Validity analysis of development lesson plan and student worksheet based realisticmathematics educationZulfaneti, Sefna Rismen, and Mulia Suryani Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 1707, 070001 (2016); doi: 10.1063/1.4940857 View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4940857 View Table of Contents: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/proceeding/aipcp/1707?ver=pdfcov Published by the AIP Publishing Articles you may be interested in The effect of using Indonesian realistic mathematics education (PMRI) approach on the mathematicsachievement amongst primary school students AIP Conf. Proc. 1660, 050077 (2015); 10.1063/1.4915710 The role of students’ activities in Indonesian realistic mathematics education in primary schools of Aceh AIP Conf. Proc. 1660, 050072 (2015); 10.1063/1.4915705 Validation of instruments to measure students' mathematical knowledge AIP Conf. Proc. 1643, 741 (2015); 10.1063/1.4907521 Development and Validation of a Mathematical Model for Olive Oil Oxidation AIP Conf. Proc. 1107, 49 (2009); 10.1063/1.3106511 HS Physics Units and Lesson Plans development at the PhysicsFront Phys. Teach. 47, 191 (2009); 10.1119/1.3081311

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

118.97.164.116 On: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 03:37:20

Validity Analysis of Development Lesson Plan and Student Worksheet Based Realistic Mathematics Education

Zulfaneti1, Sefna Rismen2, Mulia Suryani 3

1 STKIP PGRI West Sumatera. Email: zulfaneti_stkippgri@yahoo.co.id

2 STKIP PGRI West Sumatera. Email: syefna@gmail.com 3 STKIP PGRI West Sumatera. Email: muliasuryani@gmail.com

Abstract. The previous research showed that the teachers of the fourth grade at elementary school in West Sumatra need lesson plan and teaching materials which integrated with character education especially on mathematics subject. Teachers need teaching materials which encompasses the daily life problems (contextual) so that, it can increase students' understanding of mathematics. Realistic mathematics education is a solution to these problems. The aims of the research are to develop learning equipment, i. e lesson plan sand valid worksheets. Development model referred to the Plomp development model which consists of three phase namely preliminary research, prototyping phase, and assessment phase. However, in this research, it is only presented the results in the expert review which is in the part of prototyping phase. The instrument was the validation worksheet. Expert stated that each of lesson plan and students’ worksheet were in valid criterion

Keywords : validity analysis, development model PACS: 02.50.Le

INTRODUCTION

The Competence- based curriculum requires a method of learning that emphasizes the contextual learning. Learning with this approach, students is expected to understand mathematical concepts with see a direct correlation between mathematical with everyday life in real terms. This is due because of mathematical is consistent and deductive [12]. Math in elementary school has a central and strategic position. At this level, the mindset of the students began to be formed and became the initial foundation for the mindset of the students at the next level. Math materials presented to be the forerunner to the development of students' mindset.

Tarver in [13] states that children aged 5 to 11 years prefer to learn by using physical activity than learning in the classroom. Therefore, students' mathematical improve understanding in primary schools can be use learning contextual issues through learning activities in groups. By this learning activity is expected makes students encouraged to construction of mathematical model themselves and discover mathematical concepts. Realistic mathematics education is an alternative solution to bridge students by using contextual issues were resolved by group discussion activities.

Preliminary research was conducted in [9] in some samples of elementary school in West Sumatra were: 1) the teachers (39%) did not have preparation before the teaching that was indicated by teachers did not have lesson plan although most teachers have use of teaching materials in the form of worksheets, 2) even though teachers already had lesson plan but only 23% were implemented in teaching process, 3) all lesson plan already contains the values of the characters though not too visible in the implementation process of learning in the classroom. 4) most of teachers (62%) require models to create and build students' motivation in learn mathematics. While to build

Proceedings of The 7th SEAMS UGM International Conference on Mathematics and Its Applications 2015AIP Conf. Proc. 1707, 070001-1–070001-11; doi: 10.1063/1.4940857

© 2016 AIP Publishing LLC 978-0-7354-1354-2/$30.00

070001-1 This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

118.97.164.116 On: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 03:37:20

students’ character, the teachers stated that it was needed mathematics which was linked with daily life in learning through demonstration, to be a model as a person with a positive attitude, and developing stories that can provide exemplary, and prayed before begin and the end of learning process [9].

Preliminary results of this research being a basic for developing learning equipment that can be integrated by character while enhancing the students' understanding of mathematics. Learning equipment developed based on realistic mathematics education. The selection of realistic education based on the facts that the students activities much better by using IRME than students activities by using conventional approach [16], learning by realistic mathematics education could change the learning activities that no longer centered to teacher but centered on student teachers through the provision of contextual issues on the beginning of learning [7], and also in addition, in [11] states that mathematics has a positive contribution to the character formation of students. Although realistic mathematics education does not guarantee create of physical activity but realistic mathematics education can facilitate students to solve contextual issues through discussion groups, and also US Supardi in [15] states that the learning outcomes of students who are taught by realistic mathematics education better than learning outcomes students taught conventionally. Furthermore, [3] states that students' problem-solving ability is superior to using mathematical realistic education than by using conventional learning.

The aims of the research to develop lesson plans and work sheets based on valid realistic mathematics education. The development research is research that produce a specific product and test the effectiveness of these products [10].These were developed based on Plomps’ theory which consists of three phases namely the preliminary research, prototyping phase, and assessment phase [8] that is iterative [1]. At every stage of the formative evaluation, which assesses the weaknesses and strengths of products subsequently revised [14]. However, in this article only presented results on the expert review that is part of the prototyping phase.

RESEARCH METHOD

This type of research is research and development (Research and development / R & D), ie the research methods used to produce a particular product, and test the effectiveness of these products [11]. Products developed in this study is a learning device in the form of lesson plan and the student worksheet

Model development in this study follows the general model of research design according to Plomp [8] which consists of phases preliminary research, prototyping phase, and assessment phase. Each of these phases are described in Table 1.

TABLE 1. Evaluation criteria related to stages

Stage Criteria Short description of Activities Preliminary research

Emphasis mainly on content validity,

Problem analysis and study literature

Prototyping phase Consistency and practicality Later on mainly practicality and gradually attention for efficiency

Development of a sequence of prototypes that will be tried out and revised on the basis of formative evaluation.

Assessment phase Practicality and efficiency Evaluate whether target users can work with intervention and are willing to apply it in their teaching. Also whether the intervention is effective.

Source : Plomp (2013:30)

Formative evaluation occurred in all phases of development and cycles iteration . As illustrated in Table 1, formative evaluation has a different function in each development cycle. The initial stage, the evaluation focused on the validity of the content. At the stage of prototyping, evaluation focused on the relevance (valliditas contents), consistency (construct validity) and practicalities. The next stage is focused on the practicalities and effectiveness when the product is tested. However, this study was just in phase prototyping phase which focuses on the consistency of the content.

Tessmer in [14] states that formative evaluation has several layers as illustrated in Figure 1

070001-2 This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

118.97.164.116 On: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 03:37:20

FIGURE 1. Formative Evaluation layers

Figure 1 illustrates some formative evaluation methods that may be selected. Evaluation methods used in this study are as follows: a. Overview experts: expert group (of experts realistic mathematics education, instructional design experts and

expert in elementary school education) provide assessment and advice on the products developed. b. Self evaluation; use a check list of important characteristics or design specifications. c. Evaluation of one-on-one; with representative users, d. Small groups or micro evaluation; a small group of users using the product performance normal situation.

Evaluators observe and interview respondents, e. Test large groups: one group of users using the product in actual conditions to measure the practicalities and

effectiveness In this research is still limited performed on expert review. Formative evaluation was instrumental in the making

of the prototype stage. Activities prototyping and formative evaluation is carried out as follows: a. Designing systematics and structure of lesson plan and student worksheet -based realistic mathematics

education that integrates characters for Grades IV elementary school, and perform self-evaluation. Further analysis and revision of the systematic design and structure of the lesson plans and worksheets.

b. Develop prototypes Lesson Plan and Worksheets based on systematic and structural design of lesson plan and worksheets, perform a self-evaluation, analyze and revise prototypes based on self-evaluation.

c. Construct and validate the contents (expert review) of the prototype of lesson plan and worksheets, analyze and revise prototypes based on expert review.

Validity instruments of data collection used were sheets validation of lesson plan and sheets validation of student worksheets. Validation sheet of lesson plan assess seven aspects, namely (1) the identity of lesson plan, (2) the formulation of indicators, (3) the formulation of learning objectives, (4) the selection of teaching materials, (5) the selection of sources, media and learning tools, (6) the learning activities and (7) assessment. While validation sheet of student worksheet assess four aspects: (1) the feasibility of content, (2) presentation, (3) language, and (4) kegrafikaan

Validation sheet beforehand validated by three validator. Validator selected from math lecturer, education lecturer and evaluation lecturer. Validated aspects are (1) assessment guidelines, (2) the content, and (3) the language used. Evaluation of instrument (validation sheet lesson plan and student worksheets) using a Likert scale with four alternative answer: 4 (strongly agree), 3 (agree), 2 (less agree), and 1 (disagree). Results of the validation of all aspects observed are presented in tabular form,.The mean obtained confirmed with defined criteria. How to get these criteria is specify the range of a low score until the high scores that starts from 1 to 4. The range of scores is divided into five classes interval, then categorized into five levels of criteria such as table 2

070001-3 This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

118.97.164.116 On: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 03:37:20

TABLE 2. Validity criteria of the instrument Mean (R) Criteria

3,40 < R ≤ 4,00 2,80 < R ≤ 3,40 2,20 < R ≤ 2,80 1,60 < R ≤ 2,20

R ≤ 1,60

High Valid Valid Enough Valid Less Valid Invalid

All validators considered that the validation sheet is valid and can be used with little revision. Results of the

validation instrument validity lesson plan and student worksheet in more detail presented in Table 3

TABLE 3. Results Validation of Instrument validity of lesson plan and student worksheet

No Evaluation aspect Lesson Plan Student Worksheet Mean Criteria Mean Criteria

1 Stated of Instructions are clearly 3,50 High

Valid 3,50 High Valid

2 The validation Indicators are easy observable 3,50 High

Valid 3,00 Valid

3 Each indicator can be distinguished. 3,00 Valid 3,50 High

Valid 4 Indicator that the observed

already covers all aspects validated

3,00 Valid 4,00 High Valid

5 Indicators is clearly defined 3,00 Valid 3,50 High Valid

6 Composed sentence based on Indonesian Language rule 3,00 Valid 2,50 Enough

Valid 7 Using sentences that is easy to

understand 3,00 Valid 3,00 Valid

Mean 3,14 Valid 3,29 Valid Based on Table 3 shows that the instrument validity of lesson plan and student worksheet row has a value of 3.14 (valid) and 3.29 (valid). This means the instrument validity of lesson plan and student worksheet decent is used to collect and assess the validity of the lesson plan and student worksheets.

Validation activities carried out until is obtained a valid lesson plans and worksheets. Validation is done by three people validator namely 1) Expert of Realistic Mathematics Education from State University of Padang, 2) Expert of Elementary Education from State University of Padang, and 3) Lecturer of Mathematics Education from STKIP PGRI Sumatera Barat.

The scale of assessment for lesson plan’s validation sheet using a Likert’s Scale with four answer choices as follows: SA = Strongly Agree, A = Agree, LA = Less Agree, DS = disagree. While the scale of assessment for student worksheet's validation sheet using Likert's scale but with five answer choices as follows: SA = Strongly Agree, A = agree, EA = Enough Agree, LA= Less Agree, DS = Disagree

Results of the validation of all aspects observed, presented in table form, then looked for the mean score. The mean score obtained confirmed with defined criteria. Determination of criteria is done by setting a range of scores begins lowest score (ls) until the highest score (hs). The range of scores for the validity of the RPP is 1 (ls) to 4 (hs), whereas the range of validity LKS score is 1 (sr) to 5 (st). The score range is divided into five classes interval. Criteria for each interval are categorized into five levels as shown in Table 4

070001-4 This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

118.97.164.116 On: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 03:37:20

TABLE 4. Validity criteria of Lesson Plan and Student Worksheet Validity Mean of Lesson Plan (R)

Validity Mean of Student Worksheet Criteria

3,4 < R ≤ 4,0 2,8 < R ≤ 3,4 2,2 < R ≤ 2,8 1,6 < R ≤ 2,2

R ≤ 1,6

4,2 < R ≤ 5,0 3,4 < R ≤ 4,2 2,6 < R ≤ 3,4 1,8 < R ≤ 2,6

R ≤ 1,8

High Valid Valid Enough Valid Less Valid Invalid

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Validity and Expert Review of the Lesson Plan

Data of Lesson Plan validity obtained through the validation sheet of lesson plan that assess the validity of the seven aspects. The validity of each aspect can be seen in Table 5

TABLE 5. Result of Lesson Plan Validity

No Aspect Mean Of Validity

Criteria

1 Identity of lesson plan 4,00 High Valid 2 formulation of indicators 3,00 Valid 3 formulation of learning objectives 3,25 Valid 4 selection of teaching materials 3,00 Valid 5 selection of sources, media and learning tools 3,06 Valid 6 learning activities 3,09 Valid 7 Assessment 3,17 Valid

Mean 3,22 Valid

Indicator at identity of lesson plan aspect include are completeness of information about educational unit, class /semester, the theme / topic and time allocation. The identity of the lesson plan is high valid. This means that the lesson plan has complete identity.

Indicator of the Formulation of Indicators include are its compliance with SKL, KI and KD, the use of the verb of operations and compliance with aspects of attitudes, knowledge and skills. According to experts, the aspects of indicators are valid. This means that the elaboration of indicators was in accordance with SKL, KI and KD, and competencies measured in the lesson plan are already using the verb of operational has appropriate and elaboration of indicators in the lesson plan were accordance with aspects of attitudes, and knowledge.

Indicator of the Learning Objectives include are formulating indicators conformity with the process of learning objectives, results and KD. Results of the assessment of the experts stated that the formulation of the indicators are valid. This means that the process elaboration and the expected learning outcomes in accordance with the learning objectives and learning objectives in accordance with the basic competencies.

Indicator of the Selection of Teaching Materials include are compliance teaching material with learning objectives and time allocations. Experts evaluated that selection of teaching materials is valid. So that between teaching materials with learning object and time allocation is suitability.

Indicator of the Sources Selection, Media and Learning tools assess the suitability of sources / media / learning tool with four issues namely the 1) KI and KD, 2) materials and learning objectives, 3) scientific approach, and 4) Realistic Mathematics Education. Experts assess that the selection of sources / media / learning tools has been valid. Planning resources / media / learning tool has been compiled in the lesson plan accordance with 1. KI and KD 2. Teaching materials 3. Scientific approach 4. Characteristic of elementary school student 5. learning objectives 6. Media / learning tools can facilitate students to observe, ask questions, gather information, associate and

070001-5 This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

118.97.164.116 On: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 03:37:20

communicate ideas (scientific approach). 7. Media / learning tool to support learning activities with realistic mathematics education

Indicators of learning activities include conformity with the purpose of learning, compliance with the scientific approach, compliance with the realistic mathematics education and the suitability of the formation of character. Experts assess the learning activities are valid. This means that the learning activities in the lesson plan in has been accordance with the purpose of learning. Judging from the conformity with the scientific approach, lesson plan has also been valid, which means that the lesson plan has given students the opportunity to observe, ask questions, gather information, associate and communicate. While from the compliance with realistic mathematics education, RPP also expressed has been valid, which means that the lesson plan has linked real-world context in learning, bridging the students from the abstract to the real situation, the learning activity encourages students to construct knowledge, foster student interaction with students and students with teacher, and learning activities have to connect mathematics with other sciences. In addition experts also considered that the learning activities presented in the RPP have also been able to grow and shape the character (character honest, conscientious, responsible, and self-confident character.

Indicator of the assessment include conformity assessment with the whole aspect of assessment, conformity to the indicator, and the suitability of answer keys, scoring guidelines and matter. Expert assess on this aspect has been valid. It can be concluded that part of the lesson decent ratings used to whole aspect of assessment (affective, cognitive and psychomotor), in accordance with the assessment indicators and assessment in accordance with the scores and answer keys.

Improvements to the lesson plan is based on advice from experts. Advice from experts broadly grouped in order of systematics of the lesson plan. Identity were very valid part so that there is no significant improvement in this section. In the Formulation of Learning Indicators, experts suggest some things : Numbering indicators should follow the numbering Basic Competency (KD), for example if number of KD 3.7 then KD 3.7 is written 3.7.1 and beyond, and Indicators should not be written double, preferably separated. So its repairs, which was originally written doubles and numbering sequence 1, 2, ..., and so improvement into the numbering follows the numbering indicators, and be separated, as presented in Table 6.

TABLE 6. Revision Formula of Indicator

Before revision After revision INDICATORS 1. Student are able to explain the

parallel lines and intersecting lines

2. Students are able to differentiate the lines parallel and intersecting lines

INDICATORS 3.15.1 Student are able to explain the parallel

lines 3.15.2 Student are able to explain intersecting

lines 3.15.3 Students are able to differentiate the lines

parallel and intersecting lines

Improvements on Objective Learning, experts recommend to revision the use of words that simply assessing the

results, revised by using words that can assess the process. For example "after the exploration activities ..." revised become "the exploration activities ...". Experts also suggest in this section to use the verb operational that it can measured and assessed in the learning process, and adapted to the characteristics of realistic mathematics education, for example, "After exploring the students were able to ..." was revised become "after reading the text the student is able to ..." or "by discussion student able to ... ".

Review expert on the Selection of teaching materials and Source Selection, media and learning tools was declared valid with the slightly revised so that there is no significant improvement in this section. While in the Learning Activities are some suggestions from experts, namely: 1. Enter 5M in Scientific approach separately. 2. Mention the theme and the lesson benefits are clearly. 3. The cover is used not to make an assessment, but to provide reinforcement, concluded or a give a task. 4. On the Core Activities, student activities should be separated because if it combined student will be difficult to

do it.

070001-6 This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

118.97.164.116 On: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 03:37:20

5. At its core activities, give alternative activity if students do not do or do not follow the instructions of teachers, for example on activities “students are given the opportunity to ask questions about a given issue it. If student do not ask question then the teacher gives inducement questions, such as how the structure of the wire electrical poles? have you ever seen a parallel lines?, What form parallel lines?"

Furthermore, in the assessment, experts suggest several things, namely: needs to be designed rubric and assessment instruments, the valuation is not in accordance with the indicators of achievement of competencies, and parts spiritual attitude assessment " to worships (pray) on time” is very difficult to assess because of this assessment should total observe student, therefore omitted is any assessment about this. According to experts, the assessment indicators need to be revised because it is not in accordance with indicator achievement of competence. Based on these improvements, the lesson was validated again by validator, so that obtain the lesson plan was valid. This means that the lesson was designed it is feasible to use by teachers for prepare of learning. Validity and Expert Review of the Student Worksheet

Data of Student Worksheet validity was obtained through the validation sheet of student worksheet. It assess the validity of the four aspects. The validity of each aspect can be seen in Table 7

TABLE 7. Result of Student Worksheet validity No Aspect Mean of

validity Criteria

1 The feasibility of content

3,94 Valid

2 Presentation 4,00 Valid 3 Language 4,00 Valid 4 Kegrafikaan 4,25 High Valid Mean 4,04 Valid

Indicator of the feasibility of content include are suitability between content with competence, suitability

between content with learning theme, and student worksheet component. Based on validator's perception, feasibility of contents were valid, it is means that the student worksheet already fit for use. This feasibility is caused that according to validator that all the indicators of validity of the feasibility of content, namely: 1. Suitability between the material with competence 2. Suitability between the material with learning objectives 3. The concepts described in the material reinforced with charts, tables, or images, 4. The material presented in a systematic order, 5. The material presented in accordance with the theme of learning, 6. homework in accordance with the material being studied 7. Students worksheet load part a reflection that allows students to reflect on what has been obtained from the

teaching, 8. Evaluation by the students provide authentic information, 9. Evaluation of teachers and parents allow students to make improvements were valid or fit for use.

Indicator on aspects of the material presentation includes suitability between student worksheet's presentation with the scientific approach and realistic mathematics approach. Experts assess that the Student Worksheet has been presented using the scientific approach. It is mean Student Worksheet provide facilities for students to observe, ask questions, gather information, associates and / or communicate an idea. Base on the realistic mathematics approach, experts agree that the Student Worksheet has been presented using the principles of realistic mathematics, it is means that Student Worksheet has been presented beginning with using contextual problem, by providing this contextual problems students bridged from the situation real to the abstract, so that students can be encouraged to construct knowledge. Also, the Student Worksheet has been able to foster interaction between students and students and students with teacher, Student Worksheet can associate mathematics with other disciplines to facilitate solving the problem, as well as the Student Worksheet has been able to provide opportunities for students to work together in groups.

Indicator on aspects of language includes an assessment of the legibility, compliance with rules and logic speak Indonesian. Assessment results validator found that in terms of language Student Worksheet was valid, which means that the words which are used in accordance with the rules of Indonesian, the phrase is used involves the ability to

070001-7 This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

118.97.164.116 On: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 03:37:20

think logically students, the term used is appropriate for elementary students Class IV, and the words used do not give double meaning (ambiguous).

Kegrafikaan indicator assesses the size or format worksheets. Experts assessed that at this aspect Student Worksheet considered very valid. This means that the type and size of the letters used do not result in the reader's eyes get tired and design of the content has been interesting . Review and suggestion from experts was used to revise Student Worksheet presented in Table 8

TABLE 8. Suggestion for Student Worksheet No Part of review Expert Suggestion and Review 1 the feasibility of

content aspect Still there are some materials and activities in Student Worksheet is very little and not in accordance with the indicators and the learning objectives. Some learning activities there are not the theme of learning Each learning activities have to associated with subthemes.

2 The presentation aspect

Presentation of each activities must with contextual problem Direct each issue to issue realistic so as to explore students' thinking. Problems and exercises should also be in the form of contextual Presentation of the activities do not lead students Do not be too much to tell because it can lead to bored students to read.

3 Language aspect Consistent in writing decimal There are writing and syntax that does not comply with the EYD

Based on the results of the review and advice of experts carried out improvements to student worksheet mainly

on aspects of the presentation. At Aspect Presentation made some fundamental changes that are in the beginning there are some activities on worksheets that have not orient students on contextual problem, the introduction is too long so as to obscure the real content, and the first to be done on learning realistic is giving problems rill (Contextual) to students to bridge the student from the abstract to the real situation. For example in Figure 2

FIGURE 2. Example Presentation before revision

From Figure 2 shows that the presentation of the material already with a contextual introduction but no problems

were given. It is not in accordance with realistic mathematics education who started the presentation with contextual problems, which can bridge the students of the real situation to the abstract. Besides the presentation also explained and gave instructions are very clear (very led) that the students will not be able to explore of itself through problems. So do revision presentation as in Figure 3.

070001-8 This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

118.97.164.116 On: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 03:37:20

FIGURE 3. Example Presentation after revision

Figure 3 shows that the students are not geared, but has been given the gap to explore of thinking. So expect the student through the problem can be that bridge the students' thinking of the real situation to the abstract, and consequently can find the concept,

Furthermore, Realistic Mathematics Education is also supposed to give the discussions relating to the given problem instead of other new problems. For example in Figure 4.

FIGURE 4. Example Presentation Aspect after Revision

Figure 4 shows that it provides the facility for the discussion to the students, but the issues discussed is not a problem given at the beginning of learning but another problem. It is not suitable with realistic mathematics education. Thus revised to like Figure 5

070001-9 This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

118.97.164.116 On: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 03:37:20

FIGURE 5. Example Presentation Aspect after revision

From Figure 5, it appears that during the discussions, the issues discussed was the problem given at the beginning of learning. Invented the concept of a series of early learning so visible relationship with learning problems early in a discussion with a group of students and as an exploration to deduce the concept of matter.

REFERENCES

1. J.V.D. Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen, Educational Design Research, Routledge Taylor& Francis Group, London and Newyork, 2006.

2. Arikunto and Suharsimi. Manajemen Penelitian. Jakarta; Rineka Cipta. 2010.

3. Danoebroto and S. Wulandari, Improving Problem Solving Skill Using The PMRI And Metakognitif Training, Jurnal Penelitian dan Evaluasi Pendidikan. Nomor 1 Tahun XI, (2008).

4. V. Dinther, Mart, F. Dochy, and M. Segers, The Contribution of Assesment Experiences to Student Teacher’ Sel-Efficacy In Competence-based Education, Teaching and Teacher Education, 49, 45 – 55, (2015).

5. A. Fauzan, T. Plomp, and K. Gravemeijer, The Development of an RME-based geometry course for Indonesian Primary School, Educational design Research- Part B: illustrative case ( 159- 178). Enschede, The Netherlands:SLO, (2013).

6. R.A. Lesh, E. Hamilton, and J.J. Kaput, Foundations for the Future in Mathematics Education. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. pp. 1-453. 2007.

7. Murwaningsih, Utami, L. A Erika, and T. R. Nuryani, Developing Realistic Mathematics Intruction Kits In Junior High School, Cakrawala Pendidikan, No.3 Tahun XXXIII, (2014).

8. T. Plomp, Educational Design Research an Introduction, dalam Tjeerd Plomp dan Nienke Nieveen (Eds), Educational Design Research Part A. Enschede:slo, (2013).

9. Rismen, Sefna, Zulfaneti, and M. Suryani, Deskripsi Persiapan, Proses Pembelajaran dan Kebutuhan Guru kelas IV SD dalam mengajarkan Matematika yang Terintegrasi Pendidikan Karakter, Exacta. Vol 12 No 1 hal 7 -11, (2014).

10. Saito, Eisuke, H. Imansyah, I. Kuboki, and S. Hendayan,. A Study of the partnership between School and University to Improve Science and Mathematics Education In Indonesia, International Journal of Educational Development, 27. 194 – 204, (2007).

070001-10 This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

118.97.164.116 On: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 03:37:20

11. Sugiyono, Metode Penelitian Pendidikan, Bandung, CV. Alfabeta, 2008.

12. Suparni, Kontribusi Pembelajaran Matematika dalam Pengembangan Karakter Peserta didik yang Berakhlak Mulia, AdMathEd,. Vol. 2. No.2. hal 215-222, (2012).

13. Tarver, Tim, The retention Rate of Students of Mathematics Eduaction, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciencies, 177 256 – 259, (2015)

14. Tessmer and Martin, Planning And Conduction Formatif Evaluations (e-book), Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2005.

15. U. S. Supardi, Pengaruh Pembelajaran Matematika Realistik Terhadap Hasil Belajar Matematika Ditinjau dari Motivasi Belajar, Cakrawala Pendidikan, No. 2 Tahun XXXI, (2012).

16. V. Arsaythamby and C.M. Zubainur, How A Realistic Mathematics Educational Approach Affect Students’ Activities In Primary School, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 159, 309 -313, (2014).

070001-11 This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:

118.97.164.116 On: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 03:37:20