Main Article Content


This research aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) to improve students' multi-representation ability. A quasi-experimental design was used in this research. Sixty-four samples from the seventh-grade students of Junior School were randomly selected and divided into two classes: experimental class was treated using RME and control class was treated using conventional learning, with each class consisting of thirty-two students. The essay test was used to measure the multi-representation ability of students and the questionnaire was used to measure students' responses in RME learning. The data from the essay test were analyzed by N-Gain test and t-test in which normality and homogenity test were conducted previously, while the students' learning completeness and student responses were presented descriptive quantitative. The result of the research concluded that the multi-representation ability of students who get RME learning is better than the multi-representation ability in students who get conventional learning. 87.25% of students who get RME learning with the developed device have completed the KKM, and many students are very enthusiastic and interested in RME based learning, thus increasing their learning spirit in a learning process.


Multi-Representation RME and Conventional Learning

Article Details

Author Biography

Muhtarom Muhtarom, Universitas PGRI Semarang

Mathematics Education


  1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and instruction, 16(3), 183-198.
  2. Almomen, R. K., Kaufman, D., Alotaibi, H., Al-Rowais, N. A., Albeik, M., & Albattal, S. M. (2016). Applying the ADDIE—analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation—instructional design model to continuing professional development for primary care physicians in Saudi Arabia. Int J Clin Med, 7(08), 538-546.
  3. Arikunto, S. (2010). Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktek. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
  4. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Chapter 3: Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of research in education, 24(1), 61-100.
  5. Brenner, M. E., Mayer, R. E., Moseley, B., Brar, T., Durán, R., Reed, B. S., & Webb, D. (1997). Learning by understanding: The role of multiple representations in learning algebra. American Educational Research Journal, 34(4), 663-689.
  6. Hernawan, A. H. (2008). Makna ketuntasan dalam belajar. Majalah Ilmiah Pembelajaran, 4(2).
  7. Hwang, W. Y., Chen, N. S., Dung, J. J., & Yang, Y. L. (2007). Multiple representation skills and creativity effects on mathematical problem solving using a multimedia whiteboard system. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 191-212.
  8. Janvier, C. (1987). Representation and understanding: The notion of function as an example. In C. Janvier (Ed.), Problems of representation in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 67–71). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  9. Kaput, J. J., & Romberg, T. A. (1999). Mathematics worth teaching, mathematics worth understanding. In Mathematics Classrooms That Promote Understanding (pp. 15-30). Routledge.
  10. Keller, B. A., & Hirsch, C. R. (1998). Student preferences for representations of functions. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 29(1), 1-17.
  11. Laurens, T., Batlolona, F. A., Batlolona, J. R., & Leasa, M. (2018). How does Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) improve students’ mathematics cognitive achievement. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(2), 569-578.
  12. Meltzer, D. E. (2002). The relationship between mathematics preparation and conceptual learning gains in physics: A possible “hidden variable” in diagnostic pretest scores. American journal of physics, 70(12), 1259-1268.
  13. Milrad, M. (2002). Using construction kits, modeling tools and system dynamics simulations to support collaborative discovery learning. Educational Technology & Society, 5(4), 76-87.
  14. Muhtarom, Murtianto, Y. H., & Sutrisno (2017). Thinking Process of Students with High-Mathematics Ability (A Study on QSR NVivo 11-Assisted Data Analysis). International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 12(17), 6934-6940.
  15. Muhtarom, Juniati, D., & Siswono, T. Y. (2017). Consistency and inconsistency of prospective teachers’ beliefs in mathematics, teaching, learning and problem solving. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1868, No. 1, p. 050014). AIP Publishing.
  16. NCTM (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. NCTM: Reston, VA.
  17. Neria, D., & Amit, M. (2004). Students preference of non-algebraic representations in mathematical communication'. In Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 3, pp. 409-416).
  18. Nizaruddin., Muhtarom, & Murtianto, Y.M. (2017). Exploring of Multi Mathematical Representation Capability in Problem Solving on Senior High School Students. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 75(6), 591-598.
  19. Ginting, M. S., Prahmana, R. C. I., Isa, M., & Murni, M. (2018). Improving the reasoning ability of elementary school student through the indonesian realistic mathematics education. Journal on Mathematics Education, 9(1), 41-54.
  20. Sembiring, R. K., Hadi, S., & Dolk, M. (2008). Reforming mathematics learning in Indonesian classrooms through RME. ZDM, 40(6), 927-939.
  21. Supandi, S., Waluya, S. B., Rochmad, R., Suyitno, H., & Dewi, K. (2018). Think-Talk-Write Model for Improving Students' Abilities in Mathematical Representation. International Journal of Instruction, 11(3), 77-90.
  22. Zakaria, E., & Syamaun, M. (2017). The Effect of Realistic Mathematics Education Approach on Students’ Achievement and Attitudes towards Mathematics. Mathematics Education Trends and Research, 1(1), 32-40.