ALGORITHMIC BIAS AND ETHNOMATHEMATICS IN AI-BASED MATHEMATICS EDUCATION: A CRITICAL REVIEW AND INCLUSIVE PEDAGOGY

Authors

  • Andi Mulawakkan Firdaus Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar
  • Andrew Mshambala Wamvua University of Szeged

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62388/prisma.v5i2.643

Keywords:

Artificial Intelligence, Algorithmic Bias, Ethnomathematics, Critical Mathematics Education, Numeracy Equity, Digital Agency

Abstract

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in mathematics education expands opportunities for adaptive feedback and learning support but also raises concerns regarding algorithmic fairness, access, cultural representation, and student agency. This article aims to explain how these opportunities and risks are interconnected and to develop a pedagogical framework integrating ethnomathematics, critical mathematics education, and equitable AI governance. The study employs a critical integrative review of methodological, theoretical, empirical, and policy literature whose publication details can be verified. The literature is interpreted through four analytical dimensions: the learning benefits of AI, sources of inequity, recognition of culturally grounded mathematical knowledge, and conditions for implementation and governance. The synthesis indicates that the effects of AI cannot be generalized as invariably harmful or invariably beneficial. Inequities may arise when data, assessment design, device access, and pedagogical decisions disregard learners' contexts. Conversely, technology can support conceptual exploration when teachers retain instructional control and provide meaningful tasks. The article develops the Critical Techno-Ethnomathematics Pedagogical Framework (KPT-EK), comprising four pillars: algorithmic fairness auditing, dialogic cultural modeling, critical socioeconomic numeracy, and digital agency. The framework is operationalized through five instructional phases, multilevel evaluation indicators, and propositions for empirical testing. The article contributes a more balanced argument about AI and a testable pedagogical design. Its findings do not yet constitute evidence of the framework's effectiveness or a completed scoping review with an audited corpus of studies.

References

Age, T. J., & Machaba, M. F. (2026). Decolonizing mathematical futures: The role of artificial intelligence in reviving and repositioning ethnomathematics in curriculum design in Africa. Frontiers in Computer Science, 8, 1855557. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2026.1855557

Baker, R. S., & Hawn, A. (2022). Algorithmic bias in education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32, 1052–1092. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00285-9

Bakker, A., Cai, J., & Zenger, L. (2021). Future themes of mathematics education research: An international survey before and during the pandemic. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 107, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10049-w

D’Ambrosio, U. (1985). Ethnomathematics and its place in the history and pedagogy of mathematics. For the Learning of Mathematics, 5(1), 44–48.

Gutiérrez, R. (2013). The sociopolitical turn in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(1), 37–68. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.44.1.0037

Gutstein, E. (2003). Teaching and learning mathematics for social justice in an urban, Latino school. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(1), 37–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/30034699

Idowu, J. A. (2024). Debiasing education algorithms. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 34, 1510–1540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-023-00389-4

Mavrikis, M., Rummel, N., Wiedmann, M., Loibl, K., & Holmes, W. (2022). Combining exploratory learning with structured practice educational technologies to foster both conceptual and procedural fractions knowledge. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70, 691–712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10104-0

Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-20-00167

Rosa, M., & Orey, D. C. (2013). Ethnomodeling as a research theoretical framework on ethnomathematics and mathematical modeling. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 6(2). https://doi.org/10.21423/jume-v6i2a195

Schindler, M., Cevikbas, M., & Lilienthal, A. J. (2026). Artificial intelligence in mathematics education: A two-dimensional conceptual framework and meta-review. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 58, 831–850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-026-01827-y

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., et al. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

UNESCO. (2023a). Global education monitoring report 2023: Technology in education—A tool on whose terms? https://www.unesco.org/gem-report/en/publication/technology

UNESCO. (2023b). Guidance for generative AI in education and research. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/guidance-generative-ai-education-and-research

Yi, L., Liu, D., Jiang, T., & Xian, Y. (2025). The effectiveness of AI on K–12 students’ mathematics learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 23, 1105–1126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-024-10499-7

Downloads

Published

2026-10-30

How to Cite

Firdaus, A. M., & Wamvua, A. M. . (2026). ALGORITHMIC BIAS AND ETHNOMATHEMATICS IN AI-BASED MATHEMATICS EDUCATION: A CRITICAL REVIEW AND INCLUSIVE PEDAGOGY. Jurnal Penalaran Dan Riset Matematika, 5(2), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.62388/prisma.v5i2.643