www.ijcrsee.com
97
Suripah
S. et al. (2025). Research Trends in Scopus Database on Technological Innovation in the Process of
Mathematics Learning: A Bibliometric Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and
Education (IJCRSEE), 13(1), 97-116.
Original scientific paper
Received: December 03, 2024.
Revised: March 16, 2025.
Accepted: March 22, 2025.
UDC:
378.147.091.31::51
10.23947/2334-8496-2025-13-1-97-116
© 2025 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
*
Corresponding author: rifah@edu.uir.ac.id
Abstract: The purpose of this analysis is to look at publication trends in research on technological innovation in the
process of mathematics learning analyzed by bibliometric analysis. Using predetermined keywords, the authors analyzed
262 documents that had been selected by the PRISMA method, with the next step being bibliometric analysis with the R
Program and VOSviewer. From the analysis, research on technological innovation in mathematics learning started in 1987
and showed significant growth until 2024, with a clear surge in publications since 2010 and a peak in 2023. The United
States and Australia lead the way in the number of publications and citations, demonstrating their great influence in this
field. Universiti Putra Malaysia, along with leading universities in Australia and South Africa, show dominance in publications
related to this topic. Journals in the Q1 category play a major role in advancing knowledge about technology in mathematics
education, In the keyword grouping, new trends are emerging such as the use of technologies like “Artificial Intelligence” and
“Blended Learning” which are becoming new directions in technological innovation in the process of mathematics learning.
Keywords: technology, mathematics learning, bibliometric.
Suripah
1*
, Heri Retnawati
2
, Zetriuslita
1
, Zafrullah
3
, Riyan Hidayat
4
1
Department of Mathematics Education, Universitas Islam Riau, Pekanbaru, Indonesia,
e-mail: rifah@edu.uir.ac.id, zetriuslita@edu.uir.ac.id
2
Department of Mathematics Education, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Indonesia,
e-mail: heri_retnawati@uny.ac.id
3
Educational Research and Evaluation, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Indonesia,
e-mail: zafrullah.2022@student.uny.ac.id
4
Department of Mathematics Education, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia, e-mail: riyan@upm.edu.my
Research Trends in Scopus Database on Technological Innovation in
the Process of Mathematics Learning: A Bibliometric Analysis
Introduction
The development of education after war has undergone a significant transformation, with many
countries seeking to rebuild their education systems to support social and economic recovery (Ma et
al., 2022). Education serves not only as a tool to disseminate knowledge, but also as a means to shape
character and prepare young people for future challenges (Behnamnia et al., 2020; González-Pérez and
Ramírez-Montoya, 2022; Izzulhaq et al., 2024). The existence of inclusive and quality education is be-
coming increasingly important in a global context, where access to education can help reduce social
inequalities and improve people’s well-being. By utilizing technology and innovative teaching methods,
education can reach more students, including those in remote areas (Munoz-Najar et al., 2021). Thus, the
importance of schools as institutions that provide quality education cannot be ignored, as they serve as
the main foundation in creating a smart and competitive society.
School is a vital place for children’s intellectual and social development, where they learn various
skills necessary for the future (Akour and Alenezi, 2022; Alam and Mohanty, 2023b). Schools not only pro-
vide formal education, but also shape character and values that are important in life (Dunne, 2021). Ac-
cess to quality schools is essential to ensure that all children, regardless of their background, have equal
www.ijcrsee.com
98
Suripah
S. et al. (2025). Research Trends in Scopus Database on Technological Innovation in the Process of
Mathematics Learning: A Bibliometric Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and
Education (IJCRSEE), 13(1), 97-116.
opportunities to learn and grow (Alam and Mohanty, 2023a). However, there are still many challenges
faced, such as limited facilities and resources that can affect students’ learning experience. Therefore,
attention to school conditions is crucial, as a good and supportive environment will have a direct effect
on student motivation and success (Alemayehu and Chen, 2023). Thus, it is important to understand that
optimal classroom conditions are instrumental in creating an effective learning atmosphere.
The classroom is a space that greatly influences children’s academic and social development (Piip-
ponen et al., 2024). In the classroom, they not only learn subject matter, but also develop social skills,
such as communicating and cooperating with their peers (Kim et al., 2022; Saleem et al., 2024). These
children’s development is highly dependent on a supportive environment, so the condition of the class-
room is a factor that cannot be ignored (Miller-Cotto et al., 2022). The school’s attention to the comfort
and completeness of classroom facilities is an important part of creating a conducive learning atmosphere
(Feng et al., 2024). Classroom conditions should be designed in such a way as to inspire students to
learn more vigorously and feel comfortable while being in it (Dai, 2021; Hsieh et al., 2020). With sufficient
lighting, good ventilation and adequate equipment, the classroom will be an optimal place for student
development. Therefore, attention to classroom conditions should not only focus on the physical space,
but also how it supports the learning process and student motivation (Rusticus et al., 2023). This attention
will go a long way in improving the quality of learning in schools.
Learning is a very important process in shaping students’ intellectual, emotional, and social abilities
(Gueldner et al., 2020). The important part of this education is how students can understand the material
and apply it in everyday life (Chew and Cerbin, 2021). The effective learning process requires innovative
and adaptive methods, so that students can more easily understand the various concepts taught (Morze
et al., 2021). In creating a conducive learning atmosphere, teachers play a big role in choosing an ap-
proach that suits the needs of students. The supportive environment and active involvement of students
will increase the effectiveness of the learning process (Raza et al., 2023; Sökmen, 2021). With the de-
velopment of the times, many learning methods began to adapt to cover a variety of approaches, one of
which is with technology that is increasingly integrated in the education system.
Technology is a very important tool in education, as it can enrich students’ learning experience in
many ways (Arulanand et al., 2020; Ruiz-Rojas et al., 2023; Sofi-Karim et al., 2023). It can help students
to access information more quickly and efficiently, and allow them to learn in an interactive and practical
way. Students can utilize technology to deepen their understanding through various educational apps,
learning videos and other online resources (Sofi-Karim et al., 2023). In addition, technology can also
provide simulations and visual tools that make it easier for students to understand complex concepts
(Yıldırım et al., 2020). By optimally utilizing technology, students can learn in a way that is more engaging
and suits their individual learning styles (Alam, 2023; Cabual, 2021). Therefore, the appropriate use of
technology can be beneficial in improving the effectiveness of mathematics learning, by providing a more
dynamic and comprehensible experience.
Figure 1. Trends Discussing Technology in Mathematics in the Scopus Database (Data retrieved on November
6, 2024)
www.ijcrsee.com
99
Suripah
S. et al. (2025). Research Trends in Scopus Database on Technological Innovation in the Process of
Mathematics Learning: A Bibliometric Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and
Education (IJCRSEE), 13(1), 97-116.
Discussions on the use of technology in mathematics in general are increasingly discussed in vari-
ous publications recorded in the Scopus database. As shown in Figure 1, the data shows a positive trend
in the number of publications that generally address the topic of technology in mathematics from 2015
to 2021, with a consistent increase each year. This increase indicates the growing interest and attention
of researchers in the application of technology in mathematics education, which continues to evolve
with technological advances and the need for digital learning. However, in 2022, this trend experienced
a significant decline, where the number of publications decreased from 9051 to 8689, which may reflect
various challenges faced in technology research in mathematics education or a temporary decline in
research interest. Nonetheless, the number of publications again showed an increase in 2023, suggest-
ing that this topic remains relevant and attracts the attention of the academic community. Overall, these
publication trends indicate a consistent and sustained interest in the topic of technology in mathematics,
despite some fluctuations in the middle of the period studied, underscoring the importance of this topic in
the modern educational domain.
Analysis of previous publications showed that the use of ICT in mathematics learning has in-
creased significantly, especially in terms of ease of understanding and teaching effectiveness. The first
study found an increasing trend of publications addressing ICT in mathematics since 2017, with a peak
in 2019, and three main themes (Julianis, 2023). However, this study only focused on analyzing publica-
tion trends without looking at the contribution of inter-researcher collaboration or inter-institutional link-
ages. Meanwhile, the second study highlighted that while there are many publications addressing ICT in
mathematics education, most of the current research tends to be published in sources with a low citation
index and shows a lack of strong research collaboration, especially among international institutions (Trinh
Thi Phuong et al., 2022). The shortcomings of these two studies suggest that while ICT in mathematics
learning has been widely researched, there are still aspects that require updating, especially in optimizing
international collaborations and exploring new themes that can enhance innovation in this area.
From the introduction and findings presented, the authors conclude that while the use of technol-
ogy in mathematics learning has shown a positive trend in publications over the years, there are some
challenges that need to be addressed, such as the sharp decline in the number of publications by 2022
and the low citation index of most recent publications. Although this topic continues to attract attention, the
lack of inter-researcher and inter-institutional research collaboration, especially at the international level,
is one of the shortcomings that need to be corrected. Therefore, there is a need for renewal in research
on technology in mathematics learning, with a focus on optimizing international collaboration and explor-
ing new themes that can drive innovation in mathematics education. So, the research questions can be
described as follows:
RQ1.
What is the main information, publication trends from year to year, collaborating and most
productive countries, collaborating and most productive affiliates, most productive re-
searchers, most productive sources, and documents with the highest citations on the topic
on technological innovation in the Process in mathematics learning?
RQ2.
How to group keywords and novelty keywords that can be recommended for conducting fur-
ther research in the field on technological innovation in the Process in mathematics learning?
Materials and Methods
Research Design
This research is a bibliometric analysis on Technological Innovation in the Process mathematics
learning. Bibliometrics is a method used to analyze scientific publications, including writing trends, cita-
tions, and collaboration between researchers in a particular field (Moral-muñoz et al., 2020; Tomaszewski,
2023). Through this approach, research developments can be mapped, emerging topics identified, as well
as contributions from various countries and institutions to the topics discussed. In the context of techno-
logical innovation, bibliometrics can help to identify the latest applications of technology in mathematics
learning and understand the extent to which this topic has received attention in the scientific literature.
Thus, bibliometric analysis not only provides an overview of research trends, but also opens up opportuni-
ties for further innovation in the processes of the field of mathematics education.
www.ijcrsee.com
100
Suripah
S. et al. (2025). Research Trends in Scopus Database on Technological Innovation in the Process of
Mathematics Learning: A Bibliometric Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and
Education (IJCRSEE), 13(1), 97-116.
Search Strategy
In searching for documents in the Scopus Database, the author uses the keywords “(TITLE (tech-
nology) AND TITLE (math*) AND TITLE (educat*) OR TITLE (learn*) AND NOT TITLE-ABS-KEY (stem)
AND NOT TITLE-ABS- KEY (steam))”. The author limits keywords by not involving the words STEM and
STEAM. This is because the focus of this research is more emphasis on the use of technology in math-
ematics learning in general, without involving specific aspects related to science, technology, engineering
and mathematics which are usually covered by the concept of STEM or STEAM. By avoiding these key-
words, the author can ensure that the documents found are more relevant to the topic on technological in-
novation in the foundations and process in mathematics learning, without overlapping with broader topics
regarding the overall discussion of STEM.
Data searches were carried out using the Scopus database, following the Preferred Reporting
Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology for document selection. This
approach aims to provide a systematic and transparent document selection process, so that only truly
relevant and high-quality articles are included in the analysis. By using PRISMA, the author can ensure
that all steps for searching and selecting articles are carried out in a clear and structured manner (Page
et al., 2021; Rethlefsen et al., 2021). So that the results of this research can be justified and provide an
accurate picture of technological trends on process in mathematics learning.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
At the Identification stage, the author entered keywords according to the provisions explained in the
“Search Strategy” section, resulting in 751 initial documents. This stage aims to filter all documents that
are potentially relevant to the topic of “Technological Innovation in the Process of Mathematics Learning”,
allowing for a more in-depth analysis. The selected keywords were designed to cover the main topic with-
out including terms that could broaden the scope too much, such as “STEM” and “STEAM”. The exclusion
of “STEM” and “STEAM” terms was made to ensure that the obtained documents specifically focus on the
application of technology in mathematics learning without expanding into broader educational contexts.
In this way, the author hopes to gather articles that genuinely concentrate on the use of technology in the
mathematics learning process.
At the Screening stage, researchers focused on the subject areas of “Social Sciences”, “Computer
Sciences”, and “Mathematics”, selected based on their relevance to technological innovation in mathe-
matics education. These three fields encompass pedagogical aspects, technological advancements, and
the application of mathematical concepts in digital environments. Documents classified as “Articles” were
chosen because journal articles generally undergo a rigorous peer-review process, ensuring the validity
and quality of the analyzed information. This selection successfully eliminated 428 unsuitable documents,
leaving 323 for further analysis. At the Inclusion stage, the author conducted a manual review by examin-
ing the titles and abstracts to ensure each document was truly relevant to the research topic and did not
include discussions that were too broad or unrelated. Inappropriate documents were eliminated, reducing
the total by 61, leaving 262 documents ready for bibliometric analysis at this stage.
www.ijcrsee.com
101
Suripah
S. et al. (2025). Research Trends in Scopus Database on Technological Innovation in the Process of
Mathematics Learning: A Bibliometric Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and
Education (IJCRSEE), 13(1), 97-116.
Figure 2. Document Selection Using the PRISMA Method. Flowchart by Page et al, (2021)
Data Analyze
After selecting documents and obtaining 262 final documents, the author continued with biblio-
metric analysis using VOSviewer software and the R program. With this method, the author was able
to explore and compile a visual map of existing literature, thereby providing a comprehensive picture of
research developments. This analysis begins by interpreting the first Research Question (RQ1), which in-
cludes main information, publication trends from year to year, as well as collaborating and most productive
countries. Apart from that, the author also identified the most productive institutions and authors, as well
as publication sources that produce the most documents in this field, to documents that have the highest
number of citations. These steps aim to gain an in-depth understanding of the contribution and distribution
of research related to technology in mathematics learning.
Next, the author interprets the second Research Question (RQ2) which focuses on group keywords
and novelty keywords. This analysis is carried out to identify the main themes that emerge in the research,
as well as innovations or new topics that may become trends in the future. By mapping these keywords,
authors can understand how research focus changes and develops, as well as discover potential research
areas that have not been widely explored. This keyword analysis also helped to uncover new aspects of
technological innovation in the foundations and processes of mathematics learning, which could form the
basis for further research or the development of more innovative methodologies in this area.
www.ijcrsee.com
102
Suripah
S. et al. (2025). Research Trends in Scopus Database on Technological Innovation in the Process of
Mathematics Learning: A Bibliometric Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and
Education (IJCRSEE), 13(1), 97-116.
Results
The author answers RQ1 by presenting the results regarding main information, publication trends
from year to year, as well as collaborating and most productive countries. Apart from that, the author also
identified the most productive institutions and researchers, as well as publication sources that produce
the most documents in this field, and documents that have the highest number of citations. These results
were analyzed by using the R Program.
Main Information
In Figure 3, it can be seen that research on technological innovation in the process of mathematics
learning began in 1987 and continues until 2024, with a total of 262 documents published. The average
annual growth of publications in this field was 9.09%, indicating a consistent increase over time. A total
of 153 reference sources were used as references, involving 644 authors. Of these authors, 53 of them
are sole authors, while the level of international collaboration reached 16.41%, which indicates the exist-
ence of a global collaboration network in this research. The average number of authors per document
was 2.71, indicating that most research was conducted collaboratively. The number of keywords used in
this research is 699, which gives an idea of the variety of topics or research focuses in this field. The total
references used were 9,997, showing the depth of the literature on which this research is based. The av-
erage age of the documents or research referred to is 8.47 years, indicating that the research still refers
to relatively recent literature. Finally, each document in this field received an average of 11.61 citations,
reflecting the level of influence or significance of this research in the academic community.
Figure 3. Main Information regarding Research on Technological Innovation in the Process of Mathematics Learn-
ing in the Scopus Database (Analysis with R Program)
Publication Trends from Year to Year
Analysis of publication trends from year to year aims to understand the development and increase
in research interest in technology topics in mathematics learning from time to time.
Figure 4. Number of Publications from 1987 to 2024 on the topic on Technological Innovation in the Process of
Mathematics Learning (Analysis with R Program)
www.ijcrsee.com
103
Suripah
S. et al. (2025). Research Trends in Scopus Database on Technological Innovation in the Process of
Mathematics Learning: A Bibliometric Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and
Education (IJCRSEE), 13(1), 97-116.
In Figure 3, it can be seen that there were several years or periods that recorded zero publications,
namely 1991, 1993-1994, and 1999. This shows that in this period, attention to technology topics in math-
ematics learning was still very low, or technology had not developed enough to be widely applied in the
field of mathematics education. The lack of publications in these years could also indicate that research
in this area had not been a priority, so that few or even no articles were published. Furthermore, it can
be seen that the growth in publications from 1987 to 2009 only produced 53 (20.22%) documents, which
indicates that during that period interest and research activities on technology in mathematics learning
were still limited. However, after 2010, the number of publications increased almost 4-fold, reaching 209
(79.77%) documents, with the peak publication occurring in 2023 at 32 (12.21%) publications. This shows
that in the last decade, interest in research in this area has grown rapidly, along with technological ad-
vances that are increasingly being adopted in education and the increasing need for technology-based
learning innovations in the basis and process of mathematics learning.
The Most Productive and Collaborative Between Countries in the World
The most productive and collaborative between countries analysis aims to identify the countries
that are most active in producing publications and establishing collaborations in the field of technology
research in mathematics learning.
Table 1.The Top 10 Most Productive Countries on the topic on Technological Innovation in the Process of Math-
ematics Learning
Rank Country Continent NP % TC %
1
st
United States North America 37 14.12% 597 33.15%
2
nd
Australia Oceania 13 4.96% 566 31.43%
3
rd
China Asia 12 4.58% 117 6.50%
4
th
South Africa Africa 11 4.20% 60 3.33%
5
th
Turkey Asia 9 3.44% 73 4.05%
6
th
United Kingdom Europe 7 2.67% 100 5.55%
7
th
Mexico North America 6 2.29% 58 3.22%
8
th
Canada North America 5 1.91% 22 1.22%
9
th
Kazakhstan Asia 5 1.91% 6 0.33%
10
th
Malaysia Asia 5 1.91% 41 2.28%
Description: NP= Number of Publications, TC= Total of Citations
Based on the visualization in Figure 5, the international collaboration network shows close con-
nections between several countries in research on technological innovation for mathematics learning.
The United States is seen as the center of this collaboration network, showing great influence in research
in this area. Around the USA, there are countries such as Canada, Germany and Italy which also have
strong connections, forming a large group connected in a global network. On the other hand, there are
also small groups such as countries in the Arab region (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates) as
well as a European group involving the UK, Finland and Cyprus, which also form a significant collabora-
tion network. This indicates that there is cooperation between countries in strengthening research in the
field of educational technology.
This collaboration network is in line with the results in Table 1, where the United States shows a
dominant role in publications related to technological innovation in mathematics learning, followed by
countries such as Australia, which, although having a smaller number of publications, still makes a signifi-
cant contribution. North America (which includes the USA, Mexico, and Canada) and Asia (with countries
such as China, Turkey, Kazakhstan, and Malaysia) are regions that are active in publications in this field.
Contributions from countries on the continent highlight their high involvement in research, while countries
from Africa (such as South Africa) and Oceania (Australia) show a strong impact in the global citation
network despite a lower number of publications.
www.ijcrsee.com
104
Suripah
S. et al. (2025). Research Trends in Scopus Database on Technological Innovation in the Process of
Mathematics Learning: A Bibliometric Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and
Education (IJCRSEE), 13(1), 97-116.
The Most Productive Affiliation and Collaboration Between Affiliation
Analysis of the most productive affiliates and collaboration between affiliates aims to identify the
most productive affiliates in producing scientific publications. In addition, this analysis also aims to under-
stand collaboration patterns between affiliates who contribute to research related to technological innova-
tion in mathematics learning.
Table 2. The Top 10 Most Productive Affiliation on the topic on Technological Innovation in the Process of Math-
ematics Learning
Rank Affiliation City Country NP %
1
st
Universiti Putra Malaysia Serdang Malaysia 9 3.44%
2
nd
The University of Queensland Brisbane Australia 7 2.67%
3
rd
University of KwaZulu-Natal Durban South Africa 7 2.67%
4
th
University of Pretoria Pretoria South Africa 7 2.67%
5
th
Johannes Kepler University Linz Austria 6 2.29%
6
th
The University of Texas at Austin Austin United States 6 2.29%
7
th
University of Vienna Vienna Austria 6 2.29%
8
th
Arizona State University Tempe United States 5 1.91%
9
th
Khmelnytskyi Humanitarian-Pedagogical
Academy
Khmelnytskyi Ukraine 5 1.91%
10
th
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Athens Greece 5 1.91%
Description: NP= Number of Publications
Based on Table 2, Universiti Putra Malaysia in Serdang, Malaysia, ranks highest with 9 (3.44%)
publications, showing dominance in research related to technological innovation in mathematics learn-
ing. Followed by The University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, as well as two universities in South
Africa, namely the University of KwaZulu-Natal in Durban and the University of Pretoria in Pretoria, each
with 7 (2.67%) publications. The presence of two South African universities in the top ranking highlights
Africa’s significant contribution to this field, alongside the dominance of universities in Asia and Australia.
Overall, institutions from various continents, such as Asia, Africa, Europe and America an active
role in this research. Austria has two influential affiliates, namely Johannes Kepler University and the
University of Vienna, which demonstrate strong European contributions. Meanwhile, the United States
also features productive universities such as The University of Texas at Austin and Arizona State Uni-
versity. Although the contribution of each affiliate in terms of number of publications varies, collectively
these universities strengthen global research collaboration and development in technological innovation
in mathematics education, highlighting cross-continental relevance in the development of modern educa-
tional practices.
Figure 6. Visualization Results regarding Collaboration between Affiliation in the World on the topic on
Technological Innovation in the Process of Mathematics Learning (Analysis with R Program)
www.ijcrsee.com
105
Suripah
S. et al. (2025). Research Trends in Scopus Database on Technological Innovation in the Process of
Mathematics Learning: A Bibliometric Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and
Education (IJCRSEE), 13(1), 97-116.
In the results from Figure 6, it can be seen that there is a strong pattern of collaboration between
universities in various countries in research on Technological Innovation in the Process of Mathematics
learning. The University of Vienna, United Arab Emirates University and Simon Fraser University stand
out as collaboration centers that attract other universities to work together in this field. This collaboration
shows the importance of cross-country synergy in strengthening research and expanding the scope of
knowledge. In addition, the involvement of various universities from various regions, such as Europe,
Asia and the Middle East, reflects joint efforts to increase the effectiveness on Technological Innovation
in the Foundations and Process education. By connecting these institutions, it is hoped that the resulting
knowledge and innovation can be spread more quickly and adopted by various parties.
The results in Figure 6 and Table 2 both show the great contribution of a number of universi-
ties around the world in advancing research on Technological Innovation in the Process of Mathematics
learning. Although Figure 6 highlights the collaborative relationships between universities, while Table 2
shows the most productive institutions based on the number of publications, both illustrate the important
role of universities in various parts of the world. Universities in Asia, Africa and Australia, in particular,
have shown significant contributions, both through publications and collaborations. This underlines that
research in this area is not only productive, but also has a widespread impact through international co-
operation.
The Most Productive Researchers
The analysis of the most productive researchers aims to identify individuals who have made major
contributions to research related to technological innovation in mathematics learning, based on the im-
pact and quality of their work. In the analysis shown in Table 3, the authors chose to use the h-index as
the basis for ranking, rather than just the number of publications, in contrast to Figure 7 depicting overall
researcher productivity based on the number of documents and citations. It aims to assess not only the
productivity of researchers, but also how often their work is cited by the academic community, reflecting
the influence and relevance of research in the field of technology-based mathematics education.
Table 3. The Top 10 Most Productive Researcher on the topic on Technological Innovation in the Process of
Mathematics Learning
Rank Author Affiliation Country h TC NP
1
st
Goos Merrilyn University of the Sunshine Coast Australia 3 183(10.16%) 3(1.15%)
2
nd
Graham Marien Alet University of Pretoria South Africa 3 24(1.33%) 4(1.53%)
3
rd
Hohenwarter Markus Johannes Kepler University Linz Austria 3 18(1.00%) 3(1.15%)
4
th
Houghton Tony Johannes Kepler University Linz Austria 3 18(1.00%) 3(1.15%)
5
th
Kynigos Chronis
National and Kapodistrian
University of Athens
Greece 3 27(1.50%) 4(1.53%)
6
th
Lavicza Zsolt Johannes Kepler University Austria 3 20(1.11%) 4(1.53%)
7
th
Mayerhofer Martin University of Vienna Austria 3 18(1.00%) 4(1.53%)
8
th
Saal Petronella Elize
Human Sciences Research
Council
South Africa 3 24(1.33%) 4(1.53%)
9
th
Van Ryneveld Linda University of Pretoria South Africa 3 18(1.00%) 3(1.15%)
10
th
Weinhandl Robert Johannes Kepler University Austria 3 18(1.00%) 4(1.53%)
Description: h=h-index, NP= Number of Publications, TC= Total of Citations
Based on the Table 3, the author with the highest number of publications is Goos Merrilyn from the
University of the Sunshine Coast, who has 3 publications and a total of 183 citations. However, in terms
of distribution of publications, dominance is seen at Johannes Kepler University Linz which has several
productive authors, including Hohenwarter Markus, Houghton Tony, Lavicza Zsolt, and Weinhandl Robert,
with 3 to 4 publications each. All of these authors have a consistent h-index of 3 and contribute to devel-
oping topics related to technology in mathematics learning. Johannes Kepler University’s dominance in
this list shows the institution’s significant contribution to research in this field, both in terms of quality and
quantity of publications.
www.ijcrsee.com
106
Suripah
S. et al. (2025). Research Trends in Scopus Database on Technological Innovation in the Process of
Mathematics Learning: A Bibliometric Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and
Education (IJCRSEE), 13(1), 97-116.
In addition, a number of authors from various universities such as the University of Pretoria and the
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens also contributed a no less significant number of publica-
tions, with 3 to 4 publications each. This diversity of affiliations indicates strong international collaboration
in research on technological innovation in the process of mathematics learning. Overall, these authors, al-
though coming from universities around the world, make important contributions to enriching the literature
and strengthening research trends in educational technology, especially those focused on mathematics.
Figure 7. Visualization Results regarding Authors’ Production over Time on the topic on Technological In-
novation in the Process of Mathematics Learning (Analysis with R Program)
From Figure 7, it can be seen that the production of articles by writers related to research on Tech-
nological Innovation in the Process of Mathematics learning has varied over a certain period of time. Some
authors, such as Kynigos Chronis and Lavicza Zsolt, show consistency in publications, with contributions
spread across several years. There are also authors such as Goos Merrilyn, who have limited but signifi-
cant production periods in certain years. This visualization shows how each author contributed differently
over a period of time, with the size of the circles indicating the number of publications and the color intensity
indicating the citation rate per year. This phenomenon indicates differences in patterns of engagement in
research, which may reflect a sustained research focus or more sporadic research activities.
The relationship between Figure 7 and Table 3 shows the contribution of authors from several
countries, especially from universities in Australia, South Africa and Austria, in publications and citations
on the topic on Technological Innovation in the Process of learning. The top authors in Table 3, such as
Goos Merrilyn from Australia and several authors from South Africa and Austria, show high contributions
to this research, both in terms of publications and citations. A comparison between this figure and table
shows how productive writers who have high h-index values not only actively publish but also have signifi-
cant influence in this field. This linkage emphasizes the importance of the contributions of leading authors
from various countries in enriching academic literature and shows the important role of international uni-
versities in encouraging collaboration and the dissemination of knowledge.
www.ijcrsee.com
107
Suripah
S. et al. (2025). Research Trends in Scopus Database on Technological Innovation in the Process of
Mathematics Learning: A Bibliometric Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and
Education (IJCRSEE), 13(1), 97-116.
The Most Productive Source
Productive source analysis aims to identify the journals or publication sources most frequently used
by researchers in a particular field. This is important to understand where innovative research in math-
ematics learning with technology tends to be published, as well as to assess the impact and relevance of
these journals in the scientific community.
Table 4. The Top 10 Most Productive Source on the topic on Technological Innovation in the Process of Math-
ematics Learning
Rank Journal Name SQ Country
a
h TC NP
1
st
Education and Information Technologies Q1 United States 7 151(8.38%) 12(4.58%)
2
nd
Educational Studies in Mathematics Q1 Netherlands 6 186(10.33%) 9(3.44%)
3
rd
Mathematics Education Research Journal Q1 Netherlands 6 252(13.99%) 7(2.67%)
4
th
Computers and Education Q1 United Kingdom 5 371(20.60%) 5(1.91%)
5
th
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science
and Technology Education
Q2 Turkey 5 82(4.55%) 7(2.67%)
6
th
International Journal of Mathematical
Education in Science and Technology
Q2 United Kingdom 4 63(3.50%) 8(3.05%)
7
th
ZDM - Mathematics Education Q1 Germany 4 58(3.22%) 4(1.53%)
8
th
British Journal of Educational Technology Q1 United Kingdom 3 136(7.55%) 3(1.15%)
9
th
Computers in the Schools Q2 United States 3 20(1.11%) 5(1.91%)
10
th
Education Sciences Q2 Switzerland 3 21(1.17%) 6(2.29%)
Description: SQ= Scopus Quartile, a = Country based on origin of Publisher from Source, h=h-index, NP= Number of
Publications, TC= Total of Citations
The journal with the highest number of publications came from “Education and Information Tech-
nologies” with 12(4.58%) articles and total citations of 151(8.38%). Followed by “Educational Studies
in Mathematics” and “Mathematics Education Research Journal”, which despite having fewer articles,
showed a significant impact with total citations of 186(10.33%) and 252(13.99%) respectively. The journal
with the highest citation impact was “Computers and Education” from United Kingdom, which, despite
only having 5(1.91%) publications, managed to get 371(20.60%) citations. This shows that the quality of
research published in these journals is highly recognized in the scientific community.
Geographically, the United Kingdom dominates with three influential journals, all of which are
ranked Q1, indicating high quality in scientific publications. Q1 journals generally dominate, indicating that
research on technological innovation in the process of mathematics learning is published in high-quality
sources, with a total of six out of ten journals in this category. Although journals from the United States,
Turkey, and Switzerland represent smaller contributions, all of these sources play a role in enriching the
global literature, highlighting the importance of international collaboration in this field.
www.ijcrsee.com
108
Suripah
S. et al. (2025). Research Trends in Scopus Database on Technological Innovation in the Process of
Mathematics Learning: A Bibliometric Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and
Education (IJCRSEE), 13(1), 97-116.
Documents with the Highest Citations
Documents with the highest citations analysis aims to identify works that have had the greatest
influence in a particular field, measured by the number of citations received. By understanding these
documents, it is possible to recognize their important contributions in directing research and influencing
subsequent studies.
Table 5. The Top 10 Documents with the Highest Citations on the topic on Technological Innovation in the
Process of Mathematics Learning
Rank Citation Title Source SQ TC
1
st
(Pierce et al., 2007)
A scale for monitoring students’
attitudes to learning ….
Computers & Education Q1 141
2
nd
(López, 2010)
The digital learning classroom:
Improving ….
Computers & Education Q1 103
3
rd
(Cai et al., 2019)
Tablet-based AR technology: Impacts
on students’ …
British Journal of Educational
Technology
Q1 98
4
th
(Barkatsas et al., 2009)
Learning secondary mathematics with
technology: Exploring the complex …
Computers & Education Q1 90
5
th
(Roschelle et al., 2010)
Scaffolding group explanation and
feedback with …
Educational Technology
Research and Development
Q1 90
6
th
(Goos et al., 2003)
Perspectives on technology mediated
…
The Journal of Mathematical
Behavior
Q1 83
7
th
(Arroyo et al., 2013)
Gender differences in the use and
benefit of …
Journal of Educational
Psychology
Q1 69
8
th
(Bennison and Goos, 2010)
Learning to teach mathematics with
technology: ….
Mathematics Education
Research Journal
Q1 60
9
th
(Bray and Tangney, 2016)
Enhancing student engagement
through the affordances ….
Mathematics Education
Research Journal
Q2 59
10
th
(Trouche and Drijvers, 2010)
Handheld technology for mathematics
….
ZDM - International Journal
on Mathematics Education
Q2 58
Description: SQ= Scopus Quartile in the year of article publication, TC= Total of Citations
The document with the highest number of citations is from Pierce et al, (2007) which discusses
various aspects of technology use in mathematics learning, with a diverse focus ranging from student at-
titudes towards technology to its impact on learning engagement and achievement. The most highly cited
article demonstrating the importance of measuring student attitudes towards technology in mathematics
was published in the journal “Computers & Education”, with 141 citations. This journal dominates the high
citation rankings, demonstrating its significant influence in the field of technology education. The large
number of citations indicates that these studies make an important contribution to understanding and
optimizing the use of technology for mathematics learning.
The majority of the highest-cited documents were published in Q1-ranked journals, confirming that
research on technology in mathematics education is of recognized quality and influence in the academic
community. Topics covered include the use of devices such as tablets, interactive whiteboards and hand-
held technology to enhance student understanding and engagement. In addition, research also explores
aspects such as gender differences in the benefits of educational technology and professional develop-
ment needs for teachers. Collectively, these documents contribute to a broader understanding of how
technology can be effectively applied to enhance mathematics learning at different levels of education.
After answering all of the first research question (RQ1), the researcher went on to answer the
second research question (RQ2) which included an analysis of keyword clustering and keywords novelty
that could be recommended for further research in the field on Technological Innovation in the Process of
Mathematics learning. This analysis aimed to identify key themes that have been extensively researched
as well as finding gaps or areas that still require further exploration. This analysis uses the VOSviewer
application with Network Visualization and Overlay Visualization.
Focus Research
In the focus research, the author uses Keyword Occurance ≤ 3 and uses the Network Visualization
feature on VOSviewer. So that we get 41 keywords with 6 clusters.
www.ijcrsee.com
109
Suripah
S. et al. (2025). Research Trends in Scopus Database on Technological Innovation in the Process of
Mathematics Learning: A Bibliometric Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and
Education (IJCRSEE), 13(1), 97-116.
Figure 8. Keyword Grouping on Network Visualization Menu
After clustering with VOSviewer, the author then collects keywords and identifies group names
based on the clustering corresponding to the cluster color.
Table 6. Name Giving Based on Cluster Color Grouping
Color Name Keywords Group Name
Red
(8 items/19.51%)
Education Technology, Information Technology,
Mathematics Achievement, Mathematics Teachers, Primary
Education, School, Secondary Education, TPACK
Learning and Teaching
Strategies
Green
(8 items/19.51%)
Blended Learning, Digital Technology, Dynamic Geometry,
Higher Education, Mathematics Education, Technology
Education, Technology Integration
Technology Integration in
Education
Blue
(7 items/17.07%)
Artificial Intelligence, Curricula, E-learning, Learning
Sytems, Mathematics Course, Students, Teaching
Digital Learning Innovations
Yellow
(7 items/17.07%)
Augmented Reality, Learning Mathematics, Mathematics
Learning, Mobile Technology, Teaching and Learning,
Technology Acceptance, Virtual Reality
Immersive and Mobile Learning
Purple
(6 items/14.63%)
Achievement, Education, Interactive, Mathematical
Technique, Multimedia Systems, Technology Enhanced
Learning
Interactive and Multimedia
Approaches
Black
(5 items/12.19%)
Learning Technologies, Motivation, Problem Solving,
Teacher Education, Technology
Pedagogical and Technological
Support
Source: VOSviewer
The red cluster titled “Learning and Teaching Strategies” includes keywords that focus on education-
al technology and how it is applied in the school environment to improve learning outcomes. Elements such
as TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) and the application of information technology
are key in designing more meaningful and interactive learning experiences (Tseng et al., 2022). Focusing
on primary and secondary education, this cluster underscores the role of teachers in using technology to
improve student achievement (Imran et al., 2023). This is particularly relevant to technological innovation in
mathematics learning, as teachers need to integrate technological knowledge with effective mathematics
www.ijcrsee.com
110
Suripah
S. et al. (2025). Research Trends in Scopus Database on Technological Innovation in the Process of
Mathematics Learning: A Bibliometric Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and
Education (IJCRSEE), 13(1), 97-116.
teaching methods (Bakar et al., 2020). This cluster highlights the importance of a holistic understanding
between technology education and pedagogy to support more modern and adaptive teaching.
The green cluster entitled “Technology Integration in Education” highlights the application of tech-
nologies such as blended learning, digital technology, and dynamic geometry in higher education. These
technologies play an important role in creating flexible and interactive learning environments, which sup-
port technology-based learning in mathematics. This cluster emphasizes the importance of technological
innovations that foster more adaptive and integrated teaching, allowing students to access a variety of
digital resources and engage in deeper learning (Haleem et al., 2022). This integration provides new
opportunities for developing mathematics curricula that are more relevant to the needs of the times and
helps connect theory and real-world applications.
The blue cluster entitled “Digital Learning Innovations” focuses on advanced technologies such
as artificial intelligence, e-learning, and customized learning systems. These innovations play a role in
creating curricula that can be adapted to the individual needs of students, as well as developing interac-
tive and dynamic learning platforms (Tapalova and Zhiyenbayeva, 2022). In the context of math learning,
the application of AI and e-learning systems can help simplify complex concepts and improve student
understanding (Akugizibwe and Ahn, 2020). This cluster highlights the huge potential of digital technology
to revolutionize the way students learn mathematics, and how technology can support more personalized
and effective teaching.
The yellow cluster entitled “Immersive and Mobile Learning” covers technologies such as augment-
ed reality, virtual reality and mobile devices that are changing the way students engage with math learning
materials. These technologies create a more immersive and visual learning experience, which is particu-
larly beneficial in teaching abstract concepts in math (Su et al., 2022). Acceptance of the technology by stu-
dents is also a focus, as the implementation of these advanced tools requires readiness on the part of both
students and teachers. Innovations like these allow math learning to be more engaging and interactive,
and help students understand the material in a way that is more intuitive and connected to the real world.
The purple cluster entitled “Interactive and Multimedia Approaches” focuses on multimedia sys-
tems and interactive techniques designed to enhance technology-based learning. The use of technol-
ogy-enabled systems for mathematics learning enriches students’ experiences with a variety of visual
and dynamic representations of mathematical concepts (Flood et al., 2020). This cluster highlights how
interactivity and multimedia-enriched learning can make mathematics more engaging and accessible to
different types of learners. With technology supporting personalized learning, this approach contributes to
innovation in developing students’ ability to understand mathematics more thoroughly.
The black cluster entitled “Pedagogical and Technological Support” discusses motivation, learn-
ing technology, problem solving and teacher education. This cluster focuses on how technology can be
used to support teachers in developing teaching skills and creating learning environments that motivate
students to think critically and creatively (Henriksen et al., 2021). In the context on Technological Innova-
tion in the Process of Mathematics learning, this aspect is important to ensure that technology is not only
used as a tool, but also as a medium that facilitates effective teaching strategies. By supporting teachers
through appropriate training and technological resources, mathematics learning can become more mean-
ingful and encourage students to be actively engaged.
www.ijcrsee.com
111
Suripah
S. et al. (2025). Research Trends in Scopus Database on Technological Innovation in the Process of
Mathematics Learning: A Bibliometric Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and
Education (IJCRSEE), 13(1), 97-116.
Keywords Novelty
The keyword novelty analysis aims to identify new keywords that have emerged in recent research
related to technological innovation in mathematics learning. These new keywords can be recommended
for future research to explore relevant and under-discussed topics and encourage the development of
innovative ideas in the field.
Figure 9. Keyword Novelty Analysis with Overlay Visualization on VOSviewer
The overlay visualization analysis shows that the light-colored keywords indicate that the keywords
began to be used in the most recent year and can be used as recommendations for future research related
to technological innovation in mathematics learning. The keywords “Artificial Intelligence” and “Blended
Learning” are yellow keywords, indicating that these two concepts are newly used in technological innova-
tion in mathematics learning. This suggests a new trend in the incorporation of advanced technology and
more flexible learning methods, which may encourage further innovation in this area.
Discussions
The development of education after war has undergone significant transformation, with many coun-
tries working to rebuild education systems to support social and economic recovery (Behnamnia et al.,
2020). Schools play an important role in the intellectual and social development of children, by providing
formal education and shaping character to face future challenges (Tsekhmister, 2022). However, chal-
lenges such as limited facilities and resources still exist, which affect students’ learning experiences.
Therefore, attention to supportive school and classroom conditions is essential to create an effective
learning atmosphere. In this context, technology has an important role in mathematics learning innovation,
as it can optimize the learning process, introduce more adaptive methods, and create a more inclusive
learning environment, allowing students from different backgrounds to learn more easily and enjoyably.
The development of technological innovations in mathematics learning showed significant growth
from 1987 to 2024, with a total of 262 documents published. Since 2010, publications have increased
rapidly, especially by 2023, indicating a growing interest driven by technological advances and the need
for technology-based learning innovations. The United States and Australia lead in the number of pub-
lications and citations, demonstrating their great influence in this field. North America and Asia make
www.ijcrsee.com
112
Suripah
S. et al. (2025). Research Trends in Scopus Database on Technological Innovation in the Process of
Mathematics Learning: A Bibliometric Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and
Education (IJCRSEE), 13(1), 97-116.
significant contributions to global research, with smaller contributions from other continents such as Africa
and Oceania, but with considerable citation impact. Overall, these countries play a key role in advancing
technological innovation in mathematics learning, both through their research output and global academic
influence. One challenge in global collaboration is the disparity in technological infrastructure between
developing and developed countries, where access to necessary hardware and software for technology-
based mathematics education is limited in resource-constrained areas. However, this also presents an
opportunity to create more cost-effective, accessible technology solutions, with developed countries pro-
viding technical support and sharing knowledge to help overcome these challenges.
Universiti Putra Malaysia showed dominance in producing publications focused on this topic, fol-
lowed by other leading universities in Australia and South Africa. The dominance of universities from Asia
and Australia is also evident, reflecting the great influence of these regions in developing and applying
technology in mathematics learning. On the other hand, Johannes Kepler University Linz emerged as
a very productive institution with many authors who contributed significantly to the development of this
topic. Their contributions, both in terms of number of publications and quality of research, illustrate the
importance of this institution in research related to mathematics education technology, as well as showing
the global trend of increasing interest in technology-based learning innovations.
Journals from different countries, especially those listed in the Q1 category, showed great contribu-
tion in advancing knowledge about the application of technology in mathematics education. Although the
number of publications varies, some journals with few publications have attracted attention due to their high
citation impact, confirming that quality of research takes precedence over quantity. In addition, the highly
cited articles, which address aspects such as the use of technological tools and gender differences in the
benefits of educational technology, provide valuable insights to improve the effectiveness of mathematics
learning. Overall, research in this area continues to grow and make a significant contribution to under-
standing how technology can be applied to improve mathematics learning at different levels of education.
In the clustering of keywords, various aspects on Technological Innovation in the Process of Math-
ematics learning were revealed. The application of technology in primary and secondary education is
important to improve student achievement, with attention to the integration of technological and peda-
gogical knowledge. Technologies such as blended learning and dynamic geometry enable flexible and
interactive learning environments in higher education. In addition, artificial intelligence and e-learning help
create personalized curricula to facilitate student understanding. The use of augmented reality and mobile
devices also makes learning more immersive. Multimedia systems and interactive techniques enrich the
math learning experience, while support for teachers helps create more effective teaching.
Overlay Visualization analysis shows that the keywords “Artificial Intelligence” and “Blended Learn-
ing” are emerging as new trends in technological innovation in mathematics learning. “Artificial Intel-
ligence” has the potential to create a more personalized learning experience, by automatically custom-
izing materials and providing feedback. Meanwhile, “Blended Learning” enables flexible math learning by
combining face-to-face and online methods, giving students the freedom to learn at their own pace. Both
concepts represent new directions in education and could be the focus of future research to improve the
effectiveness of math learning.
Trends in technological innovation in the process of mathematics learning show that Artificial In-
telligence and Blended Learning are increasingly becoming the main focus of educational innovation in
mathematics. The use of AI, such as on the Matific platform, provides math exercises based on games
for K-6 students, utilizing AI to adjust the difficulty level and provide automatic feedback. Microsoft Co-
pilot helps students understand math formulas through step-by-step explanations, improving conceptual
understanding and critical thinking skills. Applications like Photomath and Microsoft Math Solver use AI
to allow students to solve math problems by providing step-by-step solutions and detailed explanations.
Furthermore, future research could propose automatic assessments to measure student engagement
and success in AI-based mathematics learning. This includes developing algorithms to evaluate student
interaction with the AI system, such as problem-solving speed, error rates, and progress from one learn-
ing session to another. The results of this evaluation could be used to provide more tailored learning
recommendations based on individual student needs and identify areas that require improvement in the
technology-based learning process.
Meanwhile, Blended Learning combines face-to-face and online learning, offering students flexibility in
managing their time and learning methods. E-learning platforms enable students to practice math problems
www.ijcrsee.com
113
Suripah
S. et al. (2025). Research Trends in Scopus Database on Technological Innovation in the Process of
Mathematics Learning: A Bibliometric Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and
Education (IJCRSEE), 13(1), 97-116.
online and see their results immediately, helping them better understand the material. Online discussions on
platforms like Google Classroom allow students to share their views on complex topics such as quadratic
equations. Video tutorials enable students to learn independently about basic math concepts. The integra-
tion of AI and Blended Learning in the mathematics curriculum creates a personalized and flexible learning
experience, enhances motivation and student engagement, and bridges gaps in diverse learning needs.
Conclusions
From the analysis, it can be concluded that research on technological innovation in the process
of mathematics learning started in 1987 and experienced significant growth until 2024, with a surge in
publications occurring since 2010, especially in 2023. Countries such as the United States and Australia
lead in the number of publications and citations, demonstrating their great influence in this field, followed
by significant contributions from the Asian and North American regions. Universiti Putra Malaysia, along
with leading universities in Australia and South Africa, showed dominance in publications related to this
topic. Some Q1 journals also play a major role in advancing knowledge about technology in mathemat-
ics education, with the quality of research taking precedence over the quantity of publications. Keyword
clustering revealed that technological trends such as “Artificial Intelligence” and “Blended Learning” are
now emerging as new directions in technological innovation for mathematics learning, offering a more
personalized and flexible approach to improve learning effectiveness in the future.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology of
the Republic of Indonesia, the directorate general of Higher Education, Research, and Technology for
providing funding through grants for Regular Fundamental Research schemes with decision letter num-
ber: 0667/E5/AL.04/2024 and agreement/contract number: 112/E5/PG.02.00.PL/2024; 043/LL 10/PG.
AK/2024; 015/DPPM-UIR/HN-P/2024. The author also expressed his gratitude to the Directorate of Re-
search and Community Service of the Universitas Islam Riau for facilitating this research grant.
Conflict of interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Author Contributions
S: Conceptualization, Writing - Original Draft, Editing and Visualization; HR: Review & Editing,
Formal analysis, and Methodology; ZE: Validation and Supervision; ZA: Writing – Review & Editing; RH:
Validation and Supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
References
Akour, M., & Alenezi, M. (2022). Higher education future in the era of digital transformation. Education Sciences, 12(11), 784.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12110784
Akugizibwe, E., & Ahn, J. Y. (2020). Perspectives for effective integration of e-learning tools in university mathematics in-
struction for developing countries. Education and Information Technologies, 25(2), 889–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10639-019-09995-z
Alam, A. (2023). Harnessing the Power of AI to Create Intelligent Tutoring Systems for Enhanced Classroom Experience
and Improved Learning Outcomes. In Intelligent Communication Technologies and Virtual Mobile Networks, 571–591.
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-1767-9_42
Alam, A., & Mohanty, A. (2023a). Cultural beliefs and equity in educational institutions: exploring the social and philosophical
notions of ability groupings in teaching and learning of mathematics. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth,
28(1), 2270662. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2023.2270662
Alam, A., & Mohanty, A. (2023b). Does Musically Responsive School Curriculum enhance Reasoning Abilities and Helps in
Cognitive Development of School Students? In Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Sustainable Development. CRC Press.
Alemayehu, L., & Chen, H.-L. (2023). The inuence of motivation on learning engagement: The mediating role of learning self-
efcacy and self-monitoring in online learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(7), 4605–4618.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1977962
www.ijcrsee.com
114
Suripah
S. et al. (2025). Research Trends in Scopus Database on Technological Innovation in the Process of
Mathematics Learning: A Bibliometric Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and
Education (IJCRSEE), 13(1), 97-116.
Arroyo, I., Burleson, W., Tai, M., Muldner, K., & Woolf, B. P. (2013). Gender differences in the use and benet of advanced learn-
ing technologies for mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(4), 957. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032748
Arulanand, N., Babu, A. R., & Rajesh, P. K. (2020). Enriched learning experience using augmented reality framework in engi-
neering education. Procedia Computer Science, 172, 937–942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.05.135
Bakar, N. S. A., Maat, S. M., & Rosli, R. (2020). Mathematics Teacher’s Self-Efcacy of Technology Integration and Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(2), 259–276. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1252007
Barkatsas, A. T., Kasimatis, K., & Gialamas, V. (2009). Learning secondary mathematics with technology: Exploring the com-
plex interrelationship between students’ attitudes, engagement, gender and achievement. Computers & Education,
52(3), 562–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.001
Behnamnia, N., Kamsin, A., Ismail, M. A. B., & Hayati, A. (2020). The effective components of creativity in digital game-
based learning among young children: A case study. Children and Youth Services Review, 116, 105227. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105227
Bennison, A., & Goos, M. (2010). Learning to teach mathematics with technology: A survey of professional development needs,
experiences and impacts. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22(1), 31–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217558
Bray, A., & Tangney, B. (2016). Enhancing student engagement through the affordances of mobile technology: a 21st century
learning perspective on Realistic Mathematics Education. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28, 173–197.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-015-0158-7
Cabual, R. A. (2021). Learning styles and preferred learning modalities in the new normal. Open Access Library Journal, 8(4),
1–14. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1107305
Cai, S., Liu, E., Yang, Y., & Liang, J. (2019). Tablet-based AR technology: Impacts on students’ conceptions and approaches
to learning mathematics according to their self-efcacy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 248–263.
https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12718
Chew, S. L., & Cerbin, W. J. (2021). The cognitive challenges of effective teaching. The Journal of Economic Education, 52(1),
17–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2020.1845266
Dai, D. D. (2021). Articial intelligence technology assisted music teaching design. Scientic Programming, 2021(1), 9141339.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9141339
Dunne, J. (2021). What’s the Good of Education? In The RoutledgeFalmer Reader in the Philosophy of Education, 145–160. Routledge.
Feng, Z., Hou, H. C., & Lan, H. (2024). Understanding university students’ perceptions of classroom environment: A synergistic
approach integrating grounded theory (GT) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Journal of Building Engineering, 83,
108446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2024.108446
Flood, V. J., Shvarts, A., & Abrahamson, D. (2020). Teaching with embodied learning technologies for mathematics: Respon-
sive teaching for embodied learning. ZDM, 52(7), 1307–1331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-020-01165-7
González-Pérez, L. I., & Ramírez-Montoya, M. S. (2022). Components of Education 4.0 in 21st century skills frameworks:
systematic review. Sustainability, 14(3), 1493. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031493
Goos, M., Galbraith, P., Renshaw, P., & Geiger, V. (2003). Perspectives on technology mediated learning in secondary school
mathematics classrooms. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-
3123(03)00005-1
Gueldner, B. A., Feuerborn, L. L., & Merrell, K. W. (2020). Social and emotional learning in the classroom: Promoting mental
health and academic success. Guilford Publications.
Haleem, A., Javaid, M., Qadri, M. A., & Suman, R. (2022). Understanding the role of digital technologies in education: A review.
Sustainable Operations and Computers, 3, 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susoc.2022.05.004
Henriksen, D., Creely, E., Henderson, M., & Mishra, P. (2021). Creativity and technology in teaching and learning: a literature
review of the uneasy space of implementation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 1–18. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11423-020-09912-z
Hsieh, Y.-Z., Lin, S.-S., Luo, Y.-C., Jeng, Y.-L., Tan, S.-W., Chen, C.-R., & Chiang, P.-Y. (2020). ARCS-assisted teaching robots
based on anticipatory computing and emotional big data for improving sustainable learning efciency and motivation.
Sustainability, 12(14), 5605. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145605
Imran, M., Sultana, Z., & Ahmed, S. (2023). The Inuence of Student-Teacher Interactions on Secondary School
Students’academic Performance. Benazir Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(1). https://brjhss.
com/index.php/brjhss/article/view/39
Izzulhaq, B. D., Gunawan, R. N., Zafrullah, Z., Ayuni, R. T., Ramadhani, A. M., & Fitria, R. L. (2024). Research Trends on
Leadership in Indonesian Schools: Bibliometric Analysis (2008-2024). Elementaria: Journal of Educational Research,
2(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.61166/elm.v2i1.51
Julianis, J. (2023). Analisis Bibliometrik Terhadap Penggunaan Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Pada Pembelaja-
ran Matematika. Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat Dan Riset Pendidikan, 2(1), 42–47. https://doi.org/10.31004/jerkin.v2i1.84
Kim, J., Lee, H., & Cho, Y. H. (2022). Learning design to support student-AI collaboration: perspectives of leading teachers for AI
in education. Education and Information Technologies, 27(5), 6069–6104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10831-6
www.ijcrsee.com
115
Suripah
S. et al. (2025). Research Trends in Scopus Database on Technological Innovation in the Process of
Mathematics Learning: A Bibliometric Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and
Education (IJCRSEE), 13(1), 97-116.
López, O. S. (2010). The digital learning classroom: Improving English language learners’ academic success in mathematics
and reading using interactive whiteboard technology. Computers & Education, 54(4), 901–915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compedu.2009.09.019
Ma, X., Gryshova, I., Koshkalda, I., Suska, A., Gryshova, R., Riasnianska, A., & Tupchii, O. (2022). Necessity of post-war
renewal of university teachers’ potential in terms of sustainable development in Ukraine. Sustainability, 14(19), 12598.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912598
Miller-Cotto, D., Smith, L. V, Wang, A. H., & Ribner, A. D. (2022). Changing the conversation: A culturally responsive perspec-
tive on executive functions, minoritized children and their families. Infant and Child Development, 31(1), e2286. https://
doi.org/10.1002/icd.2286
Moral-muñoz, J. A., Herrera-viedma, E., Santisteban-espejo, A., Cobo, M. J., Herrera-viedma, E., Santisteban-espejo, A., &
Cobo, M. J. (2020). Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up- to-date review. El Profesional
de La Informa- Ción, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03
Morze, N., Varchenko-Trotsenko, L., Terletska, T., & Smyrnova-Trybulska, E. (2021). Implementation of adaptive learning at
higher education institutions by means of Moodle LMS. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1840(1), 12062. https://
doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1840/1/012062
Munoz-Najar, A., Gilberto, A., Hasan, A., Cobo, C., Azevedo, J. P., & Akmal, M. (2021). Remote Learning during COVID-19:
Lessons from Today, Principles for Tomorrow. World Bank.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., & Moher,
D. (2021). Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. Journal
of Clinical Epidemiology, 134, 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.003
Pierce, R., Stacey, K., & Barkatsas, A. (2007). A scale for monitoring students’ attitudes to learning mathematics with technol-
ogy. Computers & Education, 48(2), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.01.006
Piipponen, O., Karlsson, L., & Kantelinen, R. (2024). From ambivalent spaces to spaces of reciprocal encountering: develop-
ing classroom culture in an intercultural story exchange. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 45(2),
613–630. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2021.1920027
Raza, H., Ali, A., Raq, N., Xing, L., Asif, T., & Jing, C. (2023). Comparison of higher education in Pakistan and China: A sustain-
able development in student’s perspective. Sustainability, 15(5), 4327. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054327
Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., & Koffel, J. B. (2021). PRISMA-S: an exten-
sion to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10, 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z
Roschelle, J., Rafanan, K., Bhanot, R., Estrella, G., Penuel, B., Nussbaum, M., & Claro, S. (2010). Scaffolding group expla-
nation and feedback with handheld technology: Impact on students’ mathematics learning. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 58, 399–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9142-9
Ruiz-Rojas, L. I., Acosta-Vargas, P., De-Moreta-Llovet, J., & Gonzalez-Rodriguez, M. (2023). Empowering education with gen-
erative articial intelligence tools: Approach with an instructional design matrix. Sustainability, 15(15), 11524. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su151511524
Rusticus, S. A., Pashootan, T., & Mah, A. (2023). What are the key elements of a positive learning environment? Perspectives
from students and faculty. Learning Environments Research, 26(1), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-022-09410-4
Saleem, S., Burns, S., & Perlman, M. (2024). Cultivating young minds: Exploring the relationship between child socio-emotion-
al competence, early childhood education and care quality, creativity and self-directed learning. Learning and Individual
Differences, 111, 102440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2024.102440
So-Karim, M., Bali, A. O., & Rached, K. (2023). Online education via media platforms and applications as an innovative teach-
ing method. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1), 507–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11188-0
Sökmen, Y. (2021). The role of self-efcacy in the relationship between the learning environment and student engagement.
Educational Studies, 47(1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1665986
Su, Y.-S., Cheng, H.-W., & Lai, C.-F. (2022). Study of virtual reality immersive technology enhanced mathematics geometry
learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 760418. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.760418
Suripah, S., & Susanti, W. D. (2022). Alternative learning during a pandemic: Use of the website as a mathematics learning
media for student motivation. Innity Journal, 11(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.22460/innity.v11i1.p17-32
Tapalova, O., & Zhiyenbayeva, N. (2022). Articial intelligence in education: AIEd for personalised learning pathways. Elec-
tronic Journal of E-Learning, 20(5), 639–653. http://dx.doi.org/10.34190/ejel.20.5.2597
Tomaszewski, R. (2023). Visibility, impact, and applications of bibliometric software tools through citation analysis. Scientomet-
rics, 128(7), 4007–4028. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04725-2
Trinh Thi Phuong, T., Nguyen Danh, N., Tuyet Thi Le, T., Nguyen Phuong, T., Nguyen Thi Thanh, T., & Le Minh, C. (2022).
Research on the application of ICT in Mathematics education: Bibliometric analysis of scientic bibliography from the
Scopus database. Cogent Education, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2084956
Trouche, L., & Drijvers, P. (2010). Handheld technology for mathematics education: Flashback into the future. ZDM, 42, 667–681.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-010-0269-2
www.ijcrsee.com
116
Suripah
S. et al. (2025). Research Trends in Scopus Database on Technological Innovation in the Process of
Mathematics Learning: A Bibliometric Analysis, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and
Education (IJCRSEE), 13(1), 97-116.
Tsekhmister, Y. (2022). Education of the future: from post-war reconstruction to EU membership (Ukrainian case study). Futu-
rity Education, 2(2), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.57125/FED/2022.10.11.28
Tseng, J.-J., Chai, C. S., Tan, L., & Park, M. (2022). A critical review of research on technological pedagogical and content
knowledge (TPACK) in language teaching. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(4), 948–971.
Yıldırım, B., Topalcengiz, E. S., Arıkan, G., & Timur, S. (2020). Using virtual reality in the classroom: Reections of STEM
teachers on the use of teaching and learning tools. Journal of Education in Science Environment and Health, 6(3),
231–245. https://doi.org/10.21891/jeseh.711779
