Abstract

This study examines the research landscape of recent studies in students’ acceptance in technology-enhanced mathematics learning, an increasingly important issue as digital technologies become more widely integrated into mathematics education. Although research in this area has expanded in recent years, previous studies have often treated technological, pedagogical, and cognitive–psychological factors separately, leading to a fragmented understanding of students’ acceptance. This study aimed to map the development of the field, identify its major conceptual domains, examine the interactions among these domains, and explain their implications for future mathematics education research and practice. A bibliometric design was employed using data from the Scopus database. After a systematic screening process, 883 publications published between 2015 and 2026 were analyzed. Publication trend analysis and keyword co-occurrence mapping were conducted using VOSviewer. From 5,259 extracted keywords, 196 met the minimum occurrence threshold and were included in the final analysis. Findings reveal that publication output grew substantially, from 35 articles in 2015 to a peak of 248 in 2025. Furthermore, three major conceptual domains were examined: technology-enhanced mathematics pedagogy, instructional practices and teacher professional development, and cognitive–psychological aspects of mathematics learning. The analysis also reveals bridging concepts, particularly problem solving, motivation, student engagement, learning, and cognition. The novelty of this study lies in its integrative mapping of these domains and their bridging concepts, contributing to a more holistic understanding of students’ acceptance and informing the design of more meaningful technology-enhanced mathematics learning environments.

There is no Figure or data content available for this article

References

• Alegre, E. M. (2023). Technology-driven education: Analyzing the synergy among innovation, motivation, and student engagement. International Journal of Membrane Science and Technology, 10(2), 1477–1485. https://doi.org/10.15379/ijmst.v10i2.1507
• Alsarayreh, A. H. (2025). The impact of learning platforms technologies on student motivation and engagement: A psychological perspective. In A. M. A. Musleh Al-Sartawi, A. I. Nour, & I. Abdeljawad (Eds.), Business resilience and business innovation for sustainability: The double-edged role of artificial intelligence and other disruptive technologies (pp. 1311–1322). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-87584-7_95
• Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
• Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 8, 47–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1
• Barroso, C., Ganley, C. M., McGraw, A. L., Geer, E. A., Hart, S. A., & Daucourt, M. C. (2021). A meta-analysis of the relation between math anxiety and math achievement. Educational Psychology Review, 33(1), 307–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09644-y
• Bednorz, D., & Bruhn, S. (2023). Influence of primary students’ self-regulated learning profiles on their rating of a technology-enhanced learning environment for mathematics. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1074371. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1074371
• Borba, M. C., Askar, P., Engelbrecht, J., Gadanidis, G., Llinares, S., & Aguilar, M. S. (2016). Blended learning, e-learning and mobile learning in mathematics education. ZDM Mathematics Education, 48(5), 589–610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0798-4
• Chu, A. M. Y., Liu, C. K. W., So, M. K. P., & Lam, B. S. Y. (2021). Factors for sustainable online learning in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability, 13(9), Article 5038. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095038
• Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
• Dey, R., Sharma, I., D’Souza, N., & Kumar, G. (2021). How effective is online education during the current pandemic due to COVID-19? In Virtual and classroom learning in higher education: A guide to effective online teaching (pp. 1–13). Bentham Science Publishers. https://doi.org/10.2174/9781681089287121010003
• Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
• Drijvers, P. (2015). Digital technology in mathematics education: Why it works (or doesn’t). In S. J. Cho (Ed.), Selected regular lectures from the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education (pp. 135–151). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17187-6_8
• Fadda, D., Pellegrini, M., Vivanet, G., & Zandonella Callegher, C. (2022). Effects of digital games on student motivation in mathematics: A meta-analysis in K–12. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(1), 304–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12618
• Fadila, M. T., Untarti, R., Jazuli, A., & Jaelani, A. (2025). Mathematics in the AI era: The effectiveness of ChatGPT in helping students solve HOTS problems. AlphaMath: Journal of Mathematics Education, 11(2), 191–204. https://doi.org/10.30595/alphamath.v11i2.28261
• Fajar Ramadhan, A., Hetty Marhaeni, N., & Rachmawati, A. (2022). Student’s response toward Teman Ritma application as mathematical learning media. AlphaMath: Journal of Mathematics Education, 8(1), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.30595/alphamath.v8i1.13430
• Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Malone, A. S., Seethaler, P. M., & Craddock, C. (2019). The role of cognitive processes in treating mathematics learning difficulties. In D. B. Berch, D. C. Geary, & K. Mann Koepke (Eds.), Cognitive foundations for improving mathematical learning (pp. 295–320). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815952-1.00012-8
• Geary, D. C. (2011). Cognitive predictors of achievement growth in mathematics: A 5-year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 1539–1552. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025510
• Haddaway, N. R., Page, M. J., Pritchard, C. C., & McGuinness, L. A. (2022). PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 18(2), Article e1230. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1230
• Hillmayr, D., Ziernwald, L., Reinhold, F., Hofer, S. I., & Reiss, K. M. (2020). The potential of digital tools to enhance mathematics and science learning in secondary schools: A context-specific meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 153, Article 103897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103897
• Hock, T. T., Ayub, A. F. M., Hui, K. B., Yoke, C. W., & Seng, S. H. (2025). Assessing digital technology adoption in mathematics teaching: Attitudes, beliefs and usage among training teachers. Journal of Institutional Research South East Asia, 23(2), 169–181.
• Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
• Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
• Moustafa, A. A., Tindle, R., Ansari, Z., Doyle, M. J., Hewedi, D. H., & Eissa, A. (2017). Mathematics, anxiety, and the brain. Reviews in the Neurosciences, 28(4), 417–429. https://doi.org/10.1515/revneuro-2016-0065
• Namkung, J. M., Peng, P., & Lin, X. (2019). The relation between mathematics anxiety and mathematics performance among school-aged students: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 145(4), 459–478. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000179
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
• Passolunghi, M. C., Cargnelutti, E., & Pastore, M. (2014). The contribution of general cognitive abilities and approximate number system to early mathematics. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 631–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12054
• Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton University Press.
• Priyanda, R., Herman, T., Amalia, R., & Ihsan, I. R. (2025). Exploring teachers’ pedagogical reasoning in mathematics education using the TPACK framework. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1552760
• Rahmawatiningrum, A., Kusmayadi, T. A., & Fitriana, L. (2019). Student’s ability in solving higher order thinking skills (HOTS) mathematics problem based on learning achievement. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1318(1), Article 012090. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1318/1/012090
• Retnawati, H., & Hidayat, R. (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, 13(1), 97–116. https://doi.org/10.23947/2334-8496-2025-13-1-97-116
• Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
• Rosli, M. S., Saleh, N. S., Ali, A. M., Bakar, S. A., & Isa, K. (2024). The framework for enhancing mathematical higher order thinking skills using technology enhanced learning environment and learning analytics. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2895(1). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0195068
• Ruamba, M. Y., Sukestiyarno, Y. L., Rochmad, R., & Asih, T. S. N. (2025). The impact of visual and multimodal representations in mathematics on cognitive load and problem-solving skills. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 12(4), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2025.04.018
• Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Academic Press.
• Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
• Sinaj, V., & Xhabafti, M. (2025). From theory to practice: The role of technology in enhancing student engagement and performance in mathematics education in Albania. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 12(6), 250–257. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2025.06.025
• Singh, U. G., & Sharma, S. (2022). Teaching adaptability in higher education institutions: A case study of a private Indian university. In Academic voices: A conversation on new approaches to teaching and learning in the post-COVID world (pp. 295–310). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-91185-6.00008-2
• Sofroniou, A., Patel, M. H., Premnath, B., & Wall, J. (2025). Advancing conceptual understanding: A meta-analysis on the impact of digital technologies in higher education mathematics. Education Sciences, 15(11), Article 1544. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15111544
• Supono, L., Agoestanto, A., & Wijayanti, K. (2024). Mathematical connections of students viewed from adversity quotient in problem-based learning using Math City Map. AlphaMath: Journal of Mathematics Education, 10(1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.30595/alphamath.v10i1.21662
• Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
• Thapaliya, A., & Hrytsuk, Y. (2023). Exploring the impact of COVID-19 on education: A study on challenges and opportunities in online learning. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, 354, 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-3068-5_29
• Trung, T., & Giang, N. N. (2023). Half-century of application of information technology in mathematics education: From web-based learning to cloud-based learning. Proceedings ICSIT, International Conference on Society and Information Technologies, 2023-March, 107–114. https://doi.org/10.54808/ICSIT2023.01.107
• Uripno, G., Suprihatiningsih, S., & Rangkuti, R. K. (2024). Artificial intelligence integration: Error self-reflection in solving integral problems. AlphaMath: Journal of Mathematics Education, 10(2), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.30595/alphamath.v10i2.23133
• Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
• Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
• Vinodhini, D., Raman, V., Stephan, A. R. A., & Vanitha, V. (2025). Enhancing mathematics teacher preparation: Integrating pedagogical practices, technology, and professional development. In Global perspectives on equity, diversity, and inclusion in mathematics classrooms (pp. 223–250). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3373-2888-1.ch009
• Wong, J. C. F., & Yip, T. C. Y. (2022). Development of an e-learning teaching and learning platform using game theory-applications of sports games and real-life scenarios. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3545862.3545864
• Yohannes, A., & Chen, H.-L. (2025). Technology-enhanced mathematics education (TEME): A bibliometric analysis. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 35(3), 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2025.2541960
• Živković, M., Pellizzoni, S., Mammarella, I. C., & Passolunghi, M. C. (2023). The relationship between math anxiety and arithmetic reasoning: The mediating role of working memory and self-competence. Current Psychology, 42(17), 14506–14516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02765-0
• Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629

How to Cite This

Article Metrics

Download Statistics

Other Statistics

Copyright and Permissions

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors published in this journal agree to the following terms:

• The copyright of each article is retained by the author (s) without restrictions
• The journal allows the author(s) to retain publishing rights without restrictions
• The author grants the journal the first publication rights with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, allowing others to share the work with an acknowledgement of authorship and the initial publication in this journal.
• Authors may enter into separate additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of published journal versions of the work (for example, posting them to institutional repositories or publishing them in a book), with acknowledgement of their initial publication in this journal
• Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (For example in the Institutional Repository or on their website) before and during the submission process, as this can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and larger citations of published work
• Articles and all related material published are distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-4.0 International Public License (CC - BY 4.0).

License

AlphaMath: Journal of Mathematics Education is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- 4.0 International Public License (CC - BY 4.0).

You are free to :

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format

Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially

Data Availability