Advertisement

How the Same Flowers Grow in Different Soils? The Implementation of Realistic Mathematics Education in Utrecht and Jakarta Classrooms

  • Shintia RevinaEmail author
  • Frederick Koon Shing Leung
Article

Abstract

Past studies have raised caution over educational transfer in mathematics education. The idea that an instructional approach to teaching and learning of mathematics can truly be universal and implemented across all cultures was challenged, as some aspects of the approach might be too closely bound up with the specific context where it was developed. As an illustration to this phenomenon, this study compares some classrooms that intended to utilize realistic mathematics education (RME) in its country of origin and in the place where it has been adopted for more than a decade. Some classrooms in Utrecht, the Netherlands and in Jakarta, Indonesia were observed and analyzed. The finding shows that the implementation of RME in the two places look similar on the surface but actually differ in many ways. This study suggests that the role of culture in the adoption of RME in Indonesia deserves due attention.

Keywords

Classroom study Educational borrowing Influence of culture Realistic mathematics education 

References

  1. Atweh, B. & Clarkson, P. (2002). Globalisation and mathematics education: From above and below. Paper presented at AARE conference, Brisbane.Google Scholar
  2. Atweh, B., & Clarkson, P. C. (2005). Conceptions and tensions in globalisation and their effects on mathematics. In P. Clarkson, A. Downton, D. Gronn, M. Horne, A. McDonough, R. Pierce, & A. Roche (Eds.), Building connections: Theory, research and practice (pp. 105–112). Sydney, Australia: MERGA.Google Scholar
  3. Chang, M., Shaeffer, S., Samarrai, S., Ragatz, A., de Ree, J., & Stevenson, R. (2014). Teacher reform in Indonesia: The role of politics and evidence in policymaking. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  4. Clarke, D. & Mesiti, C. (2004). International lesson structure comparisons. Paper submitted to ICME 10, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  5. Clarkson, P., & Atweh, B. (2003). More perspectives on the impact of globalization on mathematics education in higher education in Australasia. In L. Bragg, C. Campbell, G. Herbert, & J. Mousley (Eds.), Mathematics education research: Innovation, networking opportunity (pp. 238–245). Geelong, Australia: MERGA.Google Scholar
  6. De Ridder, I., & Vanwalleghem, S. (2010). Realistischrekenen in de klas. Eenstudienaar het handelen van leerkrachten in het vierdeleerjaar [Realistic mathematics in the classroom: A study of teachers practice in grade four]. Gent, Belgium: Universiteit Gent.Google Scholar
  7. Freudenthal, H. (1968). Why to teach mathematics so as to be useful. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 1, 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Geertz, H. (1961). The Javanese family: A study of kinship and socialization. New York, NY: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
  10. Grant, N. (2000). Tasks for comparative education in the new millenium. Comparative Education, 36, 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gravemeijer, K. (1994). Developing realistic mathematics education. Utrecht, The Netherlands: CD-ß Press/Freudenthal Institute.Google Scholar
  12. Gravemeijer, K., & Terwel, J. (2000). Hans Freudenthal a mathematician on didactics and curriculum theory. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(6), 777–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johar, R., Patahuddin, S., & Widjaja, W. (2017). Linking pre-service teachers’ questioning and students’ strategies in solving contextual problem: A case study in Indonesia and the Netherlands. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 14(1), 101–128.Google Scholar
  14. Klafki, W. (2000). Didaktik analysis as the core of preparation of instruction. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmannand, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: The German Didaktik tradition (pp. 139–160). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Koentjaraningrat, R. (1985). Javanese Culture. Singapore: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Leung, F. K. S. (2001). In search of an East Asian identity in mathematics education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(1), 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liu, S., & Feng, D. (2015). How culture matters in educational borrowing? Chinese teachers’ dilemmas in a global era. Cogent Education, 2(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maulana, R., Opdenakker, M., Brok, P., & Bosker, R. (2012b). Teacher-student interpersonal behaviour in mathematics classroom in Indonesia. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 21–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maulana, R., Opdenakker, M., Stroet, K., & Bosker, R. (2012a). Observed lesson structure during the first year of secondary education: Exploration of change and link with academic engagement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(6), 835–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Phillips, D., & Ochs, K. (2003). Processes of policy borrowing in education: Some explanatory and analytic devices. Comparative Education, 39(4), 451–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Phuong-Mai, N., Elliot, J., Terlouw, C., & Pilot, A. (2009). Neocolonialism in education: Cooperative learning in an Asian context. Comparative Education, 45(1), 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rose, R., & Mackenzie, W. (1991). Comparing forms of comparative analysis. Political Studies, 39(3), 446–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Slavin, R. E. (1989). PET and the pendulum: Faddism in education and how to stop it. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(10), 752–758.Google Scholar
  24. Steiner-Khamsi, G., & Quist, H. (2000). The politics of educational borrowing: Reopening the case of Achimota in British Ghana. Comparative Education Review, 44(3), 272–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  26. Swadener, M., & Soedjadi, R. (1988). Values, mathematics education, and the task of developing pupils’ personalities: An Indonesian perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 19, 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Treffers, A. (1987). Three dimensions. A model of goal and theory description in mathematics instruction—The Wiskobas project. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  28. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (1996). Assessment and Realistic Mathematics Education. Utrecht, The Netherlands: CD-ß Press Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  29. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2000). Mathematics education in the Netherlands: A guided tour. Freudenthal Institute Cd-rom for ICME9. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  30. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M., & Wijers, M. (2005). Mathematics standards and curricula in the Netherlands. ZDM, 37(4), 287–307.Google Scholar
  31. Van Eerde, H.A.A., Hajer, M., & Prenger, J. (2008). Promoting mathematics and language learning in interaction. In J. Deen, M. Hajer and T. Koole (Eds.), Interaction in two multicultural mathematics classrooms. Processes of Inclusion and Exclusion (pp. 31–68). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Aksant.Google Scholar
  32. Van Zanten, M., & Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (2015). Past and current approaches to decimal numbers in Dutch primary school mathematics textbooks. Nordic Studies in Mathematics Education, 20, 57–82.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education and LanguageAtma Jaya Catholic University of IndonesiaJakarta PusatIndonesia
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationThe University of Hong KongPokfulamHong Kong

Personalised recommendations