Intervening with Realistic Mathematics Education in England and the Cayman Islands—The Challenge of Clashing Educational Ideologies

Abstract

In this chapter, we discuss the issue of implementing Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) in the English education system over a number of years and education sectors. We also consider the experience of one of us in the Cayman Islands, a British overseas territory with an education system that is influenced by British tradition, but is distant from many of its politically driven accountability pressures and measures. We illustrate first the challenges of developing an RME approach which is operable within the English system, highlighting the issues of student expectation, dominant didactic practices and assessment, all of which influenced what we were able to do. Second, we describe the outcomes of interventions in England at early secondary school level (age 12-14, Key Stage 3) and at General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) level (normally age 15-16, Key Stage 4, but also available in post-16 education). Finally, Frank Eade describes his experience of building on our early work to develop an RME approach in the Cayman Islands. We conclude with a discussion of the lessons learned from these challenges. We argue that despite the problems we encountered there are reasons to remain optimistic about the potential of an RME approach in the English system.English mathematics education traditions have had a well-documented impact on classroom cultures and on student experiences and expectations, all of which present challenges for the implementation and impact of an RME approach. In particular, student performance in public examinations is used in systems of school measurement and accountability, often leading to 'transmissionist' classroom cultures that empha-

Realistic Mathematics Education's Effect on Students' Performance and Attitudes: A Case of Ellipse Topics Learning

“…Hence, RME needs to be understood as an input (i.e., program) and output (assessment). Consistent with this point of view, Van den Heuvel Panhuizen emphasizes several requirements for a problem to be considered suitable for evaluation in RME (Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, 2005, as cited in Dickinson et al, 2020). Taking charge of the situation is solvable and accessible.…”

“…Using meaningful reallife situations and mathematization, RME increases student engagement by increasing student interest and motivation (Bray & Tangney, 2016;Dickinson et al, 2020;Karaca & Özkaya, 2017;Laurens et al, 2017;Mulbar & Zaki, 2018;Putri et al, 2019). According to Makonye (2014), Peni (2019), andYilmaz (2020), RME improves students' understanding of the relationship between informed and procedural knowledge, thereby improving students' math literacy and academic performance (Ardiyani et al, 2018;Dickinson et al, 2020;Mulbar & Zaki, 2018;Peni, 2019). Also, the RME approach to mathematics education helps students develop mathematical skills (Peni, 2019;Sumirattana et al, 2017).…”

“…When faced with unfamiliar situations, students can develop solutions on multiple levels. The problem situation must be suitable for the student to apply prior knowledge and experience (Van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, 2005, as cited in Dickinson et al, 2020). Mulbar and Zaki (2018) suggest that teachers evaluate RME teaching effectiveness based on three factors: student engagement, student achievement, and student responses to RME design.…”

“…Similarly, teachers may struggle with creating lesson plans, and a learning environment that allows for complex re-formation is not easy if they lack an understanding of concepts and their nature (Yilmaz, 2020). Dickinson et al (2020) say that implementing RME in mathematics classes can take up a lot of class time and cause students and teachers to resist learning methods they deem unnecessary and slow.…”

“…Experiments show that putting students in meaningful, real-world situations and using the RME model to teach ellipse equations increased participation and interest. Research byBray and Tangney (2016);Karaca and Özkaya (2017);Laurens et al (2017);Mulbar and Zaki (2018);Putri et al (2019);and Dickinson et al (…”