Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education

• Abrahamson, D. (2021). Grasp actually: An evolutionist argument for enactivist mathematics education. Human Development, 65(2), 77-93. https://doi.org/10.1159/000515680
• Aslan Tutak, F., Bondy, E., & Adams, T. L. (2011). Critical pedagogy for critical mathematics education. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 42(1), 65-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2010.510221
• Atweh, B., Vale, C., & Walshaw, M. (2012). Equity, diversity, social justice, and ethics in mathematics education. In B. Perry, T. Lowrie, T. Logan, A. MacDonald, & J. Greenlees (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2008-2011 (pp. 39-65). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-970-1_4
• Boaler, J. (2016). Designing mathematics classes to promote equity and engagement. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 41, 172-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2015.01.002
• Brantlinger, A. (2022). Critical and vocational mathematics: Authentic problems for students from historically marginalized groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 53(2), 154-172. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc-2019-0025
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
• Copur-Gencturk, Y., & Li, J. (2023). Teaching matters: A longitudinal study of mathematics teachers’ knowledge growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121, Article 103949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103949
• Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. SAGE.
• D’Ambrósio, U., & Knijnik, G. (2019). Ethnomathematics. In S. Lerman, & B. Sriraman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 1-6). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77487-9_60-3
• Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. D. C. Heath.
• Dummit, D. S., & Foote, R. M. (2004). Abstract algebra (vol. 3). Wiley.
• Duval, R. (2006). A cognitive analysis of problems of comprehension in the learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 61(1), 103-131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-006-0400-z
• Einstein, A. (1905). On the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Annalen der Physik, 17, 891-921. https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.19053221004
• Einstein, A. (1949). Autobiographical notes. In P. A. Schilpp (Ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-scientist (pp. 1-95). Open Court. https://doi.org/10.2307/890673
• Ernest, P., Skovsmose, O., Van Bendegem, J. P., Bicudo, M., Miarka, R., Kvasz, L., & Moeller, R. (2016). The philosophy of mathematics education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40569-8
• Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury.
• Gauss, C. F. (1801). Disquisitiones arithmeticae [Arithmetical investigations]. Gerhard Fleischer. https://doi.org/10.5479/sil.324926.39088000932822
• Gervasoni, A., Hunter, R., Bicknell, B., & Sexton, M. (2012). Powerful pedagogical actions in mathematics education. In B. Perry, T. Lowrie, T. Logan, A. MacDonald, & J. Greenlees (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2008-2011 (pp. 193-218). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-970-1_10
• Ghufron, M. N., Suminta, R. R., & Kusuma, J. H. (2020). Knowledge and learning of interreligious and intercultural understanding in an Indonesian Islamic college sample: An epistemological belief approach. Religions, 11(8), Article 411. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel11080411
• Gilmore, C. (2023). Understanding the complexities of mathematical cognition: A multi-level framework. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(9), 1953-1972. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231175325
• Griffel, F. (2009). Al-Ghazali’s philosophical theology. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331622.001.0001
• Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Evaluation of reflective measurement models. In Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: A workbook (pp. 75-90). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7
• Heisenberg, W. (1927). Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik [On the intuitive content of quantum-theoretical kinematics and mechanics]. Zeitschrift für Physik, 43(3-4), 172-198. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01397280
• Hersh, R. (1998). What is mathematics, really? Mitteilungen der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung, 6(2), 13-14. https://doi.org/10.1515/dmvm-1998-0205
• Hoang, H., Hoang, T., Dang, H., & Nguyen, T. (2023). A review of studies on math teaching methods. Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers, 14(2), 448-463. https://doi.org/10.47750/jett.2023.14.02.042
• Ibrahim, I. A., Khalil, I. A., & Prahmana, R. C. I. (2024). Mathematics learning orientation: Mathematical creative thinking ability or creative disposition? Journal on Mathematics Education, 15(1), 253-276. http://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v15i1.pp253-276
• Jammer, M. (1974). The philosophy of quantum mechanics: The interpretations of quantum mechanics in historical perspective. Wiley.
• Karataş, İ. (2018). Bulanık mantık ile klasik ve sembolik mantık ilişkisi (karşılaştırılması) [The relationship (comparison) between fuzzy logic and classical and symbolic logic]. European Journal of Educational and Social Sciences, 3(2), 144-163.
• Lakatos, I., Worrall, J., & Zahar, E. (Eds.). (1976). Proofs and refutations: The logic of mathematical discovery. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171472
• Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being (vol. 6). Basic Books.
• Lee, J., & Ko, J. (2024). From rational inquiry to sacred insight: The role of religion in Augustine’s views on liberal education. Religions, 15(1), Article 122. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15010122
• Lomas, G., Grootenboer, P., & Attard, C. (2012). The affective domain and mathematics education. In B. Perry, T. Lowrie, T. Logan, A. MacDonald, & J. Greenlees (Eds.), Research in mathematics education in Australasia 2008-2011 (pp. 23-37). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-970-1_3
• Maaß, K. (2010). Classification scheme for modelling tasks. Journal für Mathematik-Didaktik, 31(2), 285-311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13138-010-0010-2
• Mann, E. L. (2006). Creativity: The essence of mathematics. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(2), 236-260. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2006-264
• Mason, J., Stephens, M., & Watson, A. (2009). Appreciating mathematical structure for all. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 21, 10-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03217543
• McTighe, J., & Silver, H. F. (2020). Teaching for deeper learning: Tools to engage students in meaning making. ASCD.
• OECD. (2024). Education at a glance 2024: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en
• Papert, S. (2000). What’s the big idea? Toward a pedagogy of idea power. IBM Systems Journal, 39(3.4), 720-729. https://doi.org/10.1147/sj.393.0720
• Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. In R. Ripple, & V. Rockcastle (Eds.), Piaget rediscovered: Report of the conference on cognitive studies and curriculum development (pp. 7-20). Cornell University Press.
• Pinkas, R. (2023). On prayer and dialectic in modern Jewish philosophy: Hermann Cohen and Franz Rosenzweig. Religions, 14(8), Article 996. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14080996
• Putri, A., Nusantara, T., Purwanto, P., & As’ari, A. R. (2025). The contribution of critical thinking skills in rich mathematical problem completion: Insights from pre-service mathematics teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(2), Article em2581. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/15931
• Refinal, Ritonga, M., Rusydi, & Saputra, R. (2024). Epistemology of knowledge: Bridging Western and Islamic thought. Solo International Collaboration and Publication of Social Sciences and Humanities, 3(1), 95-110. https://doi.org/10.61455/sicopus.v3i01.250
• Roth, W. M. (2020). Adventures of mind and mathematics. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51809-7
• Saralar-Aras, I., & Kurudirek, A. (2025). Assessing and Advancing non-Euclidean geometries in middle school mathematics education: A case for curriculum inclusion. Mathematics Teaching Research Journal, 17(1), 56-81. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15064118
• Schoenfeld, A. H. (2016). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense making in mathematics. Journal of Education, 196(2), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205741619600202
• Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. Basic Books.
• Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X027002004
• Sfard, A. (2000). On reform movement and the limits of mathematical discourse. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2(3), 157-189. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327833MTL0203_1
• Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3/4), 591-611. https://doi.org/10.2307/2333709
• Sjaastad, J. (2025). Applying the creative mathematical reasoning framework in early primary school. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 23(4), 1123-1139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-025-10585-4
• Skemp, R. R. (2006). Relational understanding and instrumental understanding. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 12(2), 88-95. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTMS.12.2.0088
• Skovsmose, O. (1994). Towards a critical mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 35-57. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01284527
• Sowder, L., & Harel, G. (1998). Types of students’ justifications. Mathematics Teacher, 91(8), 670-675. https://doi.org/10.5951/MT.91.8.0670
• Sriraman, B. (2022). Uncertainty as a catalyst and condition for creativity: The case of mathematics. ZDM Mathematics Education, 54, 19-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01287-6
• Star, J. (2014). Instrumental and relational understanding in mathematics education. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education (pp. 304-307). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4978-8_79
• Tall, D. (2021). Foundations of mathematics education research: The 21^st century perspective. Springer.
• Trew, N. M. (2021). Not knowing is most intimate: Koan practice and the fog of war. Contemporary Buddhism, 22(1-2), 223-251. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639947.2022.2038026
• UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report. Technology in education: A tool on whose terms? UNESCO.
• Valquaresma, A. (2024). Creativity, agency and meaning-making: Unfolding developmental possibilities in twenty-first-century learning environments. In A. Valquaresma, L. Dantas de Paula, & T. Rodney (Eds.), Creativity and learning. Palgrave studies in creativity and culture (pp. 105-126). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73393-2_5
• Vintere, A. (2018). A constructivist approach to the teaching of mathematics to boost competencies needed for sustainable development. Rural Sustainability Research, 39(334), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.2478/plua-2018-0001
• Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University.

APA

Kurudirek, A., Machisi, E., & Hennig, F. (2026). Let two plus two not always equal four: A critical pedagogical exploration of mathematical certainty and context. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 22(2), em2777. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/17831

Vancouver

Kurudirek A, Machisi E, Hennig F. Let two plus two not always equal four: A critical pedagogical exploration of mathematical certainty and context. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2026;22(2):em2777. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/17831

AMA

Kurudirek A, Machisi E, Hennig F. Let two plus two not always equal four: A critical pedagogical exploration of mathematical certainty and context. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2026;22(2), em2777. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/17831

Chicago

Kurudirek, Abdullah, Eric Machisi, and Fabian Hennig. "Let two plus two not always equal four: A critical pedagogical exploration of mathematical certainty and context". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2026 22 no. 2 (2026): em2777. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/17831

Harvard

Kurudirek, A., Machisi, E., and Hennig, F. (2026). Let two plus two not always equal four: A critical pedagogical exploration of mathematical certainty and context. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 22(2), em2777. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/17831

MLA

Kurudirek, Abdullah et al. "Let two plus two not always equal four: A critical pedagogical exploration of mathematical certainty and context". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 22, no. 2, 2026, em2777. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/17831