Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education

• ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH. (2023). ATLAS.ti (version 23.2.1). ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH. https://atlasti.com/
• Bakker, A. (2018). Design research in education: A practical guide for early career researchers. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203701010
• Bleiler-Baxter, S. K., Kirby, J. E., & Reed, S. D. (2023). Understanding authority in small-group co-constructions of mathematical proof. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 70, Article 101015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2022.101015
• Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Longmans.
• Bolat, R. C., & Arslan, Ç. (2024). Examination of mathematics teachers’ strategic flexibility in solving mathematical problems. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 54, Article 101679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101679
• Brown, B. B., Ober, R. L., Soar, R., & Webb, J. N. (1966). Florida taxonomy of cognitive behaviour [Unpublished internal report]. University of Florida.
• Ceballos, H., van den Bogaart, T., van Ginkel, S., Spandaw, J., & Drijvers, P. (2026). How collaborative problem solving promotes higher-order thinking skills: A systematic review of design features and processes. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 59, Article 102001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2025.102001
• Cofie, N., Braund, H., & Dalgarno, N. (2022). Eight ways to get a grip on intercoder reliability using qualitative-based measures. Canadian Medical Education Journal, 13(2), 73-76. https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.72504
• Ellis, B. M., & Alzaga Elizondo, T. (2026). Emergent storylines that influence positions and mathematical status in collaborative small-group proof activity. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 123, 275-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-026-10504-6
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case study. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 301-316). SAGE.
• Ghic, G. (2012). Case studies – The role of them in mathematics teaching. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 2681-2685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.05.546
• Hamilton, M. W. (2026). What is mathematical authority? A Weberian approach to defining the construct and exploring its affordances. Educational Studies in Mathematics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-026-10554-w
• Hansen, E. K. S., & Naalsund, M. (2026). Toward an analytical model for noticing interaction patterns in creative collaborative mathematical reasoning. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 28(3), 295-313. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2025.2452222
• Hennessy, S., Rojas-Drummond, S., Higham, R., Márquez, A. M., Maine, F., Ríos, R. M., García-Carrión, R., Torreblanca, O., & Barrera, M. J. (2016). Developing a coding scheme for analysing classroom dialogue across educational contexts. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 9, 16-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.12.001
• Hong, W., Star, J. R., Liu, R.-D., Jiang, R., & Fu, X. (2023). A systematic review of mathematical flexibility: Concepts, measurements, and related research. Educational Psychology Review, 35, Article 104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09825-2
• Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39-103. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0401_2
• Kershner, R., Dowdall, K., Hennessy, S., Owen, H., & Calcagni, M. E. (2020). Teachers as ‘natural experimenters’: Using T-SEDA to develop classroom dialogue. In E. Hargreaves, & L. Rolls (Eds.), Reimagining professional development in schools (pp. 102-122). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429293337-8
• Langer-Osuna, J. (2016). The social construction of authority among peers and its implications for collaborative mathematics problem solving. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 18(2), 107-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2016.1148529
• Littleton, K., & Mercer, N. (2013). Interthinking: Putting talk to work. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203809433
• Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Academic Press.
• Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE.
• Star, J. R., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2008). Flexibility in problem solving: The case of equation solving. Learning and Instruction, 18(6), 565-579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.018
• Stichting Nederlandse Wiskunde Olympiade. (2022). Puzzelspel eerste ronde [Puzzle game first round]. Nederlandse Wiskunde Olympiade. https://www.wiskundeolympiade.nl/files/opgaven/1e-ronde/2022/opgaven.pdf
• Verschaffel, L. (2024). Strategy flexibility in mathematics. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 56, 115-126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01491-6
• Verschaffel, L., Luwel, K., Torbeyns, J., & Van Dooren, W. (2011). Analyzing and developing strategy flexibility in mathematics education. In J. Elen, E. Stahl, R. Bromme, & G. Clarebout (Eds.), Links between beliefs and cognitive flexibility: Lessons learned (pp. 175-197). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1793-0_10
• Webb, J. N. (1970). The Florida taxonomy of cognitive behavior. In A. Simon, & E. G. Boyer (Eds.), Mirrors for behavior II: An anthology of observation instruments. Research for Better Schools.
• Wu, J. (2024). Research on individual authority and group authority relations in collaborative problem solving in middle school mathematics. In Y. Cao (Ed.), Students’ collaborative problem solving in mathematics classrooms (pp. 75-99). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7386-6_4

APA

Ceballos, H., Spandaw, J., van den Bogaart, T., van Ginkel, S., & Drijvers, P. (2026). Cognitive and dialogic patterns shaping strategic flexibility in collaborative mathematical problem-solving. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 22(12), em2964. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/19919

Vancouver

Ceballos H, Spandaw J, van den Bogaart T, van Ginkel S, Drijvers P. Cognitive and dialogic patterns shaping strategic flexibility in collaborative mathematical problem-solving. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2026;22(12):em2964. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/19919

AMA

Ceballos H, Spandaw J, van den Bogaart T, van Ginkel S, Drijvers P. Cognitive and dialogic patterns shaping strategic flexibility in collaborative mathematical problem-solving. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2026;22(12), em2964. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/19919

Chicago

Ceballos, Haydeé, Jeroen Spandaw, Theo van den Bogaart, Stan van Ginkel, and Paul Drijvers. "Cognitive and dialogic patterns shaping strategic flexibility in collaborative mathematical problem-solving". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2026 22 no. 12 (2026): em2964. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/19919

Harvard

Ceballos, H., Spandaw, J., van den Bogaart, T., van Ginkel, S., and Drijvers, P. (2026). Cognitive and dialogic patterns shaping strategic flexibility in collaborative mathematical problem-solving. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 22(12), em2964. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/19919

MLA

Ceballos, Haydeé et al. "Cognitive and dialogic patterns shaping strategic flexibility in collaborative mathematical problem-solving". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 22, no. 12, 2026, em2964. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/19919