DEVELOPMENT OF LEARNING INSTRUMENTS BASED ON RME MODELS TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’ MATHEMATICAL LITERACY AND LEARNING INTEREST

This study employed GeoGebra to develop interactive learning instruments for SLETV content, using the 4-D Thiagaradjan model as the framework, involving four phases: define, design, develop, and disseminate. The investigation included two eighth-grade math teachers and fourteen-year-old eighth-graders, and observational data were collected through needs analysis, interviews, and questionnaires. The data collection comprised need analysis, interviews, and surveys. Before trial implementation, three crucial development requirements had to be met: validity, practicality, and efficacy. The validation of learning instrument formats, illustrations, language, and content showed valid. The research findings indicate that the developed learning instruments were effective, with an average student score of 74.3 on the pretest and 87 on the posttest (meeting the minimum criteria of mastery learning). Teacher's ability to manage learning was rated as very good, with an average score of 4.4. The observation of learning implementation showed an average score of 4.4 in the very good category (practical). The learning instruments based on RME can be used to enhance students' mathematical literacy and learning interest.


INTRODUCTION
The field of education is rapidly evolving, particularly in the age of science and information technology. Education is a deliberate endeavor that involves guiding, teaching, and training students to prepare them for their future roles. It is a structured process aimed at achieving successful learning outcomes regarding personality, character, and morals while also nurturing individuals who can contribute meaningfully to their nation and state.
Mathematics is one of the subjects studied by students at school. Mathematics is an important subject in education because it is taught at all levels of education, from Elementary School to higher education. This can be seen from the number of hours studied for mathematics which is more than the number of hours studied for other subjects at school. Nasution et al. (2017) argued that mathematics is an area of knowledge studied by all students from elementary school to high school and the equivalent in tertiary institutions. This concludes that mathematics is a very important science because it acts as a basis for advancing science and technology in other fields. As a result, mathematics received the title "Queen of Knowledge." Mathematics education itself has a vital part in one's life. Students are instructed to think rationally, critically, methodically, practically, creatively, effectively, and efficiently when solving issues by learning mathematics. Students must have high-level mathematical thinking skills to comprehend a mathematical problem. These abilities include the ability of mathematical literacy.
Literacy ability, Hasanah (2015) claimed that mathematical literacy is the ability to use contexts, including the ability to reason mathematically and use concepts, procedures, and facts to describe, explain, and forecast an event.
Having good literacy skills will facilitate students in solving math problems. Thus activating mathematical literacy is very important to solve problems encountered in everyday life (Mansur, 2018) However, the ability of students' mathematical literacy in Indonesia is still not good; this can be seen from international comparative studies, such as PISA (Program for International Student Assessment). The results of the 2018 PISA put Indonesia in the bottom ten of the 79 participating countries. The average reading ability of Indonesian students is 80 points lower than the OECD average. The ability of Indonesian students is still lower than ASEAN students.
In addition to this, facts were also found in the school studied, a Year 8 class in a private junior high school in Medan, Indonesia. From the results of the researchers' observations on June 15, 2022, to find out how students' mathematical literacy skills at the school studied were, the researchers gave a diagnostic test to Year 8 students; from the test results, it was seen that students did not use literacy skills so they were unable to write down things they knew and what was asked. This was marked by the answers of students who did not write down things that were unknown and asked. Besides that, students are not able to solve the questions given. So this shows that the ability of students' mathematical literacy is low. This can be seen from the low test results of students who only achieved an average score of 65, while the standard value of the Minimum Criteria of Mastery Learning (KKM) was 75.
The following is one of the questions given to see students' mathematical literacy skills: A woman goes to a clothing store. Then he bought two shirts and three pairs of jeans for IDR 340,000. Then he bought another shirt and two pairs of jeans for Rp. 210,000. Then how much is the price of a shirt and a pair of jeans? In addition to the importance of students' mathematical literacy skills, another thing that is considered important is students' attitudes toward learning mathematics, one of which is student learning interest. This literacy ability is also directly related to students' moral responsibility in increasing student interest in learning. Interest is a factor that has an important role in literacy skills because high student interest also supports the enthusiasm of these students in learning more in a lesson. Interest in learning is a psychological aspect that significantly influences student success in completing assignments and questions well.
Interest is a state in which a person gives attention to something with the desire to know, own, learn, and prove it. Interest is formed by the environment after learning about an object or Students cannot yet write down what is known and ask the question.
Students have not been able to solve the given questions. Students have not been able to solve the wall and is accompanied by feelings aimed at a specific action object (Rahmat, 2018). Daniyati & Sugiman (2015) also stated that interest in learning mathematics needs to be grown to achieve better learning achievement. To foster students' interest, they must first pay attention to things that can cause a reduction or loss of interest in learning. Students' perceptions can affect students interest in mathematics.
Lean on on the results of initial observations at school; it was revealed that several factors caused low mathematical literacy abilities and low student interest in learning, including the teacher-centered mathematics learning process and using conventional strategies that make students passive. Thus, using learning instruments is one method of increasing students' mathematical literacy and interest in learning.
In accordance with this, suitable learning activities, such as the use of learning instruments, are required to improve students' mathematical literacy skills and interest in learning. The importance of learning instruments in teaching and learning activities is critical.
Learning instruments include acting as tools that can increase students' desire to learn, which will later be able to create an effective learning atmosphere. Because the beginning of learning is the desire to learn, a teacher must create something that can increase students' interest in learning, one of which is by developing learning instruments that are able to attract students' attention and desire to learn.
The significance of instrument development was also declared by (Lubis, Wilda Indah, et al., 2020). Learning for a teacher in which the learning instrument serves as a guide, so the learning tool directs the instructor in carrying out the systematic learning process.
Apart from that, the importance of developing learning instruments is also stated in Permendiknas Number 41 of 2007 concerning process standards, which, among other things, regulates the planning of the learning process which requires educators in educational units to be obliged to develop complete and systematic learning instruments so that educational goals can be achieved.
Based on the results of preliminary observations conducted at one of the private junior high schools in Medan, Indonesia. with teachers in the field of mathematics studies, it was revealed that the learning instruments at the school did not match the existing criteria. The learning instruments include lesson plans, worksheets, student books, and assessment instruments. This is proven by one of the lesson plans held by the mathematics subject teacher at the school as follows. to primary and secondary school procedure standards. As a result, the learning instruments must be improved. As a result, the learning objectives will be readily met.
Developing learning instruments must be supported by learning models. Many kinds of learning models are currently known; therefore, an appropriate learning tool is needed to improve students' mathematical literacy abilities and learning interests. The role of learning instruments is crucial in teaching and learning activities. Learning instruments include acting as tools that can increase students' desire to learn, which will later be able to create an effective learning atmosphere.
One of the learning models developed to improve mathematical literacy skills and interest in learning is the Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) learning model. Sugiarni (2019) suggests that learning mathematics with a realistic approach is utilizing reality and the environment that participants understand to expedite the process of learning mathematics so as to achieve the goals of mathematics education better than in the past.
In line with that, Astuti (2018) provide an understanding of Realistic Mathematics Education as the use of the environmental reality that students can understand in facilitating the learning process so that better educational goals are achieved. RME allows students to form their understanding of Mathematical ideas and concepts through problems found in the real world.
Ningsih's research (2014) also explained that the importance of the RME model is that students can explore their knowledge with the help of contextual objects that can stimulate students' thinking to imagine the problems they are experiencing so that students can also imagine how to solve them.
Based on the description above, the researcher is interested in developing learning instruments based on realistic learning models to improve students' mathematical literacy skills and interest in learning.

This research includes development research (R&D). This study uses the 4-D development
model by Thiagarajan, Semmel, & Semmel (1974). This model consists of 4 stages: Define, Design, Develop and Disseminate.
The stages of developing the 4-D learning instrument are detailed as follows.

Define stage
This stage aims to determine and define learning needs by analyzing the objectives and limitations of the material. Activities in this stage are the initial and final analysis, student analysis, task analysis, and specification of learning objectives.

Design Stage
This stage aims to design learning instruments so that prototypes (examples of learning instruments) are obtained. This stage begins after specific learning is established. This stage includes test preparation, instrument selection, format selection, and initial design.

Develop stage
At this stage, Experts will validate the instrument before it is used in field trials. Draft 1 refers to the tools before they are verified by experts. If experts have validated these tools, and if there is a revision by experts, the tools must be repaired or revised before moving on to the next step; however, if there is no revision, it can be called draft 2.

Dissemination Stage
The development of student worksheets reaches the final stage if it has obtained a positive assessment from experts and has passed a development test. The instrument was designed, disseminated, and used for a wider scale.
The development model in this study is schematically depicted in Figure  Design. The first step is to take measurements as a pretest, then subject to treatment within a certain period, a posttest is carried out (Lestari & Yudhanegara, 2015).
The design of this research trial was based on the PretestPretest and Posttest Group research design, with the following pattern: Information: O1 : Initial test (pretest) is done to determine learning outcomes and interest in learning before being given treatment X: The learning treatment uses learning with the RME model that has been developed.
O2 : The final test (posttest) was conducted to determine the learning outcomes of products, processes, and student performance tests on students' mathematical literacy abilities and interest in learning. After the posttest was carried out, a questionnaire was given to students' responses to learning.

Data Analysis of the Validity of Learning Instruments
Content validation is based on the opinions of five experts in the field of mathematics education. Based on the opinions of these experts, the level of agreement between observers (experts) will be determined, which will be analyzed using statistical tests with the formula: (Asmin, 2012)

Analysis of Practicality of Learning Instruments Data
Data collection for implementing learning using the developed tools is carried out per meeting by an observer. The activity of determining the learning implementation observation score follows the following steps: Determine the average score of observation of the implementation of learning at each meeting with the formula: (Sinaga, 2007) With := an average score of observation of learning implementation in each meeting = data on the observation score of the implementation of learning on the third statement i

= the number of statements
Determining the average score of observation of the implementation of learning: (Sinaga, 2007) with: = average score of observation of learning implementation = average score of observation of learning implementation in each meeting = the number of meetings The results obtained are then written in the column in the appropriate table.
After the data is collected, the average total score is determined from the observation of the implementation of learning ( ) with categories like Table 3.14.
The developed learning instrument is said to be practical if the average learning implementation is at least in the 'well implemented' category ( ).

Data Analysis of the Effectiveness of Learning Instruments
Data analysis of the effectiveness of student learning instruments can be seen from the following various aspects:

Analysis of Student Completeness Data
The criterion states that students already have students' Mathematical Literacy abilities if there are 80% of students who take the test have at least medium students' Mathematical Literacy abilities (obtaining a score of more than one is equal to 2.85 or at least (B). To determine the percentage of each student's learning, students can use the following equation: Where: KB = Mastery learning T = Total score obtained by students = Sum of total scores

Observation Analysis of Student Activities in Learning
Data from observations of student activities during learning activities were analyzed based on percentages.
Percentage of ideal time = Frequency of each aspect of observation Sum of frequencies of all observation aspects × 100% The criterion for achieving the effectiveness of student activities in learning is if the six categories of student activities are met with a tolerance of 5%. To determine the achievement of learning objectives in terms of student responses, if the number of students who give positive responses is greater than or equal to 80% of the number of subjects studied for each Trial.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This research is development research, and the product of this research is learning instruments. This study aimed to describe: (1) obtain learning instruments developed based on a Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) approach that is valid, practical, and effective for improving mathematical literacy skills in the school studied; (2) describe how the improvement of students' mathematical literacy skills at the school studied is taught with learning instruments developed based on Realistic Mathematics Education (RME) approach. Data analysis and research results obtained at each stage of development are presented as follows:

Define
The results of observation and analysis of learning instruments at the school studied showed that teachers have not had learning instruments that can improve Mathematical Literacy skills. In addition, in the learning process, students are not involved in finding their knowledge but are directly given by the Teacher. This is thought to be the cause of students' mathematical literacy skills that are still not good.

Design
This stage aims to design learning instruments to obtain prototypes (examples of learning instruments) for SLETV material. Activities at this stage are as follows:

Test Compilation Results
The result of the pretest arrangement is the task analysis and concept analysis described in the specification of learning objectives. The test is a test on SLETV material and a student questionnaire. The learning outcomes test consists of 5 questions in the form of descriptions.
The time allotted to complete the test is 60 minutes.

Format Selection Results
The results of the format selection in the study were adjusted to the 2013 curriculum. The lesson plan components consist of School identity, namely the name of the educational unit; Subject identity or theme or sub-theme; Class or semester; Subject matter; Allocation of time; learning objectives that are formulated are determined according to the requirements for achieving KD available in the syllabus, the learning method used by researchers is Realistic Mathematics Education (RME); Learning resources, can be in the form of books, learning videos, print, and electronic instruments or other relevant learning resources; Learning steps are carried out through the preliminary, core, and closing stages; and assessment of learning outcomes.

Preliminary Design Results
From the initial design stage, a learning implementation plan was produced for two meetings on field trials and student learning outcomes tests.

Initial Draft
The results are validated by experts. Expert validation was carried out, covering all the instruments developed. The validators who validated the learning instruments developed (Initial Draft) consisted of 5 people, including 3 UNIMED mathematics education lecturers, one Teacher from the school studied, and one Teacher from another junior high school in Medan. Based on the results of validation calculations of 5 experts in the initial test of student learning outcomes contained in the appendix. The average value of the score is 3.71. Referring to the validity criteria, it can be concluded that the learning instrument instruments developed meet the validity criteria, with the "Valid" category further can be seen in the following table: With reference to these criteria, it can be concluded that the learning instruments developed meet the validity criteria with a valid category. The validity of the questions was analyzed using the product moment correlation formula, namely by correlating the item score with the total score. The results of testing the spatial ability test instrument are presented in the following table: Based on the data in the table above, the interpretation of each pretest and posttest item is in a very valid category.
After the developed learning instrument meets the validity criteria (draft 1), then the learning instrument in the form of draft two is tested at the research location, hereinafter referred to as Trial I. Trial I was conducted in a Year 8 class with a total of 20 students. Trial I was conducted in 2 meetings in accordance with the lesson plan that had been designed.
Overall, the results of the data analysis of Trial I show that the learning instruments From the analysis of the results of Trial I, the researcher found several weaknesses that must be corrected so that this research can produce learning instruments and instruments that meet all valid, practical, and effective criteria. After the revision was completed, Trial II used the learning instrument (draft 2), and the instrument was carried out in the same class as well. Trial II was conducted to measure whether the learning instruments and equipment met all the established valid, practical, and effective criteria. Overall, the results of the second trial data analysis show that the learning instruments developed have fulfilled all the established valid, practical, and effective criteria. A more complete explanation can be seen in the description section on the validity, practicality, and effectiveness of learning instruments.

Disseminate
After the valid, practical, and effective criteria have been met in Trial II, a learning tool (final draft) is obtained. The next step is to carry out limited dissemination in the form of distributing the final draft to the MGMP forum in the school studied, which is marked by the delivery of learning instruments to the MGMP forum with the hope that the mathematics teachers who are members of the forum can apply these learning instruments to further learning.

Description of the Validity of Mathematics Learning Instruments
A learning instrument is said to be valid if the expert/practitioner's assessment of the developed learning instrument meets the valid criteria. Analysis of the validity of the developed learning instruments in terms of expert judgment regarding these learning instruments. The assessment of the experts has been previously explained at the development stage regarding the validation results of the validators, where the results show that the learning instruments developed are stated to be valid with an average value of 3.71 (category "valid").
Based on this analysis, it can be said that the learning instruments developed are valid and ready to be used in learning.

Description of the Practicality of the Developed Mathematical Learning Instruments
In the Trial, I based on the practicality analysis results obtained from the responses given to experts/validators and practitioners (teachers) as well as by providing instrument validation sheets. Thus, the first practicality criterion has been met; namely, it can be used with a little revision.
The observation of the implementation of learning with learning instruments developed is in the "High" category, with a score of 3.4. That is the average score. The learning instruments developed in Trial I have met the practicality criteria of learning instruments that were set so that they can proceed to the next stage.

Description of the Effectiveness of Mathematics Learning Instruments Developed
The developed learning instrument is said to be effective if: (1) the minimum test score for mathematical literacy is 70 (the "good" category) and classically at least 80% of students fulfill the learning completeness; (2) the Teacher's ability to manage to learn by using learning instruments developed with a good minimum category;(3) the average results of the ideal time for student activities meet the set ideal percentage of time; (4) the average student response is in the minimal category"Interested" (3 ≤ Rs < 4).

Analysis of Students' Mathematical Literacy Ability Test Results
The results of classical mastery of students' mathematical literacy skills in Trial I can be seen in the following table: In accordance with the criteria of classical student learning completeness, namely, at least 30% of students who take the mathematical literacy ability test are able to achieve a minimum score of 70. So the results of the student's mathematical literacy ability test have not been completed classically because only 30% of students are able to achieve a minimum score.
So it can be concluded that in Trial I, the application of the learning instruments developed did not meet the criteria for achieving classical mastery. The results of classical mastery of students' mathematical literacy skills in Trial II can be seen in the following table: In accordance with the criteria of classical student learning completeness, namely, at least 80% of students who take the mathematical literacy ability test are able to achieve a minimum score of 70. Then the results of the student's mathematical literacy ability test have been met the classical mastery because there are 87.5% of students were able to achieve a minimum score. So it can be concluded that in Trial II, the application of the learning instruments developed met the criteria for achieving classical mastery.

Results Analysis Teacher Ability to Manage Learning
Teacher observation in managing learning is carried out in every meeting observed by one observer. The following are teacher observation data managing learning:

Analysis of the Percentage of Achievement Results of Student Activity Ideal Time
The following briefly describes the percentage of achieving the ideal time for student activities. Based on the analysis results in Table 8, the average percentage of achieving the ideal time for student activities for two meetings in Trial I was 24.3%, 29.2%, 25.7%, 10.42%, 6.25%, and 3.48%.
Furthermore, the results of achieving the time obtained are referred to as the predetermined success criteria. From the results above, it can be concluded that student activity has reached the ideal time achievement percentage, whereas, from the six observed aspects, the student activity percentage is still within the specified ideal time achievement tolerance interval. Based on the analysis results in Table 9, the average percentage of achieving the ideal time for student activities for the three meetings in Trial II was 22.2%, 26.87%, 26.87%, 13.9%, 7.87%, and 2.32%. Furthermore, the results of achieving the time obtained are referred to as the predetermined success criteria. From the results above, it can be concluded that student activity has reached the ideal time achievement percentage.

Response Student Trial
Student response questionnaires were given to the respondents at the end of the Trial. The description of the results of the student response questionnaire can be seen in the Table  11.  Based on Table 11 in Trial I, it can be analyzed that student responses to all aspects of the learning instruments, namely student opinions on learning components consisting of student books, student worksheets, and test, were 86%, so it can be seen that the average -the average student response questionnaire score is in the "Interested" category.

Description of Students Interest Questionnaire Results
In this study, the distribution of questionnaires for students' interest in learning mathematics was carried out after learning. The questionnaire was given as many as 30 statement items consisting of 22 positive statements and eight negative statements from 3 indicators of student interest in learning. The description of the results of students' interest in learning in Trial I is shown in the following table.  Table 9 shows that the average student interest in learning is 73.75, with the highest score of 88.33 and the lowest score of 66.67.

Improving Mathematical Literacy Ability Using Developed Mathematical Learning Instruments
The results of the analysis of students' mathematical literacy skills tests in trials I and II showed an increase in students' mathematical literacy skills. Based on the average normalized gain, it was found that in Trial I, there was an increase in students' mathematical literacy skills with the "low" criterion with an average score of 0.27 (N-gain <0.3), and in Trial II, there was an increase in value with criteria of "moderate" with a score of 0.5 (0.3 < N-gain < 0.7). So it can be concluded that the developed learning instruments can improve students' mathematical literacy skills.

Increasing Students' Interest in Learning Mathematics Using Learning Instruments Developed Mathematics
Based on the results of data analysis of students' interest in learning mathematics in trials I and II showed that students' interest in learning mathematics increased (better). The increase in students' motivation to learn mathematics was seen from the average results of the interest in learning mathematics questionnaire in Trial I, the average student interest in learning was 73.54, while in Trial II, the average student interest in learning increased to 81.71. There was an increase of 8.17 from Trial I to II in the average results of students' interest in learning mathematics. Based on these results, it can be concluded that the student's interest in learning mathematics after using the mathematics learning instruments based on the Realistic Mathematics Education learning model, which was developed as a whole, increased from Trial I to II.

CONCLUSION
This research developed learning instruments based on the RME approach that could be used to improve students' mathematical literacy and learning motivation. The 4-D Thiagaradjan model is used as the model. There are four stages involved: define, design, produce, and disseminate. Three stages of data gathering were used, namely observation in the form of needs analysis, interviews, and questionnaires. This study concluded that the development requirements of validity, practicability, and practicability have been fulfilled.