Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 158

International Conference on Teacher Training and Education 2017 (ICTTE 2017)

The Development of Realistic Mathematics Education (RME)

For Primary Schools' Prospective Teachers

Wahyudi1, Joharman1, Ngatman1

1
Primary Teacher Education Program, Teacher Training and Education Faculty, Sebelas Maret
University
Email: wahyudi@fkip.uns.ac.id

ABSTRACT

This research mainly focuses on: (1) the development of Realistic Mathematics
Education (RME), (2) improving the effectiveness of Mathematics learning with the
application of RME, and (3) constraints and solutions in the implementation of RME
for primary schools prospective teachers.This research was conducted in the Primary
Teacher Education Program of Teacher Training and Education Faculty of Sebelas
Maret University, using the Research and Development (R & D) and implementing
Classroom Action Research (CAR). The research subject included 71 students
attending Basic Mathematics II in Academic Years 2015/2016. Data were validated
using data and methodological triangulations. Afterwards, they were analyzed using
qualitative analysis comprising three streams of activities: data reduction, data
display, and conclusion drawing. Research procedure used was CAR with series of
cycles involving such steps as (1) planning, (2) action, (3) observing, and (4)
reflecting which was conducted simultaneously.The research finds out that: (1) Five
steps of the implementation of RME for prospective teachers of primary school are
(a) understanding daily problem/ context, (b) explaining contextual problem, (c)
solving contextual problems, (d) comparing and discussing answers, and (e) drawing
conclusion. (2) The implementation of RME can improve the effectiveness of
Mathematics learning, (3) constraints in the implementation of RME include: (a)
students do not have adequate understanding on Mathematics teaching materials, (b)
students are not familiar enough with problems in learning Mathematics related to
problems in daily life, (c) students are not quite familiar with the usage of teaching
media in Mathematics learning, (d) students do not well master various approaches in
Mathematics learning, (e) students do not acquire skill well in arranging lesson plans
for Mathematics learning, and (f) students are not skilled enough in the simulation of
Mathematics learning. Meanwhile, solutions for the difficulties are reinforcement
and assistance in: (1) the mastery of teaching materials, (2) the relationship between
teaching materials and problems in daily life, (3) uses of media/visual aids for
Mathematics learning, (4) the mastery of various approaches and methods in
Mathematics learning, (5) the arrangement of lesson plans in Mathematics learning,
and (6) simulation of Mathematics learning.

Keywords: Realistic; Mathematics; Education; Primary School

Copyright © 2017, the Authors. Published by Atlantis Press. 814

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 158

INTRODUCTION

National Education of Indonesia aims at the development of the potential of

learners to become human beings who believe and cautious to God Almighty, have a
noble character, healthy, knowledgeable, capable, creative, independent, and become
a democratic and responsible citizens (Article 3, Law No 20 of 2003 on National
Education System).
Teachers have the duty and the obligation to realize the goals of education in
their own schools. This can be seen in Law No. 14 of 2005 on Teachers and
Lecturers that "the position of teachers and lecturers as professionals aims to
implement the national education system and realize the goals of national education
......". One of the main tasks of teachers is to create an environment and learning
environment that supports for learners. Solutions that can be done, among others, by
the use of learning approaches in each learning with the aim of helping smoothness,
effectiveness, and efficiency in achieving educational goals.
Selection of the right learning approach will make learning fun. This is because
students seem to play, so the result will be more meaningful because students get
involved in it. Therefore, to improve students' understanding of the concepts to be
taught, teachers should use appropriate learning approaches on every subject
including Mathematics.
As a prospective primary school teacher who will become a classroom teacher,
where a teacher will teach at all grade levels and all subjects, the Primary School
Teacher Education Study Program will equip students with a comprehensive
curriculum that can produce competent and professional teacher candidates. In
connection with the Mathematics course in the curriculum of Primary School
Teacher Education Study Program, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education,
Sebelas Maret University of Surakarta, there are four courses that must be taken by
Primary School teacher candidates, namely (1) Basic Mathematics Concept 1, (2)
Basic Mathematics Concept 2, (3) Primary School Mathematics Education 1, and (4)
Primary School Mathematics Education 2.
In order for teacher competence and qualifications to be achieved, the Primary
School Teacher Education Study Program, Faculty of Teacher Training and
Education, Sebelas Maret University of Surakarta as one of the universities that
organizes the Primary School Teacher Education program, strives to produce a
competent and professional Primary School teacher candidate. Therefore, the
learning process both inside and outside the classroom must be systematically and
professionally managed. In order for the learning process to be well organized, it is
necessary to master the concepts and approaches or effective learning strategies.
For more than twenty years, the mathematics education in the Netherlands has
had many changes, shifting from the mechanistic and sometimes structuralistic to the
so-called 'realistic' approach to primary and secondary education. According to
mechanistic view, mathematics is a system of rules and algorithms. The emphasis of
this view is on verifying and applying rules for problems similar to the previous
problem. Much attention is spent on gradual approaches of caution, memorization,
and learning 'tricks'. In structuralistic view [1], mathematics is seen as a cognitive
achievement organized by a deductive system, and the learning process in
mathematics education must be guided by the structure of this system.

815
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 158

Realistic Mathematics Education in the Netherlands begins at a completely

different point from previous views, and aims to construct knowledge by children
based on their own mathematical knowledge by giving meaning to real-world context
issues [2,3]. In this approach, students are challenged to develop their own strategies
to solve the problem, and to discuss with other students. Finding solutions to real-
world problems is not the end of the math lesson in this approach. Teachers help
students to develop their informal strategies into a more formal approach, then it can
be used in other situations [3]. As Freudenthal [2] states, it reflects the shift from
mathematics as a created subject (made by others, especially mathematics) to
mathematics as the subject to be made. This means more dynamic mathematics.
Mathematical action and the process of developing a strategy get more attention than
static and disconnected knowledge. Freudenthal [4] stresses that in this approach the
child will be given the opportunity to "reinvent" mathematical ideas.
The consequence of a 'realistic turn' in mathematics education is that teachers
should be prepared with curriculum goals that are very different from the curriculum
they experience themselves when they become students. Although in class practice,
traditional mathematics rarely found in the Netherlands, there are data reflecting the
very didactic nature of these practices. Tomic [5], for example, points out that in
math lessons high school students spend only 11% in talking with teachers, 22% of
their time doing self-employment, and 51% of their time listening or doing
homework.
Evaluative research has been conducted on this teacher education program.
Therefore, one of the first things that needs to be built is reflection and promotion,
both in mathematical components and professional preparation [6-8]. Although the
focus of the research program has changed, the results of this study still seem
important for other efforts in teacher education to promote changes in mathematics
teacher conceptions and learning as well as mathematics teaching.
Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) is an approach in mathematics
education which was first introduced and developed in 1971 by a group of
mathematicians from Freudenthal Institute of Utrecht University of the Netherlands.
The approach is based on Hans Freudenthal’s (1905-1990) view that mathematics is
human activity. Mathematics class is not considered as a place to transfer knowledge
of Mathematics from a teacher to students, but rather a place where students can
reinvent mathematical ideas and concepts through exploration of real problems.
Mathematics is regarded as human activity which begins with problem solving. The
students should not be considered passive recipients, but rather they should be given
a chance to reinvent mathematical ideas and concepts under the guidance of their
lecturer. The reinvention is developed through the learning of various real daily-life
problem situations. Real life is defined as anything beyond mathematics, such as
daily life, surrounding environment, even other subjects. It is used as a starting point
of the mathematics learning. To prove that a process is more important than an
outcome, a term ‘mathematization’ is used in RME to refer to a mathematizing
process of realistic contexts. It is illustrated by de Lange [9] as an endless circle. A
realistic approach is an approach that uses realistic problems as the starting point of
mathematics learning based on the idea that mathematics is a human activity and that
mathematics must be linked significantly to the context of everyday life of the
student as a source of development and as an application area through a process of
mathematization. The foregoing can be accomplished if the learning process using

816
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 158

Realistic Mathematics Education, namely an approach in which mathematics class is

not considered as a place to transfer knowledge of mathematics from a teacher to
students, but rather a place where students can reinvent mathematical ideas and
concepts through exploration of real problems. Here, Mathematics is regarded as
human activity which begins with problem solving [10]. A typical example of a
realistic mathematical problem is tracing from ongoing changes to the number of bus
passengers at a bus stop [11]. In situations of passengers entering and leaving the
bus, the process of addition and subtraction arises in a natural way. Therefore, the
problems presented above illustrate only part of the realistic mathematics education.
In the realistic mathematics education, formalization stage reached in successive
stages. To understand more detailed principles in curriculum materials, it takes at
least a month to explain [9].
Many researchers claim that teaching strategies used to teach a subject for
prospective teachers have a strong influence on their conception of topics and
teaching and learning processes [12-15]. Stofflett and Stoddart [16], for example,
have shown that prospective teachers who have active learning are more likely to
plan active lessons and facilitate active knowledge construction.
Gravemeijer [11] (1994: 82) states that RME is rooted in Freudenthal’s
interpretation of mathematics as human activity. Freudenthal takes his starting point
in the activity of mathematicians, whether pure or applied. He characterizes their
activity as an activity of solving problems, looking for problems, and organizing
subject matter—whether it belongs to mathematical matter or matter from reality.
According to Freudenthal, the latter activity— organizing or mathematizing—serves
as the main activity. Interestingly, he sees it as a general activity which represents
typical characteristics of both pure and applied mathematics. Consequently, when
setting ‘mathematizing’ as a goal for mathematics education, it can cover
mathematizing mathematics and mathematizing reality. Gravemeijer [11] mentions
three main principles in RME:
The first principle is termed “guided reinvention” and progressive
mathematizing. According to the reinvention principle, the students should be given
the opportunity to experience a process similiar to the process by which mathematics
was invented.
The second principle relates to the idea of a dedactical phenomenology.
According to a dedactical phenomenology, situations where a given mathematical
topic is applied are to be investigated for two reasons. Firstly, to reveal the kind of
applications that have to be anticipated in intruction, secondly, to consider their
suitability as points of impact for process of progressive mathematization.
The third principle is found in the role which self-developed models play in
bridging the gap between information knowladge and formal mathematics.
According to Gravemeijer [11] RME has five characteristics as follows:
(1) The use of real world context
Realistic mathematics education emphasizes the importance of exploring the
phenomena of everyday life. The informal knowledge that students gain from
everyday life is used as a contextual problem to be developed into a formal
mathematical concept.
(2) Vertical instrument (the use of models)
The development of informal knowledge of students into formal concepts of
mathematics is a gradual process. The process can be supported with the use of

817
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 158

models and symbols. The use of models is a bridge for students to create their
own models from real situations to abstracts or from informal to formal
situations.
(3) Students’ contribution (the use of production and construction)
Students actively construct their own mathematical materials based on facilities
with the learning environment provided by teachers, actively solving problems
in their own way.
(4) Interactive activity (the use of interactivity)
Interaction between students with teachers, students with students, and students
with learning tools is important in Realistic mathematics education.
Consequently, interactive learning activities will enable communication,
negotiation, explanation, ask and respond to questions and reflections to achieve
form of formal knowledge.
(5) Topic relatedness (the use of relatedness)
The learning of a mathematical material is related to various mathematical topics
in an integrated manner. Mathematical structures and concepts are interrelated,
usually a topic discussion should be explored to support meaningful learning.
A few things to note from the characteristics of the approach to Realistic
Mathematics Education above are RME belongs to:
a) ‘active students’ way of learning’ since the mathematics learning is
conducted by ‘learning by doing’;
b) student-centered learning since the students solve their problem themselves
according to their ability—in this case, their teacher merely serves as a
facilitator;
c) guided inquiry-based learning since the students are required to invent and
reinvent mathematical concepts and principles;
d) contextual learning since the starting point of mathematic learning is
contextual matter—which includes students’ problem in their everyday life;
e) constructivist learning since the students are guided to reinvent their
knowledge of mathematics by themselves by solving problem and discussing.
From the above explanation, it is assumed that in principle, the realistic
mathematical approach is a combination of constructivism and contextual
approaches, in the sense of giving students the opportunity to construct their own
understanding of mathematical ideas and concepts through the solving of real-world
problems (contextual).
One consequence of the above mentioned principles is that the role of the
teacher is to facilitate learning, not just transmitting knowledge. Treffers [3] states
that in realistic mathematics, teacher education must use student construction to help
them build new constructions, solve problems and others. For teacher education, this
step is an important part of facilitating their role in working as prospective teachers.
This article focuses on the problem (1) the development of Realistic
Mathematics Education (RME), (2) the improvement of learning effectiveness using
the implementation of RME, and (3) constraints and solutions in the implementation
of RME.

818
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 158

RESEARCH METHOD

The research was conducted in the academic year 2015/2016 using the Research
and Development (R & D) and Classroom Action Research (CAR with series of
cycle) to produce the RME Learning Model. This Research and Development
Procedure summarizes Borg and Gall [17] concept consisting of 10 stages into 4
stages [18], namely (1) prototype preparation stage, covering (a) literature study, (b)
exploration study, (c) needs identification, (d) needs analysis (e) description of
findings, (f) prototype design, and (g) prototype workshop; (2) prototype
development, includes (a) expert assessment, (b) limited and revised trials, (c) broad
and revised trials, and (d) new model products; (3) the testing phase, which is to test
the effectiveness of the developed model; and (4) the phase of dissemination and
publication.
Classroom Action Research (CAR with series of cycle) was utilized as research
procedure in this research. It comprises three cycles, each of which covers three
meetings. Each cycle simultaneously involves four steps: (1) planning, (2) action, (3)
observing, and (4) reflecting [19].
In the planning step, the researcher identifies and formulates problems based on
a preliminary study. Furthermore, the researcher develops the learning scenario
based on Realistic Mathematics Education characteristics, then the researcher
develops the lesson plan with realistic mathematical approach. In addition, researcher
also prepares learning tools and research instruments in the form of learning media,
observation sheets, and learning evaluation tools.
In the implementation step, the researcher conducts the learning activities using
Realistic Mathematics Education in accordance with the plan that has been prepared.
After that, researchers began to engage in core activities. Researchers explain
learning materials using Realistic Mathematics Education steps. After the students
finished studying with Realistic Mathematics Education, the students together with
the researcher concluded the learning materials. The last step in this cycle is marked
by the evaluation of learning outcomes in the form of post test that must be done by
students individually. This is useful for measuring the extent to which success rates
are achieved in the implementation of the action.
In the observation step, the researcher cooperates with colleagues involving two
lecturers of Mathematics as a collaborator to become an observer. During the
activity, the observer observed the learning process by filling out the observation
sheet of Realistic Mathematics Education provided by the researcher. Obviously,
researchers also observed the process of learning directly in addition to the task of
implementing actions in the form of learning with Realistic Mathematics Education
approach.
In the reflection step, the researcher analyzes the process and the result of
learning evaluation using Realistic Mathematics Education, and analyzes the
observation result of the learning implementation, and then concludes the
implementation of the action as the basis for determining the follow-up activities. If
the next cycle is required, the researcher immediately prepares the next action, with
the same stages as the previous cycle. This is done repeatedly, to find valid
conclusions about the process and learning outcomes by using Realistic Mathematics
Education, in accordance with research objectives.

819
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 158

This research use research subject as research participant, that is all student of
Primary School Teacher Education Faculty of Teacher Training and Education,
Sebelas Maret University who take subject of Primary School Mathematics
Education 2 as much as 71 students. They graduated from high school or vocational
high schools, who do not have an in-depth knowledge of Mathematics education and
learning. Pedagogic knowledge has just learned in the first and second semester.
Techniques of collecting data used are observation, tests, and interviews.
Observation of the researcher was conducted by colleagues at the time of
implementing learning with Realistic Mathematics Education based on learning
scenarios that have been prepared. In addition, observation results are also used to
find constraints and solutions for the implementation of Realistic Mathematics
Education. The test technique is used to collect data about student learning outcomes
about Mathematics Education taught by using Realistic Mathematics Education. The
form of the test is a description test prepared by the researcher, to reveal the process
and the results of mathematics learning. Interviews were conducted to collect data
from students, peers to reinforce the conclusions to be taken with regard to the
application of Realistic Mathematics Education. Interview techniques are used to
obtain conscious ideas, experiences and opinions from respondents. For this reason,
open-ended questions about the learning process with Realistic Mathematics
Education are used. Interview results were analyzed using an inductive strategy [20].
Data analysis used in this research is quantitative and qualitative data analysis.
Quantitative data in the form of data of learning result of Primary School
Mathematics Education 2 which is obtained after applying Realistic Mathematics
Education model. The analysis used in the data is a comparison analysis between
meetings and between cycles. While the qualitative data in the form of observations
and interviews about the implementation of learning by applying Realistic
Mathematics Education model. These data were analyzed qualitatively, which
consisted of three sequences of activities performed simultaneously and continuously
during and after data collection ie data reduction, data presentation, and conclusion
or verification [21].

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The Development of Realistic Mathematic Education (RME)

Based on the characteristics of Realistic Mathematic Education (RME), then the

learning steps based on RME are developed as a guide for learning Mathematics.
Learning guides are arranged in the form of learning scenarios, namely in the form of
activities that provide direction for lecturers and students in the implementation of
learning with RME. The learning steps and activities that must be implemented by
lecturers and students in the application of Realistic Mathematics Education are as
follows:
1. Understanding daily problem/context.
Lecturers provide contextual problems and ask students to understand the
problem. This step is characteristic 1 of RME, that is understanding daily
problem/ context.

820
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 158

Several activities in this stage are: (a) creating a classroom atmosphere for
learning activities, (b) explaining learning objectives intended to achieve, (c)
starting the learning by providing examples of problems in everyday life, (d)
demonstrating the problem solving using suitable audio-visual aids, and (e)
providing questions about problem solving which are frequently found in real life.
2. Explaining contextual problem.
The second step is implemented if there are students who do not understand the
problem given. If all students have understood then this step is no longer needed.
In this step, the lecturer explains the situation and condition of the problem by
giving the necessary instructions to certain parts that have not been used by the
students. This step is characteristic 4 of RME, that is the interactive activity,
interaction between students with teachers and students with other students.
Explaining contextual problem includes activity of: (a) preparing discussion
forum, (b) explaining the discussion procedures, (c) assigning discussion, (d)
preparing media/ audio-visual aids, (e) conducting the discussion, (f) relating data
with concepts, (g) revealing the answers of the questions related to problems, (h)
discussing and revealing information of problems in learning.
3. Solving contextual problems.
Students solve problems in groups or individuals. In solving the problem, students
are allowed to use different ways. Using the activity sheet, students work on the
problem and solve problems in different difficulty levels. Lecturers motivate
students to solve problems in their own way by providing direction in the form of
questions and motivation. This step is characteristic 2 and 5 of RME, ie vertical
instrument (the use of the model) and Topic relatedness (the use of relatedness).
Solving contextual problems including some activities: (a) directing students to
prepare visual aids in coping with learning problems, (b) guiding students in using
visual aids to solve problems in learning, and (c) guiding students to prepare
learning models using appropriate visual aids.
4. Comparing and discussing answers.
Lecturers facilitate discussion and provide time to compare and discuss answers to
problems in groups, and then class discussions are held. This step is characteristic
3 and 4 of RME that is using students’ contribution and interaction among
students with one another. This stage includes the following activities: (a)
providing students with guidelines to solve problems in mathematics learning
based on their own experiences, (b) monitoring students’ activities when solving
problems/doing tasks periodically, (c) presenting working results in mathematics
learning consecutively in class, (d) the lecturer serves as moderator and facilitator
in class discussion, (e) together with students, giving responses to presentation
result in class discussion forum, (f) together with students, making a reflection on
the results of their presentation in mathematics learning, and (g) concluding the
results of presentation and class discussion.
5. Drawing conclusion.
From the results of class discussions, the lecturer asks students to draw
conclusions of a concept, then summarizes or completes the concepts contained in
the problem solving. This stage comprises several activities: (a) students analyze
mathematics curriculum at primary school, (b) students arrange competencies that
have to be mastered by prmary school students in mathematics learning, (c)
students arrange lesson plans for mathematics learning for primary school

821
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 158

students, (d) students implement the lesson plans in peer teaching, (e) students
perform class discussion and reflection towards the lesson plans that have been
practiced in peer teaching, (f) students provide feedbacks for lesson plans that
have been practiced, and (g) students draw conclusion on lesson plans that have
been composed and practiced.
Based on the activities contained in each learning step with Realistic
Mathematics Education, it is also used to arrange the observation instrument of
learning with RME. After all learning tools are prepared, the learning process with
Realistic Mathematics Education can be implemented.

Implementation of Realistic Mathematic Education (RME)

To obtain data about mathematics learning with Realistic Mathematics

Education approach in accordance with the steps that have been compiled, it is
necessary to run a preliminary test of implementing mathematics learning with RME
approach. This preliminary test was carried out for three cycles. Each cycle consists
of three meetings. Therefore, the test of mathematics learning with RME approach
was conducted for 9 meetings in the form of lectures in accordance with the fixed
schedule of mathematics education for elementary school.
The result of observation on the implementation of learning conducted by
lecturers and students for three cycles is presented in table 1, table 2, and table 3
below.

TABLE I: OBSERVATION RESULTS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEARNING USING

RME (LECTURER’S ACTIVITIES) IN CYCLE I, II, AND III
No Mean Score Average
RME Steps Observation of RME
CycleI CycleII CycleII
I
1 Understanding daily problem/ context 3.65 3.75 3.85 3.75
2 Explaining contextual problem 3.60 3.80 3.83 3.74
3 Solving contextual problems 3.60 3.70 3.83 3.71
4 Comparing and discussing answers 3.70 3.80 3.82 3.77
5 Drawing conclusion 3.65 3.75 3.85 3.75
Average 3.64 3.76 3.84 3.75
Note: Score of 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Good, 4 = Excellent

TABLE II: OBSERVATION RESULTS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LEARNING USING

RME (STUDENTS’ ACTIVITIES) IN CYCLE I, II, AND III
No Mean Score Average
RME Steps Observation of RME
CycleI CycleII CycleII
I
1 Understanding daily problem/ context 3.65 3.70 3.85 3.73
2 Explaining contextual problem 3.60 3.70 3.85 3.72
3 Solving contextual problems 3.50 3.75 3.80 3.68
4 Comparing and discussing answers 3.65 3.80 3.83 3.76
5 Drawing conclusion 3.65 3.75 3.85 3.75
Average 3.61 3.74 3.84 3.73
Note: Score of 1 = Poor, 2 = Fair, 3 = Good, 4 = Excellent

822
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 158

Based on the observation, the learning steps using Realistic Mathematics

Education model are (1) understanding daily problem/ context, (2) explaining
contextual problem, (3) solving contextual problems, (4) comparing and discussing
answers, and (5) drawing conclusion. From the five learning steps of RME in Cycle
I, the average score of the first step, understanding daily problem/ context, is 3.65.
This happens because the students have noticed the learning objectives to be
achieved. Similarly, step 2, 3, 4, and 5 obtained an average score of 3.61. As in the
lecturer activity in cycle I has obtained an average score of 3.64. This means that
learning has proceeded according to plan. In cycle II, from the five steps of learning
RME, steps 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 obtained an average score of 3.74 for student activities
and lecturer activities obtained an average score of 3.76. This means that learning has
proceeded according to plan. Meanwhile, in cycle III, from the five steps of learning
RME, steps 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 obtained an average score of 3.84 for student activities
and lecturer activities obtained an average score of 3.84.

TABLE III: LEARNING OUTCOMES USING RME IN CYCLE I, II, III

Score Post-test Note(s)
Cycle I Cycle II Cycle III
60 – 69 0 5 2 Passed
70 – 79 67 16 10 Passed
80 – 89 4 40 51 Passed
90 – 100 0 10 8 Passed
Total 71 71 71
Average 72.58 80.39 82.44
Lowest Score 70 60 65
Highest Score 80 95 95
Completeness (%) 100 100 100

Based on the above data, in cycle I, from 71 students, there are 71 students
(100%) who completely master the competence and there were no students who
failed. The lowest and highest score were 70 and 80. The average score of post-test
was 72.58. And then, in cycle II, from 71 students, there are 71 students (100%) who
completely master the competence and there were no students who failed. The lowest
and highest score were 60 and 95. The average score of post-test was 80.39. In cycle
III, from 71 students, there are 71 students (100%) who completely master the
competence and there were no students who failed. The lowest and highest score
were 65 and 95. The average score of post-test was 82.44. This indicates that there
was a significant improvement of learning outcomes in each cycle by the
implementation of Realistic Mathematic Education.

Constrains and Solutions in the Implementation of Realistic Mathematic

Education (RME)

On the basis of learning implementation using Realistic Mathematics Education

(RME) comprising 2 cycles, constraints in the development of Realistic Mathematics
Education (RME) for the improvement of mathematics learning of students, namely
(1) students do not have adequate understanding on mathematics teaching
materials for primary school, (2) students are not familiar enough with problems
in learning mathematics related to in daily life, (3) students are not quite familiar
with the usage of teaching media/visual aids in mathematics learning, (4) students do

823
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 158

not master various approaches in mathematics learning well, (5) students do not
acquire skill well in arranging lesson plans for mathematics learning in primary
school, (6) students are not skilled enough in the simulation of mathematics learning
in primary school. Solutions for those problems are (1) reinforcing the mastery of
teaching materials and mathematical concepts in primary school, (2) reinforcing the
relationship between teaching materials and problems in daily life, (3) reinforcing
identification and usage of media/visual aids for mathematics learning in primary
school, (4) reinforcing the mastery of various approaches in mathematics learning in
primary school, (5) reinforcing the arrangement of lesson plans, and (6) reinforcing
simulation of mathematics learning in primary school.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of research problems and the results of research data analysis in
cycle 1, 2, and 3, conclusion can be drawn as the followings: (1) Realistic
Mathematics Education (RME) is done through 5 steps: (1) understanding
problems/contexts in daily life, (2) explaining contextual problems, (3) solving
contextual problems, (4) comparing and discussing answers, and (5) drawing
conclusion. (2) Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) can improve the learning
effectiveness for the prospective teachers of primary schools, (3) Realistic
Mathematics Education (RME) faces some obstacles, including: (1) students do not
have adequate understanding on mathematics teaching materials for primary school,
(2) students are not familiar enough with problems in learning mathematics related to
problems in daily life, (3) students are not quite familiar with the usage of teaching
media/visual aids in mathematics learning, (4) students do not well master various
approaches in mathematics learning, (5) students do not acquire skill well in
arranging lesson plans for mathematics learning in primary school, and (6) students
are not skilled enough in the simulation of mathematics learning in primary school.
Solutions for the difficulties comprise: (1) reinforcing the mastery of teaching
materials and mathematical concepts in primary school, (2) reinforcing the
relationship between teaching materials and problems in daily life, (3) reinforcing
identification and uses of media/visual aids for mathematics learning in primary
school, (4) reinforcing the mastery of various approaches in mathematics learning in
primary school, (5) reinforcing the arrangement of lesson plans, and (6) reinforcing
simulation of mathematics learning in primary school.

REFERENCES

[1] Dieudonn´e, J.: 1982, ‘The work of Bourbaki during the last thirty years’,
Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 29, 618–623.
[2] Freudenthal, H.: 1978, Weeding and Sowing. Preface of a Science of
Mathematics Education. Reidel. Publishing Company, Dordrecht.
[3] Treffers, A.: 1987, ‘Three Dimensions’, A Model of Goals and Theory
Description in Mathematics Instruction - TheWiskobas Project,Reidel
Publishing Company, Dordrecht.
[4] Freudenthal, H.: 1991, Revisiting Mathematics Education: China Lectures,
Kluwer, Dordrecht/Boston/London.
[5] Tomic, W.: 1985, Docentengedrag en leerresultaten, Grafoplan, Enschede.

824
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 158

[6] Korthagen, F. A. J.: 1985, ‘Reflective teaching and pre-service teacher

education in the Netherlands’, Journal of Teacher Education 36, (5), 11–15.
[7] Korthagen, F. A. J.: 1988, ‘The influence of learning orientations on the
development of reflective teaching’. In J. Calderhead (ed.), Teachers’
[8] Korthagen, F. A. J. and Wubbels, Th.: 1995, ‘Characteristics of Reflective
Practioners: towards an operationalization of the concept of reflection’,
Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 1, 1, 51–72.
[9] De Lange Jzn, J.: 1987, Mathematics Insight and Meaning, OW&OC,
Utrecht.
[10] Dolk, Maarten. 2006. Realistik Mathematics Education. Makalah Kuliah
Umum di Program Pasca Sarjana Universitas Sriwijaya Palembang, Tanggal
29 Juli 2006
[11] Gravemeijer, K. P. E.: 1994, Developing Realistic Mathematics Evaluation,
CDB Press, Utrecht.
[12] Kagan, D. M.: 1992, ‘Professional growth among pre-service and beginning
teachers’, Review of Educational Research 62 (2), 129–169.
[13] Lortie, D.: 1975, Schoolteacher: A sociological Study, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
[14] Thompson, A. G.: 1984, ‘The relationship of teachers’ conceptions of
mathematics and mathematics teaching to instructional practice’,
Educational Studies in Mathematics 15, 105–127.
[15] Huibregtse, I., Korthagen, F. and Wubbels, Th.: 1994, ‘Physics teachers’
conceptions of learning, teaching and professional development’,
International Journal of Science Education 16, 5, 539–561.
[16] Stofflett, R. T. and Stoddart, T.: 1994, ‘The ability to understand and use
conceptual change pedagogy as a function of prior content learning
experience’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 31, (1), 31–51.
[17] Borg, W.R. and Gall, M.D. 2003. Educational Research. Boston: Pearson
Education. Inc
[18] Sugiyono. 2013. Metode Penelitiarn Kualitatif, Kuantitatif, dan R & D.
Bandung: CV Alfabeta.
[19] Hopkins, D. 1993. A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Research. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
[20] Glaser, B. G., & Strauss A. L.: 1967, The Discovery of Grounded Theory:
Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine, Chicago.
[21] Rohendi Rohidi, T. 1992. Analisis Data Kualitatif: Terjemehan: Qualitative
Data Analysis (Mathew B. Miles dan A. Michael Huberman). Jakarta:
Penerbit UI Press.
[22] Dolk, M., Korthagen, F. A. J., and Wubbels, Th.: 1995, What Makes
Teachers Teach theWay They Teach? Instruments to Investigate Aspects of
Teacher’s Gestalts. Paper presented at the 6th European Conference for
Research on Learning and Instruction. Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
[23] Heuvel, M. Van den; Panhuizen. 1996. Assesment and Realistic
Mathematics Education. Nederlands: Fruedental institute.
[24] Professional Learning, Falmer Press, London, pp. 35–50.
[25] Korthagen, F. A. J.: 1993, ‘Two modes of reflection’, Teaching & Teacher
Education 9, (3), 317–326.

825
 Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), volume 158

[26] Pratt, D. D.: 1988, ‘Andragogy as a relational construct’, Adult Education

Ouarterly 38 (3), 160–172.
[27] Van den Brink, F. J.: 1984, ‘Numbers in contextual frameworks’,
Educational Studies in Mathematics 15, 239–257.
[28] Wubbels, Th., and Korthagen F. A. J.: 1990, ‘The effects of a pre-service
teacher education program for the preparation of reflective teachers’,
Journal of Education for Teaching 16, (1), 29–43.
[29] Wubbels, Th.: 1992, ‘Taking account of student teacher’s preconceptions’,
Teaching and Teacher Education 8, (2), 137–149.
[30] Wubbels, Th., and J. Levy: 1993, Do You Know What You Look Like?
Interpersonal Relations in the Classroom, Falmer Press, London.

826