Mapping the intellectual landscape of geometry education in inclusive settings: A bibliometric analysis of teaching squares, cubes, areas, and volumes and the SPACE framework

The teaching of geometric measurement concepts – squares, cubes, areas, and volumes – represents an important yet understudied intersection in inclusive mathematics education. This study employs computational bibliometric methods to map the intellectual structure of this field through analysis of 193 publications spanning 2004–2025. Using Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), BERT-based semantic clustering, and network analysis, we identified 12 distinct research themes, 8 semantic knowledge communities, and 22 understudied concept-population combinations. Our analysis suggests a notable disconnect: while spatial reasoning (Cluster 2, n = 32 ) and inclusive practices (Cluster 7, n = 33 ) represent major research areas, their intersection with specific geometric concepts has received very limited research attention. Fundamental concepts like squares and cubes show minimal integration with disability and inclusive education research ( < 3 papers per combination). The co-occurrence network analysis (193 nodes, 981 edges) identified four weakly connected research communities with an average shortest path of 2.56, indicating fragmented knowledge development. Temporal analysis suggests a recent shift toward technology-enhanced spatial reasoning (2024–2025), yet implementation guidance for diverse learners remains absent. Based on these empirical patterns, we propose the SPACE framework – a provisional, evidence-informed heuristic integrating Spatial reasoning development, Progression through representations, Adaptive instructional pathways, Collaborative learning structures, and Evidence-based assessment. This framework is designed to bridge the identified gaps by proposing specific pathways for teaching geometric measurement to diverse learners. Our findings have implications for inclusive education policy and practice, offering a systematic mapping of this educational domain and suggesting directions for researchers, educators, and policymakers that require further empirical validation.