Encyclopedia of Mathematics Education

2014 Edition
| Editors: Stephen Lerman

Realistic Mathematics Education

Reference work entry
First Online:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4978-8_170
How to cite

What is Realistic Mathematics Education?

Realistic Mathematics Education – hereafter abbreviated as RME – is a domain-specific instruction theory for mathematics, which has been developed in the Netherlands. Characteristic of RME is that rich, “realistic” situations are given a prominent position in the learning process. These situations serve as a source for initiating the development of mathematical concepts, tools, and procedures and as a context in which students can in a later stage apply their mathematical knowledge, which then gradually has become more formal and general and less context specific.

Although “realistic” situations in the meaning of “real-world” situations are important in RME, “realistic” has a broader connotation here. It means students are offered problem situations which they can imagine. This interpretation of “realistic” traces back to the Dutch expression “zich REALISEren,” meaning “to imagine.” It is this emphasis on making something real in your mind that...

Keywords

Domain-specific teaching theory Realistic contexts Mathematics as a human activity Mathematization 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bakker A (2004) Design research in statistics education: on symbolizing and computer tools. CD-Bèta Press, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  2. De Lange J (1987) Mathematics, insight and meaning. OW & OC, Utrecht University, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  3. De Lange J (1995) Assessment: no change without problems. In: Romberg TA (ed) Reform in school mathematics. SUNY Press, Albany, pp 87–172Google Scholar
  4. Doorman LM (2005) Modelling motion: from trace graphs to instantaneous change. CD-Bèta Press, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  5. Drijvers P (2003) Learning algebra in a computer algebra environment. Design research on the understanding of the concept of parameter. CD-Bèta Press, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  6. Freudenthal H (1968) Why to teach mathematics so as to be useful. Educ Stud Math 1:3–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Freudenthal H (1973) Mathematics as an educational task. Reidel Publishing, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  8. Freudenthal H (1983) Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. Reidel Publishing, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  9. Freudenthal H (1991) Revisiting mathematics education. China lectures. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  10. Goddijn A, Kindt M, Reuter W, Dullens D (2004) Geometry with applications and proofs. Freudenthal Institute, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  11. Gravemeijer KPE (1994) Developing realistic mathematics education. CD-ß Press/Freudenthal Institute, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  12. Kindt M (2010) Positive algebra. Freudenthal Institute, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  13. Sembiring RK, Hadi S, Dolk M (2008) Reforming mathematics learning in Indonesian classrooms through RME. ZDM Int J Math Educ 40(6):927–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Streefland L (1985) Wiskunde als activiteit en de realiteit als bron. Nieuwe Wiskrant 5(1):60–67Google Scholar
  15. Streefland L (1991) Fractions in realistic mathematics education. A paradigm of developmental research. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Streefland L (1993) The design of a mathematics course. A theoretical reflection. Educ Stud Math 25(1–2):109–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Streefland L (1996) Learning from history for teaching in the future. Regular lecture held at the ICME-8 in Sevilla, Spain; in 2003 posthumously. Educ Stud Math 54:37–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Treffers A (1978) Wiskobas doelgericht [Wiskobas goal-directed]. IOWO, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  19. Treffers A (1987a) Three dimensions. A model of goal and theory description in mathematics instruction – the Wiskobas project. D. Reidel Publishing, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  20. Treffers A (1987b) Integrated column arithmetic according to progressive schematisation. Educ Stud Math 18:125–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Van den Brink FJ (1989) Realistisch rekenonderwijs aan jonge kinderen [Realistic mathematics education for young children]. OW&OC, Universiteit Utrecht, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  22. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen M (1996) Assessment and realistic mathematics education. CD-ß Press/Freudenthal Institute, Utrecht University, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  23. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen M (2003) The didactical use of models in realistic mathematics education: an example from a longitudinal trajectory on percentage. Educ Stud Math 54(1):9–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen M (ed) (2008) Children learn mathematics. A learning-teaching trajectory with intermediate attainment targets for calculation with whole numbers in primary school. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam/TapeiGoogle Scholar
  25. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen M (2010) Reform under attack – forty years of working on better mathematics education thrown on the scrapheap? no way! In: Sparrow L, Kissane B, Hurst C (eds) Shaping the future of mathematics education: proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. MERGA, Fremantle, pp 1–25Google Scholar
  26. Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen M, Buys K (eds) (2008) Young children learn measurement and geometry. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam/TaipeiGoogle Scholar
  27. Wisconsin Center for Education Research & Freudenthal Institute (ed) (2006) Mathematics in context. Encyclopaedia Britannica, ChicagoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marja Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen
    • 1
  • Paul Drijvers
    • 2
  1. 1.Freudenthal Institute for Science and Mathematics Education, Faculty of Science & Faculty of Social and Behavioural SciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Freudenthal InstituteUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands