classrooms where students want to join in . Heinemann.
• Hoyles C, Noss R, Pozzi S. Proportional reasoning in nursing practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 2001; 32 (1):4–27. doi: 10.2307/749619. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ito, M., Martin, C., Pfister, R. C., Rafalow, M. H., Salen, K., & Wortman, A. (2018). Affinity online: How connection and shared interest fuel learning . NYU Press.
• Jackson K. Approaching participation in school-based mathematics as a cross-setting phenomenon. The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 2011; 20 (1):111–150. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2011.528319. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jansen, A., Herbel-Eisenmann, B., & Smith III, J. P. (2012). Detecting students’ experiences of discontinuities between middle school and high school mathematics programs: Learning during boundary crossing. Mathematical Thinking and Learning , 14 (4), 285–309. 10.1080/10986065.2012.717379
• Johnson, L. F., Smith, R. S., Smythe, J. T., & Varon, R. K. (2009). Challenge-based learning: An approach for our time (pp. 1–38). The New Media Consortium https://www.learntechlib.org/p/182083
• Jullien, F. (2018). Living off landscape: Or the unthought-of in reason . Rowman & Littlefield.
• Kazima, M. (2019). What is proven to work in successful countries should be implemented in other countries: The case of Malawi and Zambia. In M. Graven, H. Venkat, A. A. Essien, & P. Vale (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd conference of the international group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 73–78). PME.
• Kim, H. (2019). Ask again, “why should we implement what works in successful countries?” In M. Graven, H. Venkat, A. A. Essien, & P. Vale (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd conference of the international group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 79–82). PME.
• Kolovou, A., Van Den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Bakker, A. (2009). Non-routine problem solving tasks in primary school mathematics textbooks—a needle in a haystack. Mediterranean Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 8 (2), 29–66.
• Kwon, O. N., Han, C., Lee, C., Lee, K., Kim, K., Jo, G., & Yoon, G. (2021). Graphs in the COVID-19 news: A mathematics audit of newspapers in Korea. Educational Studies in Mathematics . 10.1007/s10649-021-10029-0 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Lefebvre, H. (2004). Rhythmanalysis: Space, time and everyday life (Original 1992; Translation by S. Elden & G. Moore) . Bloomsbury Academic. 10.5040/9781472547385.
• Li, Y. (2019). Should what works in successful countries be implemented in other countries? In M. Graven, H. Venkat, A. A. Essien, & P. Vale (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd conference of the international group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 67–72). PME.
• Martin, D., Gholson, M., & Leonard, J. (2010). Mathematics as gatekeeper: Power and privilege in the production of power. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education , 3 (2), 12–24.
• Masschelein, J., & Simons, M. (2019). Bringing more ‘school’ into our educational institutions. Reclaiming school as pedagogic form. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs & M. Peters (Eds.), Unterrichtsentwicklung macht Schule (pp. 11–26) . Springer. 10.1007/978-3-658-20487-7_2
• Meeter, M., Bele, T., den Hartogh, C., Bakker, T., de Vries, R. E., & Plak, S. (2020). College students’ motivation and study results after COVID-19 stay-at-home orders. https://psyarxiv.com .
• Nemirovsky, R., Kelton, M. L., & Civil, M. (2017). Toward a vibrant and socially significant informal mathematics education. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 968–979). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• Niss M. The very multi-faceted nature of mathematics education research. For the Learning of Mathematics. 2019; 39 (2):2–7. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD. (2020). Back to the Future of Education: Four OECD Scenarios for Schooling. Educational Research and Innovation . OECD Publishing. 10.1787/20769679
• Potari, D., Psycharis, G., Sakonidis, C., & Zachariades, T. (2019). Collaborative design of a reform-oriented mathematics curriculum: Contradictions and boundaries across teaching, research, and policy. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 102 (3), 417–434. 10.1007/s10649-018-9834-3
• Proulx, J., & Maheux, J. F. (2019). Effect sizes, epistemological issues, and identity of mathematics education research: A commentary on editorial 102(1). Educational Studies in Mathematics , 102 (2), 299–302. 10.1007/s10649-019-09913-7
• Roos, H. (2019). Inclusion in mathematics education: An ideology, A way of teaching, or both? Educational Studies in Mathematics , 100 (1), 25–41. 10.1007/s10649-018-9854-z
• Saenz, M., Medina, A., & Urbine Holguin, B. (2020). Colombia: La prender al onda (to turn on the wave). Education continuity stories series . OECD Publishing https://oecdedutoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Colombia-a-prender-la-onda.pdf
• Schindler, M., & Bakker, A. (2020). Affective field during collaborative problem posing and problem solving: A case study. Educational Studies in Mathematics , 105 , 303–324. 10.1007/s10649-020-09973-0
• Schoenfeld, A. H. (1999). Looking toward the 21st century: Challenges of educational theory and practice. Educational Researcher , 28 (7), 4–14. 10.3102/0013189x028007004
• Schukajlow, S., Rakoczy, K., & Pekrun, R. (2017). Emotions and motivation in mathematics education: Theoretical considerations and empirical contributions. ZDM-Mathematics Education , 49 (3), 307–322. 10.1007/s11858-017-0864-6 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Sfard A. What could be more practical than good research? Educational Studies in Mathematics. 2005; 58 (3):393–413. doi: 10.1007/s10649-005-4818-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shimizu, Y., & Vithal, R. (Eds.). (2019). ICMI Study 24 Conference Proceedings. School mathematics curriculum reforms: Challenges, changes and opportunities . ICMI: University of Tsukuba & ICMI http://www.human.tsukuba.ac.jp/~icmi24/
• Sierpinska A. Some remarks on understanding in mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics. 1990; 10 (3):24–41. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stephan, M. L., Chval, K. B., Wanko, J. J., Civil, M., Fish, M. C., Herbel-Eisenmann, B., … Wilkerson, T. L. (2015). Grand challenges and opportunities in mathematics education research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 46 (2), 134–146. 10.5951/jresematheduc.46.2.0134
• Suazo-Flores, E., Alyami, H., Walker, W. S., Aqazade, M., & Kastberg, S. E. (2021). A call for exploring mathematics education researchers’ interdisciplinary research practices. Mathematics Education Research Journal , 1–10. 10.1007/s13394-021-00371-0
• Svensson, P., Meaney, T., & Norén, E. (2014). Immigrant students’ perceptions of their possibilities to learn mathematics: The case of homework. For the Learning of Mathematics , 34 (3), 32–37.
• UNESCO. (2015). Teacher policy development guide . UNESCO, International Task Force on Teachers for Education 2030. https://teachertaskforce.org/sites/default/files/2020-09/370966eng_0_1.pdf .
• Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen M. Can scientific research answer the ‘what’ question of mathematics education? Cambridge Journal of Education. 2005; 35 (1):35–53. doi: 10.1080/0305764042000332489. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wittmann EC. Mathematics education as a ‘design science’ Educational Studies in Mathematics. 1995; 29 (4):355–374. doi: 10.1007/BF01273911. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yoon, H., Byerley, C. O. N., Joshua, S., Moore, K., Park, M. S., Musgrave, S., Valaas, L., & Drimalla, J. (2021). United States and South Korean citizens’ interpretation and assessment of COVID-19 quantitative data. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior . 10.1016/j.jmathb.2021.100865.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Qualitative Approaches in Mathematics Education Research: Challenges and Possible Solutions

2013, Education Journal

Related Papers

Advances in Mathematics Education

Norma Presmeg

Rina Zazkis

With the development of qualitative methodologies, interviewing has become one of the main tools in mathematics education research. As the first step in analyzing interviewing in mathematics education we focus here on the stage of planning, specifically, on designing the interview questions. We attempt to outline several features of interview questions and understand what guides researchers in choosing the interview questions. Our observations and conclusions are based on examining research in mathematics education that uses interviews as a data-collection tool and on interviews with practicing researchers reflecting on their practice.

Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal

Psychology and Education , Jayhad Michael B. Limana

Mathematics is important for a person to live a better life. It has a special position in the educational curriculum. However, it is well known that most students find mathematics challenging. This study examined the high school student's struggles and challenges in learning Mathematics. The Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) anchored from the Modified Van Kaam Approach popularized by Moustakas was utilized in this study to come up with meaningful data on the struggles and challenges of the high school students in learning Mathematics. The subject of this research was chosen using a purposive sampling technique and the participants are all qualified according to the study's inclusion criteria. 10 high school students of Bartolome and Manuela Pañares Memorial National High School participated in the interview. Analyzing the causes is crucial before taking additional steps to enhance students' Math learning. Through an open-ended survey questionnaire, students were questioned about potential causes of their learning challenges. The researchers generated four themes from the gathered data, and these are the following: The Crux of the Matter, Stumbling Block, Get to Grips With, and Significantly Essential Matter. These themes were formulated based on the students' shared experiences in learning Mathematics. The study included cognitive, affective, and contextual factors that determine the struggles and challenges in learning Mathematics. The challenges that students have in learning mathematics include having trouble recalling information from previous classes, forgetting information easily, and having trouble understanding mathematical ideas. It has been observed that students who find mathematics to be extremely difficult tend to give up more easily than those who find the subject simple. The results also showed that teachers must understand the value of making classroom mathematics engaging so that the students will put effort in learning the subject. The result is presented in the context of the students' perspectives and learning methods.

This book by-passes both psychology and sociology to present an original social theory centered on seeing mathematical learning by everyone as an intrinsic dimension of how mathematics develops as a field in support of human activity. Here, mathematics is defined by how we collectively talk about it. Drawing on psychoanalytic theory, the student is seen as participating in the renewal of mathematics through their contributions to our collective gaze on mathematics as the field responds to ever new demands. As such learning takes a critical stance on the standard initiations into current practices often promoted by formal education. In the field of mathematics education, researchers have moved from psychology where individual students were seen as following natural paths of development through existing mathematical knowledge, to socio-cultural models predicated on students being initiated into the human world and understood through the reflective gazes this world has of itself, such as those found in comparisons of student learning in different countries. This book addresses the domain, purpose and functioning of contemporary research in mathematics education and is an original contribution to this theme. The book is aimed at a mathematics education research audience. It continues a dialogue with existing publications, seen widely as a cutting edge and will also be of interest to students and practitioners in the fields of qualitative research, social theory and psychology. New book- Tony Brown A contemporary theory of mathematics education research https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030550998#aboutBook A preface providing an action-packed overview is freely downloadable as a pdf: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-030-55100-1

European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education

NELISWA GQOLI

Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia

Sarah Ferguson

This paper draws on two studies, one conducted by each author, where procedures for gaining insights into people’s beliefs about mathematics and learning were developed or adapted for use by the researcher. In this paper we discuss the use in each study of variations of the procedure called Pupil Perceptions of Effective Learning Environments in Mathematics (PPELEM). The paper demonstrates the flexibility of PPELEM as a data collection tool and shows that, even with a large age difference of respondents, the procedure can be used as a prompt for both adults and primary school children and provides insights into beliefs.

Mathematics Education Research Journal

Robyn Jorgensen

Curriculum Inquiry

Margaret Walshaw

In this paper I review some recent reviews of mathematics education research, which seem at first sight to confirm a judgement by Steen (1999) that it'is a field in disarray'. As a PhD student, looking at competing methodologies there can seem a bewildering complexity from which to choose. It appears that there are relatively few (three to five, depending on authors) theoretical perspectives or paradigms that guide the field, but a plethora of methodologies that can be used with them.

Journal of Mixed Methods Research

Susan Swars Auslander

This mixed methods examination of 710 research articles in mathematics education published in six prominent educational journals during the period 1995-2005 finds that 50% of the studies used qualitative methods only, 21% used quantitative methods only, and 29% mixed qualitative and quantitative methods in various ways. Although the number of mixed methods articles show some variation year to year and

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Sandra Schuck

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH

EDMAR LAPISBORO

Laura Van Zoest

Psychology and Education

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education

Marta Civil

Springer eBooks

International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education

Paul Mutodi

European Journal of Education Studies

Necdet Guner

Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education

David W Stinson

… Journal of Qualitative …

Vanashri Nargund-Joshi

Edrine Mutebi CFA

Mutebi Edrine

Dr Bronwyn Ewing

Maria Aparecida Viggiani Bicudo

Meaghan Pavlovich

ANNIE SELDEN

ANNIE SELDEN , John Selden

Tony Cotton

Assude, T., Boero, P., Herbst, P., Lerman, S., & Radford, L. (2008). The Notions and Roles of Theory in Mathematics Education Research. ICME-11. Monterrey, Mexico.

Luis Radford , Patricio Herbst

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

Yubaraj Bhattarai

Quality & Quantity

Mansoor Niaz

International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education

Laxman Luitel

AMELIA BONOTAN

Paul Ernest

Compendium for Research in Mathematics Education

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

BYU ScholarsArchive

Home > Computational, Mathematical, and Physical Sciences > Mathematics Education > Theses and Dissertations

Mathematics Education Theses and Dissertations

Theses/dissertations from 2024 2024.

Rigorous Verification of Stability of Ideal Gas Layers , Damian Anderson

Documentation of Norm Negotiation in a Secondary Mathematics Classroom , Michelle R. Bagley

New Mathematics Teachers' Goals, Orientations, and Resources that Influence Implementation of Principles Learned in Brigham Young University's Teacher Preparation Program , Caroline S. Gneiting

Theses/Dissertations from 2023 2023

Impact of Applying Visual Design Principles to Boardwork in a Mathematics Classroom , Jennifer Rose Canizales

Practicing Mathematics Teachers' Perspectives of Public Records in Their Classrooms , Sini Nicole White Graff

Parents' Perceptions of the Importance of Teaching Mathematics: A Q-Study , Ashlynn M. Holley

Engagement in Secondary Mathematics Group Work: A Student Perspective , Rachel H. Jorgenson

Theses/Dissertations from 2022 2022

Understanding College Students' Use of Written Feedback in Mathematics , Erin Loraine Carroll

Identity Work to Teach Mathematics for Social Justice , Navy B. Dixon

Developing a Quantitative Understanding of U-Substitution in First-Semester Calculus , Leilani Camille Heaton Fonbuena

The Perception of At-Risk Students on Caring Student-Teacher Relationships and Its Impact on Their Productive Disposition , Brittany Hopper

Variational and Covariational Reasoning of Students with Disabilities , Lauren Rigby

Structural Reasoning with Rational Expressions , Dana Steinhorst

Student-Created Learning Objects for Mathematics Renewable Assignments: The Potential Value They Bring to the Broader Community , Webster Wong

Theses/Dissertations from 2021 2021

Emotional Geographies of Beginning and Veteran Reformed Teachers in Mentor/Mentee Relationships , Emily Joan Adams

You Do Math Like a Girl: How Women Reason Mathematically Outside of Formal and School Mathematics Contexts , Katelyn C. Pyfer

Developing the Definite Integral and Accumulation Function Through Adding Up Pieces: A Hypothetical Learning Trajectory , Brinley Nichole Stevens

Theses/Dissertations from 2020 2020

Mathematical Identities of Students with Mathematics Learning Dis/abilities , Emma Lynn Holdaway

Teachers' Mathematical Meanings: Decisions for Teaching Geometric Reflections and Orientation of Figures , Porter Peterson Nielsen

Student Use of Mathematical Content Knowledge During Proof Production , Chelsey Lynn Van de Merwe

Theses/Dissertations from 2019 2019

Making Sense of the Equal Sign in Middle School Mathematics , Chelsea Lynn Dickson

Developing Understanding of the Chain Rule, Implicit Differentiation, and Related Rates: Towards a Hypothetical Learning Trajectory Rooted in Nested Multivariation , Haley Paige Jeppson

Secondary Preservice Mathematics Teachers' Curricular Reasoning , Kimber Anne Mathis

“Don’t Say Gay. We Say Dumb or Stupid”: Queering ProspectiveMathematics Teachers’ Discussions , Amy Saunders Ross

Aspects of Engaging Problem Contexts From Students' Perspectives , Tamara Kay Stark

Theses/Dissertations from 2018 2018

Addressing Pre-Service Teachers' Misconceptions About Confidence Intervals , Kiya Lynn Eliason

How Teacher Questions Affect the Development of a Potential Hybrid Space in a Classroom with Latina/o Students , Casandra Helen Job

Teacher Graphing Practices for Linear Functions in a Covariation-Based College Algebra Classroom , Konda Jo Luckau

Principles of Productivity Revealed from Secondary Mathematics Teachers' Discussions Around the Productiveness of Teacher Moves in Response to Teachable Moments , Kylie Victoria Palsky

Theses/Dissertations from 2017 2017

Curriculum Decisions and Reasoning of Middle School Teachers , Anand Mikel Bernard

Teacher Response to Instances of Student Thinking During Whole Class Discussion , Rachel Marie Bernard

Kyozaikenkyu: An In-Depth Look into Japanese Educators' Daily Planning Practices , Matthew David Melville

Analysis of Differential Equations Applications from the Coordination Class Perspective , Omar Antonio Naranjo Mayorga

Theses/Dissertations from 2016 2016

The Principles of Effective Teaching Student Teachershave the Opportunity to Learn in an AlternativeStudent Teaching Structure , Danielle Rose Divis

Insight into Student Conceptions of Proof , Steven Daniel Lauzon

Theses/Dissertations from 2015 2015

Teacher Participation and Motivation inProfessional Development , Krystal A. Hill

Student Evaluation of Mathematical Explanations in anInquiry-Based Mathematics Classroom , Ashley Burgess Hulet

English Learners' Participation in Mathematical Discourse , Lindsay Marie Merrill

Mathematical Interactions between Teachers and Students in the Finnish Mathematics Classroom , Paula Jeffery Prestwich

Parents and the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics , Rebecca Anne Roberts

Examining the Effects of College Algebra on Students' Mathematical Dispositions , Kevin Lee Watson

Problems Faced by Reform Oriented Novice Mathematics Teachers Utilizing a Traditional Curriculum , Tyler Joseph Winiecke

Academic and Peer Status in the Mathematical Life Stories of Students , Carol Ann Wise

Theses/Dissertations from 2014 2014

The Effect of Students' Mathematical Beliefs on Knowledge Transfer , Kristen Adams

Language Use in Mathematics Textbooks Written in English and Spanish , Kailie Ann Bertoch

Teachers' Curricular Reasoning and MKT in the Context of Algebra and Statistics , Kolby J. Gadd

Mathematical Telling in the Context of Teacher Interventions with Collaborative Groups , Brandon Kyle Singleton

An Investigation of How Preservice Teachers Design Mathematical Tasks , Elizabeth Karen Zwahlen

Theses/Dissertations from 2013 2013

Student Understanding of Limit and Continuity at a Point: A Look into Four Potentially Problematic Conceptions , Miriam Lynne Amatangelo

Exploring the Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching of Japanese Teachers , Ratu Jared R. T. Bukarau

Comparing Two Different Student Teaching Structures by Analyzing Conversations Between Student Teachers and Their Cooperating Teachers , Niccole Suzette Franc

Professional Development as a Community of Practice and Its Associated Influence on the Induction of a Beginning Mathematics Teacher , Savannah O. Steele

Types of Questions that Comprise a Teacher's Questioning Discourse in a Conceptually-Oriented Classroom , Keilani Stolk

Theses/Dissertations from 2012 2012

Student Teachers' Interactive Decisions with Respect to Student Mathematics Thinking , Jonathan J. Call

Manipulatives and the Growth of Mathematical Understanding , Stacie Joyce Gibbons

Learning Within a Computer-Assisted Instructional Environment: Effects on Multiplication Math Fact Mastery and Self-Efficacy in Elementary-Age Students , Loraine Jones Hanson

Mathematics Teacher Time Allocation , Ashley Martin Jones

Theses/Dissertations from 2011 2011

How Student Positioning Can Lead to Failure in Inquiry-based Classrooms , Kelly Beatrice Campbell

Teachers' Decisions to Use Student Input During Class Discussion , Heather Taylor Toponce

A Conceptual Framework for Student Understanding of Logarithms , Heather Rebecca Ambler Williams

Theses/Dissertations from 2010 2010

Growth in Students' Conceptions of Mathematical Induction , John David Gruver

Contextualized Motivation Theory (CMT): Intellectual Passion, Mathematical Need, Social Responsibility, and Personal Agency in Learning Mathematics , Janelle Marie Hart

Thinking on the Brink: Facilitating Student Teachers' Learning Through In-the-Moment Interjections , Travis L. Lemon

Understanding Teachers' Change Towards a Reform-Oriented Mathematics Classroom , Linnae Denise Williams

Theses/Dissertations from 2009 2009

A Comparison of Mathematical Discourse in Online and Face-to-Face Environments , Shawn D. Broderick

The Influence of Risk Taking on Student Creation of Mathematical Meaning: Contextual Risk Theory , Erin Nicole Houghtaling

Uncovering Transformative Experiences: A Case Study of the Transformations Made by one Teacher in a Mathematics Professional Development Program , Rachelle Myler Orsak

Theses/Dissertations from 2008 2008

Student Teacher Knowledge and Its Impact on Task Design , Tenille Cannon

How Eighth-Grade Students Estimate with Fractions , Audrey Linford Hanks

Similar but Different: The Complexities of Students' Mathematical Identities , Diane Skillicorn Hill

Choose Your Words: Refining What Counts as Mathematical Discourse in Students' Negotiation of Meaning for Rate of Change of Volume , Christine Johnson

Mathematics Student Teaching in Japan: A Multi-Case Study , Allison Turley Shwalb

Theses/Dissertations from 2007 2007

Applying Toulmin's Argumentation Framework to Explanations in a Reform Oriented Mathematics Class , Jennifer Alder Brinkerhoff

What Are Some of the Common Traits in the Thought Processes of Undergraduate Students Capable of Creating Proof? , Karen Malina Duff

Probing for Reasons: Presentations, Questions, Phases , Kellyn Nicole Farlow

One Problem, Two Contexts , Danielle L. Gigger

The Main Challenges that a Teacher-in-Transition Faces When Teaching a High School Geometry Class , Greg Brough Henry

Discovering the Derivative Can Be "Invigorating:" Mark's Journey to Understanding Instantaneous Velocity , Charity Ann Gardner Hyer

Theses/Dissertations from 2006 2006

How a Master Teacher Uses Questioning Within a Mathematical Discourse Community , Omel Angel Contreras

Determining High School Geometry Students' Geometric Understanding Using van Hiele Levels: Is There a Difference Between Standards-based Curriculum Students and NonStandards-based Curriculum Students? , Rebekah Loraine Genz

The Nature and Frequency of Mathematical Discussion During Lesson Study That Implemented the CMI Framework , Andrew Ray Glaze

Second Graders' Solution Strategies and Understanding of a Combination Problem , Tiffany Marie Hessing

What Does It Mean To Preservice Mathematics Teachers To Anticipate Student Responses? , Matthew M. Webb

Theses/Dissertations from 2005 2005

Fraction Multiplication and Division Image Change in Pre-Service Elementary Teachers , Jennifer J. Cluff

An Examination of the Role of Writing in Mathematics Instruction , Amy Jeppsen

Theses/Dissertations from 2004 2004

Reasoning About Motion: A Case Study , Tiffini Lynn Glaze

Theses/Dissertations from 2003 2003

An Analysis of the Influence of Lesson Study on Preservice Secondary Mathematics Teachers' View of Self-As Mathematics Expert , Julie Stafford

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS

ScholarsArchive ISSN: 2572-4479

• Collections
• Disciplines
• Scholarly Communication
• Additional Collections
• Academic Research Blog

Author Corner

Hosted by the.

• Harold B. Lee Library

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright

• Write my thesis
• Thesis writers
• Buy thesis papers
• Bachelor thesis
• Master's thesis
• Thesis editing services
• Thesis proofreading services
• Buy a thesis online
• Write my dissertation
• Dissertation proposal help
• Pay for dissertation
• Custom dissertation
• Dissertation help online
• Buy dissertation online
• Cheap dissertation
• Dissertation editing services
• Write my research paper
• Buy research paper online
• Pay for research paper
• Research paper help
• Order research paper
• Custom research paper
• Cheap research paper
• Research papers for sale
• Thesis subjects
• How It Works

181 Mathematics Research Topics From PhD Experts

If you are reading this blog post, it means you are looking for some exceptional math research topics. You want them to be original, unique even. If you manage to find topics like this, you can be sure your professor will give you a top grade (if you write a decent paper, that is). The good news is that you have arrived at just the right place – at the right time. We have just finished updating our list of topics, so you will find plenty of original ideas right on this page. All our topics are 100 percent free to use as you see fit. You can reword them and you don’t need to give us any credit.

And remember: if you need assistance from a professional, don’t hesitate to reach out to us. We are not just the best place for math research topics for high school students; we are also the number one choice for students looking for top-notch research paper writing services.

Our Newest Research Topics in Math

We know you probably want the best and most recent research topics in math. You want your paper to stand out from all the rest. After all, this is the best way to get some bonus points from your professor. On top of this, finding some great topics for your next paper makes it easier for you to write the essay. As long as you know at least something about the topic, you’ll find that writing a great paper or buy phd thesis isn’t as difficult as you previously thought.

So, without further ado, here are the 181 brand new topics for your next math research paper:

Cool Math Topics to Research

Are you looking for some cool math topics to research? We have a list of original topics for your right here. Pick the one you like and start writing now:

• Roll two dice and calculate a probability
• Discuss ancient Greek mathematics
• Is math really important in school?
• Discuss the binomial theorem
• The math behind encryption
• Game theory and its real-life applications
• Analyze the Bernoulli scheme
• What are holomorphic functions and how do they work?
• Describe big numbers
• Solving the Tower of Hanoi problem

Undergraduate Math Research Topics

If you are an undergraduate looking for some research topics for your next math paper, you will surely appreciate our list of interesting undergraduate math research topics:

• Methods to count discrete objects
• The origins of Greek symbols in mathematics
• Methods to solve simultaneous equations
• Real-world applications of the theorem of Pythagoras
• Discuss the limits of diffusion
• Use math to analyze the abortion data in the UK over the last 100 years
• Discuss the Knot theory
• Analyze predictive models (take meteorology as an example)
• In-depth analysis of the Monte Carlo methods for inverse problems
• Squares vs. rectangles (compare and contrast)

Number Theory Topics to Research

Interested in writing about number theory? It is not an easy subject to discuss, we know. However, we are sure you will appreciate these number theory topics:

• Discuss the greatest common divisor
• Explain the extended Euclidean algorithm
• What are RSA numbers?
• Discuss Bézout’s lemma
• In-depth analysis of the square-free polynomial
• Discuss the Stern-Brocot tree
• Analyze Fermat’s little theorem
• What is a discrete logarithm?
• Gauss’s lemma in number theory
• Analyze the Pentagonal number theorem

Math Research Topics for High School

High school students shouldn’t be too worried about their math papers because we have some unique, and quite interesting, math research topics for high school right here:

• Discuss Brun’s constant
• An in-depth look at the Brahmagupta–Fibonacci identity
• What is derivative algebra?
• Describe the Symmetric Boolean function
• Discuss orders of approximation in limits
• Solving Regiomontanus’ angle maximization problem
• What is a Quadratic integral?
• Define and describe complementary angles
• Analyze the incircle and excircles of a triangle
• Analyze the Bolyai–Gerwien theorem in geometry
• Math in our everyday life

Complex Math Topics

If you want to give some complex math topics a try, we have the best examples below. Remember, these topics should only be attempted by students who are proficient in mathematics:

• Mathematics and its appliance in Artificial Intelligence
• Try to solve an unsolved problem in math
• Discuss Kolmogorov’s zero-one law
• What is a discrete random variable?
• Analyze the Hewitt–Savage zero-one law
• What is a transferable belief model?
• Discuss 3 major mathematical theorems
• Describe and analyze the Dempster-Shafer theory
• An in-depth analysis of a continuous stochastic process
• Identify and analyze Gauss-Markov processes

Easy Math Research Paper Topics

Perhaps you don’t want to spend too much time working on your next research paper. Who can blame you? Check out these easy math research paper topics:

• Define the hyperbola
• Do we need to use a calculator during math class?
• The binomial theorem and its real-world applications
• What is a parabola in geometry?
• How do you calculate the slope of a curve?
• Define the Jacobian matrix
• Solving matrix problems effectively
• Why do we need differential equations?
• Should math be mandatory in all schools?
• What is a Hessian matrix?

Logic Topics to Research

We have some interesting logical topics for research papers. These are perfect for students interested in writing about math logic. Pick one right now:

• Discuss the reductio ad absurdum approach
• Discuss Boolean algebra
• What is consistency proof?
• Analyze Trakhtenbrot’s theorem (the finite model theory)
• Discuss the Gödel completeness theorem
• An in-depth analysis of Morley’s categoricity theorem
• How does the Back-and-forth method work?
• Discuss the Ehrenfeucht–Fraïssé game technique
• Discuss Aleph numbers (Aleph-null and Aleph-one)
• Solving the Suslin problem

Algebra Topics for a Research Paper

Would you like to write about an algebra topic? No problem, our seasoned writers have compiled a list of the best algebra topics for a research paper:

• Discuss the differential equation
• Analyze the Jacobson density theorem
• The 4 properties of a binary operation in algebra
• Analyze the unary operator in depth
• Analyze the Abel–Ruffini theorem
• Epimorphisms vs. monomorphisms: compare and contrast
• Discuss the Morita duality in algebraic structures
• Idempotent vs. nilpotent in Ring theory
• Discuss the Artin-Wedderburn theorem
• What is a commutative ring in algebra?
• Analyze and describe the Noetherian ring

Math Education Research Topics

There is nothing wrong with writing about math education, especially if your professor did not give you writing prompts. Here are some very nice math education research topics:

• What are the goals a mathematics professor should have?
• What is math anxiety in the classroom?
• Teaching math in UK schools: the difficulties
• Computer programming or math in high school?
• Is math education in Europe at a high enough level?
• Common Core Standards and their effects on math education
• Culture and math education in Africa
• What is dyscalculia and how does it manifest itself?
• When was algebra first thought in schools?
• Math education in the United States versus the United Kingdom

Computability Theory Topics to Research

Writing about computability theory can be a very interesting adventure. Give it a try! Here are some of our most interesting computability theory topics to research:

• What is a multiplication table?
• Analyze the Scholz conjecture
• Explain exponentiating by squaring
• Analyze the Myhill-Nerode theorem
• What is a tree automaton?
• Compare and contrast the Pushdown automaton and the Büchi automaton
• Discuss the Markov algorithm
• What is a Turing machine?
• Analyze the post correspondence problem
• Discuss the linear speedup theorem
• Discuss the Boolean satisfiability problem

Interesting Math Research Topics

We know you want topics that are interesting and relatively easy to write about. This is why we have a separate list of our most interesting math research topics:

• What is two-element Boolean algebra?
• The life of Gauss
• The life of Isaac Newton
• What is an orthodiagonal quadrilateral?
• Tessellation in Euclidean plane geometry
• Describe a hyperboloid in 3D geometry
• What is a sphericon?
• Discuss the peculiarities of Borel’s paradox
• Analyze the De Finetti theorem in statistics
• What are Martingales?
• The basics of stochastic calculus

Applied Math Research Topics

Interested in writing about applied mathematics? Our team managed to create a list of awesome applied math research topics from scratch for you:

• Discuss Newton’s laws of motion
• Analyze the perpendicular axes rule
• How is a Galilean transformation done?
• The conservation of energy and its applications
• Discuss Liouville’s theorem in Hamiltonian mechanics
• Analyze the quantum field theory
• Discuss the main components of the Lorentz symmetry
• An in-depth look at the uncertainty principle

Geometry Topics for a Research Paper

Geometry can be a very captivating subject, especially when you know plenty about it. Check out our list of geometry topics for a research paper and pick the best one today:

• Most useful trigonometry functions in math
• The life of Archimedes and his achievements
• Trigonometry in computer graphics
• Using Vincenty’s formulae in geodesy
• Define and describe the Heronian tetrahedron
• The math behind the parabolic microphone
• Discuss the Japanese theorem for concyclic polygons
• Analyze Euler’s theorem in geometry

Math Research Topics for Middle School

Yes, even middle school children can write about mathematics. We have some original math research topics for middle school right here:

• Finding critical points in a graph
• The basics of calculus
• What makes a graph ultrahomogeneous?
• How do you calculate the area of different shapes?
• What contributions did Euclid have to the field of mathematics?
• What is Diophantine geometry?
• What makes a graph regular?
• Analyze a full binary tree

Math Research Topics for College Students

As you’ve probably already figured out, college students should pick topics that are a bit more complex. We have some of the best math research topics for college students right here:

• What are extremal problems and how do you solve them?
• Discuss an unsolvable math problem
• How can supercomputers solve complex mathematical problems?
• An in-depth analysis of fractals
• Discuss the Boruvka’s algorithm (related to the minimum spanning tree)
• Discuss the Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction hypothesis in relativity
• An in-depth look at Einstein’s field equation
• The math behind computer vision and object recognition

Calculus Topics for a Research Paper

Let’s face it: calculus is not a very difficult field. So, why don’t you pick one of our excellent calculus topics for a research paper and start writing your essay right away:

• When do we need to apply the L’Hôpital rule?
• Discuss the Leibniz integral rule
• Calculus in ancient Egypt
• Discuss and analyze linear approximations
• The applications of calculus in real life
• The many uses of Stokes’ theorem
• Discuss the Borel regular measure
• An in-depth analysis of Lebesgue’s monotone convergence theorem

Simple Math Research Paper Topics for High School

This is the place where you can find some pretty simple topics if you are a high school student. Check out our simple math research paper topics for high school:

• The life and work of the famous Pierre de Fermat
• What are limits and why are they useful in calculus?
• Explain the concept of congruency
• The life and work of the famous Jakob Bernoulli
• Analyze the rhombicosidodecahedron and its applications
• Calculus and the Egyptian pyramids
• The life and work of the famous Jean d’Alembert
• Discuss the hyperplane arrangement in combinatorial computational geometry
• The smallest enclosing sphere method in combinatorics

Business Math Topics

If you want to surprise your professor, why don’t you write about business math? We have some exceptional topics that nobody has thought about right here:

• Is paying a loan with another loan a good approach?
• Discuss the major causes of a stock market crash
• Best debt amortization methods in the US
• How do bank loans work in the UK?
• Calculating interest rates the easy way
• Discuss the pros and cons of annuities
• Basic business math skills everyone should possess
• Business math in United States schools
• Analyze the discount factor

Probability and Statistics Topics for Research

Probability and statistics are not easy fields. However, you can impress your professor with one of our unique probability and statistics topics for research:

• What is the autoregressive conditional duration?
• Applying the ANOVA method to ranks
• Discuss the practical applications of the Bates distribution
• Explain the principle of maximum entropy
• Discuss Skorokhod’s representation theorem in random variables
• What is the Factorial moment in the Theory of Probability?
• Compare and contrast Cochran’s C test and his Q test
• Analyze the De Moivre-Laplace theorem
• What is a negative probability?

Need Help With Research Paper?

We offer the absolute best high school and college research paper writing service on the Internet. When you need any kind of research paper help, our experienced ENL writers and professional editors are here to help. With years of experience under their belts, our experts can get your research paper done in as little as 3 hours.

Getting cheap online help with research papers has never been easier. College students should just get in touch with us and tell us what they need. We will assign them our most affordable and experienced math writer in minutes, even during the night. We are the best-rated online writing company on the Internet because we always deliver high-quality academic content at the most competitive prices. Give us a try today!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply