This study aims to develop an RME learning pack on ratio topic which consist of Model Book, Teacher’s Book, Student’s Book, Lesson Plan, Worksheets and Evaluation sheets. The development model used was Plomp Model that had been modified by the product quality by Nieveen. The development of the model consisted of the preliminary investigation, design, and evaluation. Valid and practical criteria were obtained based on expert judgment. While the effective criteria are obtained based on the students’ learsning mastery; student and teacher activities; student responses; and the ability of teachers to manage to learn. The results find that the product was valid, practiced, and effective. Validation results show that the validation score was 4.19. The practically was acquired by the consistency of practice evaluation scores from expert and learning monitoring results. The effectiveness was acquired by four indicators, namely: 1) 80% of 35 students gain high or very high score, 2) percentage average of students and teachers activities gain ideal tolerance time, 3) 92.5 % of students give a positive response on learning, and 4) Teacher’s ability to administer to learn the process on good category. Based on the results of this study, it is suggested that by using a realistic mathematics learning model, students are easier to construct mathematical ideas and concepts, students become skilled in solving problems so that a positive attitude to-wards mathematics grows.

1.
M.
van den Heuvel-Panhuizen
and
P.
Drijvers
, “Realistic Mathematics Education, ” in
Encyclopedia of Mathe-matics Education
, edited by
S.
Lerman
(
Springer
,
Dordrecht
,
2015
).
2.
M.J.
Huda
,
S.T.
Florentinus
, &
S.E.
Nugroho
,
J. Prim. Educ.
9
(
2
),
228
235
(
2020
).
3.
S. M.
Ferreira
and
V.
Bisognin
,
Acta Sci.
22
(
5
),
226
253
(
2020
).
4.
Fauziana
,
Budiarto
, and
Wiryanto
,
Phenom.: J. Pendidik. MIPA
10
(
2
),
160
176
(
2020
).
5.
A.
Treffers
,
Educ. Stud. Math.
25
(
1–2
),
21
49
(
1993
).
6.
K.
Gravemeijer
and
J.
Terwel
,
J. Curric. Stud.
32
(
6
),
776
796
(
2000
).
7.
N. S.
Widyastuti
and
P.
Pujiastuti
,
J. Prima Edukasia
2
(
2
),
183
193
(
2014
).
8.
E.
Zakaria
and
M.
Syamaun
,
Math. Educ. Trends Res.
2017
(
1
),
32
40
(
2017
).
9.
L.
Anwar
,
I. K.
Budayasa
,
S. M.
Amin
, and
D.
de Haan
,
J. Math. Educ.
3
(
1
),
55
70
(
2012
).
10.
Muslimin
,
R. I. Indra
Putri
,
Zulkardi
, and
N.
Aisyah
,
J. Math. Educ.
11
(
3
),
363
384
(
2020
).
11.
T. T.
Nguyen
et al.,
Int. J. Educ. Pract.
8
(
1
),
57
71
(
2020
).
12.
T.
Hidayatullah
,
E.
Yetti
, and
Hapidin
,
J. Prim. Educ.
8
(
2
), (
2018
).
13.
K. P. E.
Gravemeijer
,
Developing Realistic Mathematics Education: Ontwikkelen Van Realistisch Re-ken/wiskundeonderwijs
(
CD-[beta] Press
,
Utrecht
,
1994
).
14.
H.
Fredriksen
,
Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ.
19
(
2
),
377
396
(
2021
).
15.
L.
Lestari
and
E.
Surya
,
J. Sci.: Basic Appl. Res.
34
(
1
),
91
100
(
2017
).
16.
N.
Nieveen
and
E.
Folmer
, “Formative evaluation in educational design research,” in
Educational Design Re-search, Part A: An Introduction
, edited by
T.
Plomp
and
N.
Nieveen
(
SLO
,
Netherlands
,
2013
).
17.
T.
Plomp
and
N.
Nieveen
,
Educational Design Research Educational Design Research
, (
Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development: SLO
,
Netherlands
,
2013
).
18.
Kadir
and
L.
Masi
,
J. Pendidik. Mat.
5
(
1
),
52
66
(
2014
).
19.
Esti Ambar
Nugraheni
, and
Sugiman
,
Phythagoras: J. Pendidik. Mat.
8
(
1
),
101
108
(
2013
).
20.
S.
Munawaroh
,
C. A. H. F.
Santosa
, and
E.
Wahyuningrum
,
IndoMath: Indones. Math. Educ.
3
(
1
),
36
43
(
2020
).
21.
N.
Syafriafdi
,
A.
Fauzan
,
I. M.
Arnawa
,
S.
Anwar
, and
W.
Widada
,
Univers. J. Educ. Res.
7
(
7
),
1532
1536
(
2019
).
This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.