A comparison of the effectiveness of applied and traditional mathematics curriculum

Scope and method of study. This quasi-experimental study used the two group pretest/posttest design to investigate the comparison of the acquisition of mathematic skills between General Mathematics students and Applied Mathematics 1 students. In the 1994-1995 and the 1995-1996 school years the Generalizable Mathematics Skills Assessment was administered to General Mathematics and Applied Mathematics 1 students as both the pretest and posttest to measure the gain in generalizable mathematics skills. During the study, 151 subjects were tested in three rural Oklahoma comprehensive secondary schools to provide data for the study. The research question was, are there significant differences in the gains in the total mathematics scores, in the calculation of whole numbers, fractions, decimals, percentages, mixed operations, measurements, or in the estimation of mathematics answers between the students who completed General Mathematics and the students who completed Applied Mathematics 1 as measured by the Generalizable Mathematics Skills Assessment instrument?; Findings and conclusions. Based on the analysis of the data compiled in the study, the researcher found significantly higher gain scores by the Applied Mathematics 1 students when compared to the General Mathematics students for the total instrument and the whole number, fraction, decimal, mixed operation, measurement, and estimation sections of the instrument. There was no significant difference in the gain score between the groups in the percentages section. It can therefore be concluded that the contextual approach used in Applied Mathematics 1 is as effective, or possibly more effective than the traditional teaching methodology used in General Mathematics. Due to the statistically equivalent or superior scores by the Applied Mathematics 1 students, Applied Mathematics 1 may be substituted for General Mathematics without a loss of learning.