Literature Index

Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) better known in industry as Total Quality Management (TQM), is a management philosophy which has transformed many businesses and corporations internationally and is now beginning to make strong inroads into universities, predominantly on the administrative side. This paper raises the question of whether the conceptual frame work provided by CQI/TQM is a fertile one for addressing the problems involved in university teaching. It translates basic tenets of CQI/TQM into the university teaching context and outlines how these ideas have been implemented in a large, multisection, introductory statistics course. Particular attention is given to the problems of fostering steady year-to-year improvements in a course that can survive changes of personnel, and in making improvements by stimulating group creativity and then capturing the results for the future.

Despite widespread use of significance testing in empirical research, its interpretation and researchers' excessive confidence in its results have been criticized for years. In this article, the logic of statistical testing in the Fisher and Neyman-Pearson approaches are described, some common misinterpretations of basic concepts behind statistical tests are reviewed, and the philosophical and psychological issues that can contribute to these misinterpretations are analyzed. Some frequent criticisms against statistical tests are revisited, with the conclusion that most of them refer not to the tests themselves but to the misuse of tests on the part of researchers. In accordance with Levin (1998a), statistical tests should be transformed into a more intelligent process that helps researchers in their work. Possible ways in which statistical education might contribute to the better understanding and application of statistical inference are suggested.

This study examined the relative effects of cooperative vs. lecture methods of instruction. Two sections of an undergraduate statistics course were studied. Test scores were dependent variables. Students in one section were randomly assigned to cooperative groups. Students in both sections completed assignments and practice problems -- in the cooperative class in groups during class, and in the lecture class individually, outside of class. Students in the cooperative learning class achieved higher test scores. Implications of the study and resulting questions are discussed.