1. Abdul Azis, A., & Rosli, R. (2021). Analisis aras kognitif bagi soalan dalam buku teks matematik tahun 4 KSSR. Malaysian Journal of Social Science and Humanities (MJSSH), 6(3); 146-158. https://doi.org/10.47405/mjssh.v6i3.712
2. Ahl, L.M. (2016). Research findings’ impact on the representation of proportional reasoning in Swedish Mathematics textbooks. REDIMAT, 5(2), 180-204. doi:10.4471/redimat.2016.1987
3. Aldahmash, & Alamri, N. M. (2020). An analysis of the inclusion of mathematical discourse components in arabic mathematical textbooks: the case of saudi arabia. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.534803
4. Amaral, R., B., & Hollebrands, K. (2017). An analysis of context-based similarity tasks in textbooks from Brazil and the United States. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 48(8), 1166-1184, DOI:10.1080/0020739X.2017.1315188
5. Aperar Singh, P., Mohd Yusoff, N., & Teoh, S. (2020). Content analysis of primary school mathematics textbooks and its relationship with pupils’ achievement. Asian Journal of University Education, 16(2), 15-25. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v16i2.10286.
6. Azhar, N., & Rosli, R. (2021). Analisis kandungan topik tambah dan tolak dalam buku teks matematik tahap 1 sekolah kebangsaan. Jurnal Dunia Pendidikan, 3(1), 394-405.
7. Charalambous, C. Y., Delaney, D., Hsu, H., Y., & Mesa, V. (2010). A Comparative Analysis of the Addition and Subtraction of Fractions in Textbooks from Three Countries. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12(2), 117-151. 10.1080/10986060903460070
8. Cheng, J. W., & Rosli, R. (2020). Analisis Domain Kognitif bagi Latihan dalam Buku Teks Matematik Tahun 6. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH), 5(11), 116 - 126. https://doi.org/10.47405/mjssh.v5i11.549
9. Choi, K. M., & Park, H. J. (2013). A Comparative Analysis of Geometry Education on Curriculum Standards, Textbook Structure, and Textbook Items between the U.S. and Korea. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 9(4),379-391.
10. Choi, K. M., & Park, H.-J. (2013). A Comparative Analysis of Geometry Education on Curriculum Standards, Textbook Structure, and Textbook Items between the U.S. and Korea. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 9(4), 379-391. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2013.947a
11. Fujita, T., & Jones, K. (2003). The place of experimental tasks in geometry teaching: learning from the textbook designs of the early 20thcentury. Research in Mathematics Education, 5(1), 47–62. doi:10.1080/14794800008520114
12. Fujita, T., & Jones, K. (2014). Reasoning-and-proving in geometry in school mathematics textbooks in Japan. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 81–91. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2013.09.014
13. Glasnovic, D. G. (2018). Requirements in mathematics textbooks: a five-dimensional analysis of textbook exercises and examples. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 49(7), 1003–1024. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2018.1431849
14. González-Martín, A. S., Giraldo, V., & Souto, A. M. (2013). The introduction of real numbers in secondary education: an institutional analysis of textbooks. Research in Mathematics Education, 15(3), 230–248. doi:10.1080/14794802.2013.803778
15. Hasan, N. H., Sapar, A. A., & Siraj, S. (2020). Analisis kandungan terhadap penampilan kandungan, soalan dan aktiviti buku teks bahasa melayu kurikulum standard sekolah rendah tahap dua: data anekdot. Jurnal Kurikulum & Pengajaran Asia Pasifik, 8(2), 1–12
16. Hidayah, M., & Forgasz, H. (2020). A Comparison of Mathematical Tasks Types Used in Indonesian and Australian Textbooks based on Geometry Contents. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(3), 385-404. http://doi.org/10.22342/jme.11.3.11754.385-404
17. hinno, Y., & Mizoguchi, T. (2021). Theoretical approaches to teachers’ lesson designs involving the adaptation of mathematics textbooks: two cases from kyouzai kenkyuu in Japan. ZDM Mathematics Education 53, 1387–1402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01269-8
18. Ho, H. (2018). The characteristics of writing examples in the textbook of mathematics in China and Germany compare research: Take the fourth grade as an example [Master dissertation, Guizhou Normal University].
19. Hong, D. S., & Choi, K. M. (2018). A comparative analysis of linear functions in Korean and American standards-based secondary textbooks. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 49(7), 1025–1051. doi:10.1080/0020739x.2018.1440327
20. İncikabı, L. & Ulusoy, F. (2019). Gender bias and stereotypes in Australian, Singaporean and Turkish mathematics textbooks . Turkish Journal of Education, 8(4) , 298-317 . DOI: 10.19128/turje.581802
21. Jones, D. L., & Jacobbe, T. (2014). An Analysis of the Statistical Content in Textbooks for Prospective Elementary Teachers. Journal of Statistics Education, 22(3). 10.1080/10691898.2014.11889713
22. Kar, Tuğrul & Işık, Cemalettin. (2015). Comparison of Turkish and American Seventh Grade Mathematics Textbooks in Terms of Addition and Subtraction Operations with Integers. TED EĞİTİM VE BİLİM. 40. 10.15390/EB.2015.2897.
23. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2015). Dokumen Standard Kurikulum dan Pentaksiran Matematik Tahun 1. Putrajaya: Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum, KPM.
24. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2016). Dokumen Standard Kurikulum dan Pentaksiran Matematik Tahun 2. Putrajaya: Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum, KPM.
25. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2017). Dokumen Standard Kurikulum dan Pentaksiran Matematik Tahun 3. Putrajaya: Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum, KPM.
26. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2018). Dokumen Standard Kurikulum dan Pentaksiran Matematik Tahun 4. Putrajaya: Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum, KPM.
27. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2019). Dokumen Standard Kurikulum dan Pentaksiran Matematik Tahun 5. Putrajaya: Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum, KPM.
28. Kul, Ü., Sevimli, E., & Aksu, Z. (2018). A comparison of mathematics questions in Turkish and Canadian school textbooks in terms of synthesized taxonomy. Turkish Journal of Education, 7(3), 136-155. DOI:10.19128/turje.395162
29. Kumar, R. S., & Subramaniam, K. (2015). From 'Following' to Going Beyond the Textbook: Inservice Indian Mathematics Teachers' Professional Development for Teaching Integers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(12). http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2015v40n12.7
30. Lessani, A., Yunus, A., Tarmiz, R.B., & Mahmud, R. (2014). Investigating the content of mathematics textbook used in 8th grade in Malaysia based on content domain of TIMSS. International Journal of Education and Research, 2(9), 71-84.
31. Lim, C. Y., & Rosli, R. (2021). Analisis Contoh dan Latihan bagi Topik Penambahan dan Penolakan dalam Buku Teks Matematik SJKC. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH), 6(9), 254 - 270.
32. Mellor, K., Clark, R., & Essien, A.A. (2018). Affordances forlearning linear functions: Acomparative study of two textbooks from South Africa and Germany. Pythagoras, 39(1)
33. Merzbach, U. C., & Boyer, C. B. (2011). A history of mathematics (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
34. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, A. D. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), 339. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
35. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., & Arora, A. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in mathematics. Chestnut Hill, Mass: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
36. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Goh, S., & Cotter, K. (2016). TIMSS 2015 Encyclopedia: Education Policy and Curriculum in Mathematics and Science.
37. Noh, A., & Rosli, R. (2020). Kandungan Ilustrasi Pecahan Di Dalam Buku Teks Matematik Tahun 5 KSSR. Jurnal Dunia Pendidikan, 2(3), 231-236. Retrieved from https://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/jdpd/article/view/11158
38. Otten, S., Gilbertson, N., J., Males, L., M., & Clark, D., L. (2014). The Mathematical Nature of Reasoning-and-Proving Opportunities in Geometry Textbooks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 16(1); 51-79, DOI: 10.1080/10986065.2014.857802
39. Otten, S., Males, L. M., & Gilbertson, N. J. (2014). The introduction of proof in secondary geometry textbooks. International Journal of Educational Research, 64, 107–118. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2013.08.006
40. Pepin, B., Gueudet, G., & Trouche, L. (2013) Investigating textbooks as crucial interfaces between culture, policy and teacher curricular practice: Two contrasted case studies in France and Norway. ZDM - International Journal on Mathematics Education 45(5): 685-698.
41. Raman, M. (2004). Epistemological messages conveyed by three high-school and college mathematics textbooks. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 23(4), 389–404. doi:10.1016/j.jmathb.2004.09.002
42. Rezat, S. (2006a). A Model of Textbook Use. In J. Novotná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká & N. a. Stehlíková (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education 4, 409-416. Prague: Charles University, Faculty of Education.
43. Rezat, S. (2006b). The Structure of German Mathematics Textbooks. Zentralblatt für Didaktik der Mathematik, 38(6), 482-487.
44. Shen, K., Crossley, J. N., & Lun, A. W.-C. (1999). Nine chapters on the mathematical art: Companion and commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45. Sievert, H., van den Ham, A., K. & Heinze, A. (2021). The role of textbook quality in first graders’ ability to solve quantitative comparisons: a multilevel analysis. ZDM Mathematics Education 53, 1417–1431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-021-01266-x
46. Stará, J., & Krčmářová, T. (2015). How teachers reflect on textbook materials and how they utilise them. Internatioal Association for Research on Textbooks and Educational Media e-Journal, 6(3), 67-87.
47. Takeuchi, H., & Shinno, Y. (2020). Comparing the Lower Secondary Textbooks of Japan and England: a Praxeological Analysis of Symmetry and Transformations in Geometry. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18; 791–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-09982-3
48. Tan Şişman, G. & Kirez, B. (2018). History of Mathematics in the Turkish Middle School Mathematics Curriculum and Textbooks . Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal , 47 (1) , 188-215 . DOI: 10.14812/cuefd.361176
49. Tan, K. J., Ismail, Z. & Abidin, M. (2018). A comparative analysis on cognitive domain for the Malaysian primary four textbook series. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 14(4): 1273–1286.
50. Tanujaya, B., Prahmana, R. C. I., & Mumu, J. (2017). Mathematics instruction, problems, challenges and opportunities: a case study in Manokwari Regency, Indonesia. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 15(3), 287–291.
51. Tarım, K. (2017). Problem Solving Levels Of Elementary School Students On Mathematical Word Problems And The Distribution of These Problems in Textbooks . Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal , 46 (2) , 639-648 . DOI: 10.14812/cuefd.306025
52. Tárraga-Mínguez, Tarín-Ibáñez, J., & Lacruz-Pérez, I. (2021). Analysis of Word Problems in Primary Education Mathematics Textbooks in Spain. Mathematics, 9(17), 2123. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9172123
53. Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the Book - Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
54. Wang, Y., Barmby, P., & Bolden, D. (2015). Understanding Linear Function: a Comparison of Selected Textbooks from England and Shanghai. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 131–153. doi:10.1007/s10763-015-9674-x
55. Xia, K. (2017). Investigation of mathematics teachers in Changzhou and Wuxi City on understanding and using of the textbook examples [Master dissertation, Nanjing Normal University].
56. Zhang, Q.-P., & Wong, N.-Y. (2021). The Learning Trajectories of Similarity in Mathematics Curriculum: An Epistemological Analysis of Hong Kong Secondary Mathematics Textbooks in the Past Half Century. Mathematics, 9(18), 2310. MDPI AG. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/math9182310.