Traditional mathematics education vs. realistic mathematics education: hoping for changes

Abstract

There is a number of problems in geometry instruction at primary school in Indonesia. For example, the approach that is used to teach geometry topics is very theoretical, and many abstract concepts and formulas are introduced without paying much attention on aspects such as logic, reasoning, and understanding (Karnasih & Soeparno, 1999; Soedjadi, 2000). The topics that are taught seem very far from pupil’s daily life. Therefore most pupils think that geometry is very difficult to learn (Soedjadi, 1991; Kerans, 1994; Fauzan, 1998). In addition, the teaching learning-process is always organized in a traditional (teacher centered) way (Somerset, 1997). In general, the climate in Indonesian classrooms is similar to those in several African countries as was summarized by de Feiter at all. (1995) and Ottevanger (2001) as follow: pupils are passive through out the lesson; ‘chalk and talk’ is preferred teaching style; emphasis on factual knowledge; questions require only single words, often provided in chorus; lack of learning questioning; only correct answers are accepted and acted upon; whole-class activities of writing/there is no hands work is carried out. In our research project (started in 1998) we explored the extent to which Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) could address some of the problems in mathematics education in Indonesia, more specifically in the geometry instruction.