Publication activity
Articles grouped by publication year
Hover over a year or focus the chart and use arrow keys to inspect values.
2026 is year to date. 0 undated publications excluded.
Research across participating journals · All insights follow your collection filters.
Publication activity alongside incoming citations.
Articles grouped by publication year
Hover over a year or focus the chart and use arrow keys to inspect values.
2026 is year to date. 0 undated publications excluded.
OpenAlex · year of the citing work
Hover over a year or focus the chart and use arrow keys to inspect values.
2017–2026 annual-history window. 2026 is year to date. Unknown years have gaps.
Leading affiliations and themes in this collection.
Full distributions & methodology ↓Independent sources. Clear time scales.
Crossref and OpenAlex · separate totals for the same publication cohorts
Hover over a year or focus the chart and use arrow keys to inspect values.
Latest lifetime totals, grouped by the cited article’s year. These are not citations received in that year.
OpenAlex · incoming citation links grouped by citing-work year
Hover over a year or focus the chart and use arrow keys to inspect values.
2017–2026 annual-history window. 2026 is year to date. Unknown years have gaps.
Select journals to compare the same collection filters. Source totals stay separate. These measures describe research activity, not journal quality.
Articles by publication year
Latest lifetime totals · grouped by publication year
Latest lifetime totals · grouped by publication year
By year of the citing work · 2017–2026
2026 is year to date. Crossref and OpenAlex lifetime charts share a citation scale. Unknown observations appear as gaps; known zero stays zero. Annual receipts use available OpenAlex histories and may not sum to lifetime totals. 0 undated publications excluded from publication-year charts.
Crossref citation coverage: 3 / 3 publications (100.0%). Latest observation: 21 Oct 2026, 07:22 UTC. Means and percentages use records with known counts.
DOI-matched OpenAlex observations for the same selected publications. These counts are separate from Crossref and are never added together.
Observation range: 21 Oct 2026 07:22 UTC — 21 Oct 2026 07:22 UTC. Missing matches are not zero citations. Previous observations may remain if a refresh fails or a DOI no longer matches.
OpenAlex affiliations and primary-topic classification. Each publication counts once per institution or country; multi-affiliated publications appear in multiple groups, so percentages can sum above 100%. Countries describe author affiliations, not nationality. Topics use one primary topic per publication.
3 / 3 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 3 selected publications.
3 / 3 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 3 selected publications.
3 / 3 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 3 selected publications.
Citations are the latest recorded totals for articles published in each year, not citations received during that year. Crossref and OpenAlex remain separate and share the same citation scale. 2026 is incomplete; newer articles have had less time to receive citations.
0 undated publications excluded. Unknown citation counts are shown as —, never as zero. Partial coverage can understate totals; expand each table for known / total records.
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Publications | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | All selected publications | 3 | 3 | 3/3 | 3/3 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | All selected publications | 4 | 3 | 3/3 | 3/3 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | All selected publications | 6 | 3 | 3/3 | 3/3 |
Incoming citations to the selected publications, grouped by the year of the citing work. This is separate from lifetime citation totals grouped by the cited article’s publication year.
The publication filters above define which articles receive the citations. The citation-year range below only controls this chart and the incoming-citation comparison. Removing publication-year filters includes older articles’ incoming citations too.
Annual history available for 3 / 3 selected publications. Supported display window: 2017–2026; 2026 is incomplete. Within a successfully fetched ten-year window, omitted years mean zero. Missing histories and years beyond a saved observation’s window remain unknown (—); partial coverage can understate totals.
Annual-history observations (UTC): 2026-10-21T07:22:46.756513+00:00 — 2026-10-21T07:22:51.341961+00:00. Older observations may be retained after failed or incomplete refreshes.
| Citation year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex · Citations received by year | Publications | Annual history known |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2018 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2019 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2020 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 2 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 1 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 3 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
Counts represent citation links, not unique citing papers across a journal: one paper citing two selected articles contributes two links. Older citations outside this window are excluded, so annual sums need not equal lifetime totals. OpenAlex methodology ↗
Publications by publication year. 2026 is an incomplete year.
| Period | Publications |
|---|---|
| 2023 | 3 |
Latest Crossref totals for the selected publications; not citations received in the selected years.
Unknown counts are excluded from the mean, median and cited-publication rate.
Same filters, source and counting rules across journals. Descriptive statistics, not a quality ranking.
| Journal / publisher | Publications | Crossref citations | OpenAlex citations | OpenAlex coverage | Crossref mean | Crossref median | Crossref cited %* | Crossref coverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science SSBFNET | 3 | 4 | 6 | 3/3 | 1.33 | 1 | 66.7 | 3/3 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
This paper presents the effects of technology integration in the learning and teaching of Mathematics in first- and second-year mathematics students. The technology-based learning environment has been the demand in groundwork learning to shape a more active approach to students' learning process. The South African government has made an obligation to advance its people's Information and Communication Technology (ICT) skills and to connect the digital gap by targeting previously disadvantaged groups. The interpretive approach was used with face-to-face interviews to collect data from ten participants. Six participants were interviewed by the lecturers teaching mathematics and four students doing mathematics in one of the rural universities in the Eastern Cape. Findings confirmed that (i) Teacher technology competence and lack of resources are barriers to technology learning implementation. (ii) Consequently, it became evident that learners had a robust positive perception of computer usage in Mathematics learning and teaching even though almost all had little or no access to computers in their schools. It is recommended that the university should ensure that all students have the data card loaded with uncapped data for learning and teaching to run smoothly.
This pragmatic action research explores Grade 3 teachers’ understanding of the implemented mathematics curriculum content. Exploring teachers’ understanding of the mathematics curriculum content is required because understanding of content determines how teachers teach, the resources they use, and how teachers assess. It should be noted that, over time, curriculum reforms take place; and these reforms impact not only on teachers’ knowledge, expertise, or motivation, but also on their understanding. Understanding, as synthesised by the researcher, is a planned, prescribed system of presenting one’s thoughts and expertise regarding a particular subject; in this case, mathematics. In exploring this phenomenon, six Grade 3 teachers from Nkangala District in Mpumalanga were purposefully sampled to be part of this study. Data was generated through two phases of reflective activities, observations, interviews, and a focus-group discussion. To answer the two research questions of this study, the generated data was analysed guided by the natural identity framework themes. Findings revealed that teachers’ understanding of the implemented mathematics curriculum content is mostly informed by a combination of their need to comply with the prescripts of policy and higher authority, common understanding to appease their societal needs, and individual understanding based on their experiences and beliefs. The study drew the conclusion that, for teachers to embrace the three propositions of understanding and identities, teachers’ natural understanding identity should be promoted. This identity is underpinned by reflective practice and adaptation to what works in their day-to-day practice as teachers.
In this article, we discuss teaching strategies that high-performing mathematics teachers use to assist learners in solving challenging 3-dimensional (3D) trigonometry concepts more effectively. High school learners often find 3D trigonometry challenging. For this study, a purposively qualitative research design was chosen. Five mathematics teachers were interviewed, and 381 scripts of the learners were analysed with the mathematical language error, procedural error, conceptual error, and application error (MPCA error) analysis protocol. Results from this study showed that using concrete models to illustrate the dimensions of 3D concepts was helpful for high-performing schoolteachers. The mathematical knowledge and the quality of mathematical instructions used by the teacher to unpack the 3D trigonometry concepts were found to play a pivotal role in the learners’ understanding. The teachers’ in-depth knowledge of error analysis was valuable, while the teachers’ ability to implement blended learning was crucial for learners. When a misconception occurs amongst learners, it should be challenged or contrasted with the correct conception. An understanding of learners’ errors in 3D trigonometry helps teachers minimise learners’ errors.
This pragmatic action research explores Grade 3 teachers’ understanding of the implemented mathematics curriculum content. Exploring teachers’ understanding of the mathematics curriculum content is required because understanding of content determines how teachers teach, the resources they use, and how teachers assess. It should be noted that, over time, curriculum reforms take place; and these reforms impact not only on teachers’ knowledge, expertise, or motivation, but also on their understanding. Understanding, as synthesised by the researcher, is a planned, prescribed system of presenting one’s thoughts and expertise regarding a particular subject; in this case, mathematics. In exploring this phenomenon, six Grade 3 teachers from Nkangala District in Mpumalanga were purposefully sampled to be part of this study. Data was generated through two phases of reflective activities, observations, interviews, and a focus-group discussion. To answer the two research questions of this study, the generated data was analysed guided by the natural identity framework themes. Findings revealed that teachers’ understanding of the implemented mathematics curriculum content is mostly informed by a combination of their need to comply with the prescripts of policy and higher authority, common understanding to appease their societal needs, and individual understanding based on their experiences and beliefs. The study drew the conclusion that, for teachers to embrace the three propositions of understanding and identities, teachers’ natural understanding identity should be promoted. This identity is underpinned by reflective practice and adaptation to what works in their day-to-day practice as teachers.
In this article, we discuss teaching strategies that high-performing mathematics teachers use to assist learners in solving challenging 3-dimensional (3D) trigonometry concepts more effectively. High school learners often find 3D trigonometry challenging. For this study, a purposively qualitative research design was chosen. Five mathematics teachers were interviewed, and 381 scripts of the learners were analysed with the mathematical language error, procedural error, conceptual error, and application error (MPCA error) analysis protocol. Results from this study showed that using concrete models to illustrate the dimensions of 3D concepts was helpful for high-performing schoolteachers. The mathematical knowledge and the quality of mathematical instructions used by the teacher to unpack the 3D trigonometry concepts were found to play a pivotal role in the learners’ understanding. The teachers’ in-depth knowledge of error analysis was valuable, while the teachers’ ability to implement blended learning was crucial for learners. When a misconception occurs amongst learners, it should be challenged or contrasted with the correct conception. An understanding of learners’ errors in 3D trigonometry helps teachers minimise learners’ errors.
This paper presents the effects of technology integration in the learning and teaching of Mathematics in first- and second-year mathematics students. The technology-based learning environment has been the demand in groundwork learning to shape a more active approach to students' learning process. The South African government has made an obligation to advance its people's Information and Communication Technology (ICT) skills and to connect the digital gap by targeting previously disadvantaged groups. The interpretive approach was used with face-to-face interviews to collect data from ten participants. Six participants were interviewed by the lecturers teaching mathematics and four students doing mathematics in one of the rural universities in the Eastern Cape. Findings confirmed that (i) Teacher technology competence and lack of resources are barriers to technology learning implementation. (ii) Consequently, it became evident that learners had a robust positive perception of computer usage in Mathematics learning and teaching even though almost all had little or no access to computers in their schools. It is recommended that the university should ensure that all students have the data card loaded with uncapped data for learning and teaching to run smoothly.
Source coverage refers to this result set; a publication may occur in several sources. Sync times refer to contributing journals.
Missing abstracts: 0 · Missing authors: 0 · Missing publication dates: 0 · Dates without day precision: 0
| Source | Most recent successful journal sync | Latest attempt |
|---|---|---|
| crossref | 21 Oct 2026 07:22 UTC · ijrbs | complete · ijrbs · 21 Oct 2026 07:22 UTC |
| ojs-rest | 21 Oct 2026 07:22 UTC · ijrbs | complete · ijrbs · 21 Oct 2026 06:46 UTC |
| oai-pmh | 20 Oct 2026 19:55 UTC · ijrbs | complete · ijrbs · 20 Oct 2026 19:50 UTC |
| openalex-enrichment | 21 Oct 2026 07:23 UTC · ijrbs | complete · ijrbs · 21 Oct 2026 07:22 UTC |