Microsoft Word - IMC_3_2010_Online.doc “Homework assignments and use of technology comparison of F301 and F260 classes at Indiana University South Bend” AUTHORS Raj K. Kohli ARTICLE INFO Raj K. Kohli (2010). Homework assignments and use of technology comparison of F301 and F260 classes at Indiana University South Bend. Insurance Markets and Companies, 1(3) RELEASED ON Wednesday, 29 December 2010 JOURNAL "Insurance Markets and Companies" FOUNDER LLC “Consulting Publishing Company “Business Perspectives” NUMBER OF REFERENCES 0 NUMBER OF FIGURES 0 NUMBER OF TABLES 0 © The author(s) 2019. This publication is an open access article. businessperspectives.org Insurance Markets and Companies: Analyses and Actuarial Computations, Volume 1, Issue 3, 2010 79 Raj K. Kohli (USA) Homework assignments and use of technology comparison of F301 and F260 classes at Indiana University South Bend Abstract This paper compares the use of technology and the importance of homework assignments among students from personal finance and financial management courses at Indiana University South Bend in USA. In this research, 112 students from Spring 2006 through the Fall 2008 semesters were surveyed about the use of technology both outside and inside the class- rooms. The results of this study indicate no statistical difference among male or female students in those classes. How- ever, it is apparent from this analysis that students with higher GPAs use more technology than students with lower GPAs. Keywords: finance students, homework assignments, use of technology and classroom. Introduction The importance of problem solving, communication skills and use of technology plays an important role in students’ development. At many universities, Personal Finance course is taught at the freshman level, where the students come just after completing their High school education. Also, business finance or financial management course is the only finance course that students majoring in finance take during their under- graduate academic career. This paper compares the use of technology and importance of homework assign- ments among students, taking personal finance and financial management courses. Homework assignments may compensate for low ability of some students and, hence, increase their academic capability. Assuming that students in cur- rently high technological environments are well famil- iar with computers and have excellent motor skills (due to playing video games), using computers in their homework assignments and in the classroom may also become an entertaining experience for the students. In this scenario, they can be more involved in the studies as it also engages them in using their motor skills. Many empirical studies indicate that the time spent on studies and completing assignments by secon- dary school or college students is a good predictor of their academic achievement. It is known that hard working students may compensate for low academic skills to some extent and enhance their grade point average (GPA), morale and confidence. Alavi (1994) reports that collaborative learning leads to higher level of perceived skill development and self enhanced learning among MBA students. Kel- ley (1972) reports that student achievement was positively and significantly related to number of assignments completed (Upperclassman or Sopho- more) at University of Wisconsin-Madison survey in principal of economics course. According to King and Jennings (2004), traditional education, used with technology and experimental exercise, signifi- cantly increases business student learning and satis- Raj K. Kohli, 2010. faction at the undergraduate level. Kohli (2007) shows no difference among male or female students about the use of technology and GPA level in per- sonal finance class. However, the students with higher GPAs use more technology than students with lower GPAs. Use of technology for academic activities plays an important role both outside and inside the classroom today. For example, Cudd, Tanner, and Lipscomb (2004) reported that about forty percent of finance faculty use intranet-based software or blackboard to augment classroom instruction and that sixty-seven percent of finance faculty use the Internet for educa- tion. Peng (2006) reported that students react posi- tively to Internet-based resources because it enhances their learning experience. Burrus, Dumas and Gra- ham (2001) have reported, prior GPA, hours spent studying for the class, and the perceived usefulness of the homework for exam preparation are positively and significantly related to the final homework grade. They further stated that the perception that homework assignments help students prepare for exams moti- vates student to high quality homework performance among macroeconomics students. The objective of this study is to compare the student’s response in personal finance and financial manage- ment Course at Indiana University South Bend. 1. Data and methodology The data, used in this study, is student’s response to a survey 1 from Personal Finance Course at Indiana University South Bend in the Fall semester 2006 and Spring semester 2007. The data also includes survey of students from financial management classes in Fall 2007 and Spring 2008. Four sections of personal finance courses and five sections of financial man- agement courses at Indiana University South Bend were surveyed for this study. Altogether, one hundred and twelve students volunteered to complete the sur- vey. A correlation analysis and descriptive statistics are used in this analysis. 1 Questionnaire is attached in the Appendix B. Insurance Markets and Companies: Analyses and Actuarial Computations, Volume 1, Issue 3, 2010 80 2. Results The results of the descriptive statistics are reported in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3 (see Appendix A). Re- sults in Table 1 indicate that thirty three of the one hundred twelve respondents (30 percent) 1 were part time students, and eighty eight from one hundred twelve (77.6 percent) students were expecting final grade of either A or B. While sixty two percent of male students were studying full-time, eighty two percent of the female students were full-time students. There is no difference between male and female stu- dents in the expected grades from F301 and F260 classes. These results indicate that majority of students are full-time students and are expecting academically good achievements. Further analysis of descriptive statistics in Table 3 (see Appendix A) shows that twenty percent of male stu- dents and ten percent of female students never use spreadsheet or word processor, while Completing their homework assignments. Thirteen of sixty-six male students (20 percent) and ten of forty-six female stu- dents (21 percent) never used the Internet, while work- ing on the assignments. Therefore, the results of this study show that female and male students use com- puters (spreadsheet or Internet) equally in doing the homework assignments. Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) results between selected variables for both classes F301 and F260 are shown in Tables 5. And, Table 6 shows the coeffi- cients for F260 and F301 separately. For purpose of simplicity, only statistically significant coefficients are reported in these Tables. Table 5 (see Appendix A) shows PCC between homework helps to understand materials discussed in class and understanding materials clearly is 0.499 (sig- nificant at 1 percent level). Similarly PCCs between homework helps to understand material discussed in the class and preparing for the class, in thinking or problem solving, working alone, not submitting homework are 0.211 (5% significant), 0.261 (5% sig- nificant), 0.166 (10% significant), and 0.289 (1% sig- nificant), respectively. PCCs between materials not discussed in the class and clear understanding, prepar- ing for the class, use of Internet, and using technology by instructor in class are 0.244 (1% significant), 0.411(1% significant), -0.279 (1% significant), and 0.173 (10% significant), respectively. PCCs between understanding materials clearly and class preparation, entertaining class, problem solving, not submitting homework, use of technology by in- structor outside class are 0.447 (1% significant), 0.239 (5% significant), 0.297 (1% significant), 0.174 (10% significant), -0.305 (1% significant), and -0.266 (1% 1 In order to manage the size of Tables, the percentages for all variables are not shown in the descriptive statistics but can be provided at request. significant), respectively. A further look at Table 5 indicates that PCCs are statistically significant between instructor requiring students to use technology and preparing for the class and problem solving. Thus, the PCC, reported in Table 5 for both classes F301 and F260, are significant. A careful look at PCCs in Table 5, it is seen that use of technology for doing homework assignments helps students for class prepa- ration, problem solving and understanding the materi- als clearly are positively correlated. The results in Table 5 also show that PCCs are statistically negative between instructor’s posting the class related materials on Internet means that students are not satisfied with the instructor’s timeliness in helping students. Table 6 and Table 7 PCC among selected technology questionnaires for F260 and F301 classes, respectively. For purpose of simplicity, only statistically significant coefficients are reported in these Tables. Table 6 shows PCC between homework helps to understand materials discussed in class, and under- standing materials clearly is 0.252 (significant at 5 percent level), and preparing for class is 0.318 (5% significant). Similarly PCCs between homework helps to understand material clearly and preparing for the class are 0.425 (1% significant), enjoyable ex- perience 0.263 (5% significant), instructor requiring use of technology -0.294 (5% significant), instructor using technology in class -0.26 (5% significant), in- structor using technology outside class -0.213 (1% significant), and instructor posting class related mate- rials on Internet 0-0.290 (5% significant), respec- tively. Interestingly enough, the results in Table 6 also show that PCCs are statistically negative be- tween instructor’s posting the class related materials on Internet means that students are not satisfied with the instructor’s timeliness in helping students. Table 7 shows PCC between homework helps to understand materials discussed in class and problem solving are 0.441 (significant at 1 percent level) and doing homework alone 0.255 (10% significant), respectively. Similarly PCCs between homework helps to understand material clearly and preparing for the class are 0.458 (1% significant) and instruc- tor using technology outside class -0.401 (1% sig- nificant), respectively. Respondents PCC for prob- lem solving and instructor’s forcing students to use technology is 0.278 (10% significant). The results in Table 7 also show that PCCs are statistically nega- tive between instructor’s posting the class related materials on Internet means that students are not satisfied with the instructor’s timeliness in helping students. The results of one-way ANOVA between F301 (financial management) and F260 (personal fi- nance) students are reported in Table 8 (see Ap- pendix A). The results, reported in this Table, indi- Insurance Markets and Companies: Analyses and Actuarial Computations, Volume 1, Issue 3, 2010 81 cate statistically significant difference (10%) be- tween these two classes when it comes to com- pleting homework and understanding materials discussed in the class. As expected, all students in both classes are familiar with computers as per the results shown in Table 8. Students’ responses, reported in Table 8, also show that F260 and F301 students have a statistically different (1%) view on instructor’s requirement for use of spreadsheet/word processor in the class. Similarly the students in these two classes indicate significantly different (1%) opinion on instructor’s posting of class related in- formation on the website. Summary and conclusion By looking at all results, one can conclude that there is no difference among male or female students about the use of technology and current GPA. However, it is apparent that students with high GPA use more tech- nology than students with a lower value of GPA. When comparing F301 and F260 classes, the results of this analysis show no significant difference among students using technology in the two classes. Except for a few questions (7 out of 26), students’ responses from F301 and F260 classes do not seem to indicate any significant difference. Similarly, there is no dif- ference of opinion in use of technology for home- work assignments between male and female student. An interesting conclusion of this analysis shows negative correlation between instructors’s posting the class related materials on Internet means that students are not satisfied with the instructor’s time- liness in helping students. References 1. Burrus Robert T., Christopher F., Dumas and J. Edward Graham (2001). Determinant of principles of microeco- nomics homework performance, The Journal of Economics and Economics Education Research. 2. Cudd, Mike, John Tanner and Tom Lipscomb. An empirical analysis of a cumulative/rework testing strategy: its effect on student performance in the principles of finance, Journal of Financial Education, 30, Winter, pp. 16-31. 3. Kelley C. Allen (1972). TIPS and technical change in classroom instruction (in economic education), The Ameri- can Economic Review, Vol. 62, No. ½, pp. 422-428. 4. King, David R., and William W. Jennings (2004). The impact of augmented traditional instruction with technol- ogy-based experimental exercise, Journal of Financial Education, 30 (2), pp. 9-25. 5. Kohli Raj K. Student evaluations of homework and use of technology in the personal finance course, Journal of the Academy of Finance, Fall 2007, pp. 212-223. 6. Krueger, Thomas and Robert Carney, Online behavior of the graduate finance student, Journal of the Academy of Finance, Vol. 3, Issue 1, Summer 2005, pp. 147-157. 7. Maryam Alavi (1994). Computer-mediated collaborative learning: an empirical evaluation, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2, June, pp. 159-174. 8. Mehdizadeh, Mostafaf (1987-88). Student evaluations of homework assignments in the principal of economics, The Kentucky Journal of Economics and Business, Vol. 8, pp. 139-153. 9. Peng, Zhuoming (2006). Applying Internet based technologies to teaching corporate finance and investments, The Journal of Educator Online. 10. Smorila, Joseph C. Student perceptions of online homework in introductory finance courses, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 84, Nov-Dec 2008. Appendix A Table 1. Full time students and expected grade by male versus female students Full-time student Mean N Std. deviation Yes 2.98 41 1.037 No 3.08 25 1.115 Male Total 3.02 66 1.060 Yes 3.68 38 1.093 No 3.25 8 1.165 Female Total 3.61 46 1.105 Yes 3.32 79 1.116 No 3.12 33 1.111 Total Total 3.26 112 1.113 Table 2. Expected grade by male versus female students Expected grade Mean N Std. deviation A 1.29 17 .470 B 1.43 35 .502 C 1.54 13 .519 D 2.00 1 . Male Total 1.42 66 .498 Insurance Markets and Companies: Analyses and Actuarial Computations, Volume 1, Issue 3, 2010 82 Table 2 (cont.). Expected grade by male versus female students Expected grade Mean N Std. deviation A 1.27 22 .456 B 1.62 13 .506 C 1.64 11 .505 Female Total 1.46 46 .504 A 1.28 39 .456 B 1.48 48 .505 C 1.58 24 .504 D 2.00 1 . Total Total 1.44 112 .498 Table 3. Do you use spreadsheet and/or word processor in completing homework? Mean N Std. deviation Never 1.54 13 .519 Sometimes 1.41 37 .498 Always 1.38 16 .500 Male Total 1.42 66 .498 Never 1.60 5 .548 Sometimes 1.42 24 .504 Always 1.47 17 .514 Female Total 1.46 46 .504 Never 1.56 18 .511 Sometimes 1.41 61 .496 Always 1.42 33 .502 Total Total 1.44 112 .498 Table 4. Do you use Internet in completing homework? Mean N Std. Deviation Never 1.54 13 .519 Sometimes 1.40 48 .494 Always 1.40 5 .548 Male Total 1.42 66 .498 Never 1.60 10 .516 Sometimes 1.38 32 .492 Always 1.75 4 .500 Female Total 1.46 46 .504 Never 1.57 23 .507 Sometimes 1.39 80 .490 Always 1.56 9 .527 Total Total 1.44 112 .498 Table 5. Pearson correlation coefficients between selected variables combined for F260 and F301 classes, N = 112 D o e s h o m e w o rk h e lp t o u n d e rs ta n d t h e t e xt m a te ri a l n o t d is cu ss e d in t h e c la ss ? u n d e rs ta n d t h e m a te ri a l cl e a rl y? p re p a re f o r th e n e xt c la ss ? le a rn in g e xp e ri e n ce e n jo ya b le ? th in ki n g o r p ro b le m s o lv in g ? W o rk a lo n e o r in a g ro u p D id n o t h a n d in y o u r h o m e w o rk ? U se o f In te rn e t in so re a d sh e e t a n d /o r w o rd p ro ce ss o r re q u ir e d U se o f In te rn e t in s o re a d - sh e e t a n d /o r w o rd p ro ce ss o r re q u ir e d R e q u ir e y o u t o u se I n te rn e t fo r th is c o u rs e ? In st ru ct o r u se s te ch n o lo g y T e ch n o lo g y o u ts id e t h e c la ss fo r th is R e g u la rl y p o st c la ss r e la te d in fo rm a tio n ( lik e b u t n o t lim ite d Understand the text material discussed in the class 0.207** 0.499*** 0.211** 0.261** 0.166* 0.289*** -0.165* Understand the text material not discussed in the class 0.244*** 0.411*** -0.279*** 0.173* Help to understand the material clearly 0.447*** 0.239** 0.297*** 0.174* -0.305*** -0.266*** Help you to prepare for the next class 0.238* -0.200** 0.158* -0.245*** -0.210** Insurance Markets and Companies: Analyses and Actuarial Computations, Volume 1, Issue 3, 2010 83 Table 5 (cont.). Pearson correlation coefficients between selected variables combined for F260 and F301 classes, N = 112 D o e s h o m e w o rk h e lp t o u n d e rs ta n d t h e t e xt m a te ri a l n o t d is cu ss e d in t h e c la ss ? u n d e rs ta n d t h e m a te ri a l cl e a rl y? p re p a re f o r th e n e xt c la ss ? le a rn in g e xp e ri e n ce e n jo ya b le ? th in ki n g o r p ro b le m s o lv in g ? W o rk a lo n e o r in a g ro u p D id n o t h a n d in y o u r h o m e w o rk ? U se o f In te rn e t in so re a d sh e e t a n d /o r w o rd p ro ce ss o r re q u ir e d U se o f In te rn e t in s o re a d - sh e e t a n d /o r w o rd p ro ce ss o r re q u ir e d R e q u ir e y o u t o u se I n te rn e t fo r th is c o u rs e ? In st ru ct o r u se s te ch n o lo g y T e ch n o lo g y o u ts id e t h e c la ss fo r th is R e g u la rl y p o st c la ss r e la te d in fo rm a tio n ( lik e b u t n o t lim ite d Help you in thinking or problem solving 0.207** 0.499*** 0.211** 0.261** 0.164* 0.266*** 0.345*** 0.244*** -0.242* Work alone or in a group 0.244*** 0.411*** -0.279*** -0.186** Use of spreadsheet and/or word processor 0.447*** 0.239** 0.297*** -0.183* Use Internet in completing homework 0.238* -0.200** -0.212** Require use spreadsheet and/or word processor 0.372*** Require you to use Internet -0.170* Instructor uses technology during the class 0.446*** Instructor uses technology outside the class for this 0.345*** Notes: *** Coefficient is significant 1 percent level, ** Coefficient is significant 5 percent level. Table 6. Pearson correlation coefficients between selected variables for F260 class N = 63 U n d e rs ta n d t h e t e xt m a te ri a l n o t d is cu ss e d in t h e c la ss U n d e rs ta n d t h e m a te ri a l cl e a rl y P re p a re f o r th e n e xt c la ss L e a rn in g e xp e ri e n ce e n jo ya b le T h in ki n g o r p ro b le m s o lv in g U se s p re a d sh e e t a n d /o r w o rd p ro ce ss o r R e q u ir e y o u t o u se s p re a d - sh e e t a n d /o r w o rd p ro ce ss o r fo r th is R e q u ir e y o u t o u se I n te rn e t fo r th is c o u rs e In st ru ct o r u se s te ch n o lo g y d u ri n g t h e c la ss In st ru ct o r u se s te ch n o lo g y o u ts id e t h e c la ss f o r th is R e g u la rl y p o st c la ss r e la te d in fo rm a tio n Understand the text material discussed in the class 0.375*** 0.252** 0.318** Help to understand the material clearly 0.425*** 0.263** -0.294** -0.26** -0.213* -0.290** Help you to prepare for the next class 0.336*** Help you in thinking or problem solving 0.452*** 0.214* Work alone or in a group -0.221* -0.249** -0.370*** Did not hand in your home work 0.235* 0.244* Use of Internet -0.372*** Instructor uses technology during the class 0.6357*** 0.439*** Instructor uses technology outside the class for this 0.303** Notes: *** Coefficient is significant 1 percent level, ** Coefficient is significant 5 percent level. Table 7. Pearson correlation coefficients between selected variables for F301 class, N = 49 U n d e rs ta n d t h e m a te ri a l cl e a rl y H e lp y o u t o p re p a re f o r th e n e xt c la ss H e lp y o u in t h in ki n g o r p ro b le m s o lv in g W o rk a lo n e o r in a g ro u p D id n o t h a n d in y o u r h o m e w o rk U se I n te rn e t in c o m p le tin g h o m e w o rk R e q u ir e y o u t o u se I n te rn e t In st ru ct o r u se o f te ch n o lo g y d u ri n g t h e c la ss In st ru ct o r u se s te ch n o lo g y o u ts id e t h e c la ss R e g u la rl y p o st c la ss r e la te d in fo rm a tio n Understand the text material discussed in the class 0.641*** 0.441*** 0.255* 0.312** Understand the text material not discussed in the class 0.360** 0.618*** -0.552*** 0.278* -0.304** Help to understand the material clearly 0.458*** 0.438*** 0.273* -0.401*** -0.247* Help you to prepare for the next class 0.240* -0.344** -0.445*** -0.256* Insurance Markets and Companies: Analyses and Actuarial Computations, Volume 1, Issue 3, 2010 84 Table 7 (cont.). Pearson correlation coefficients between selected variables for F301 class, N = 49 U n d e rs ta n d t h e m a te ri a l cl e a rl y H e lp y o u t o p re p a re f o r th e n e xt c la ss H e lp y o u in t h in ki n g o r p ro b le m s o lv in g W o rk a lo n e o r in a g ro u p D id n o t h a n d in y o u r h o m e w o rk U se I n te rn e t in c o m p le tin g h o m e w o rk R e q u ir e y o u t o u se I n te rn e t In st ru ct o r u se o f te ch n o lo g y d u ri n g t h e c la ss In st ru ct o r u se s te ch n o lo g y o u ts id e t h e c la ss R e g u la rl y p o st c la ss r e la te d in fo rm a tio n Does homework make your learning experience enjoyable -0.298** Help you in thinking or problem solving 0.356** 0.469*** 0.278* -0.349** Instructor require you to use spreadsheet and/or word processor for this 0.558*** Instructor uses technology during the class 0.283** Instructor uses technology outside the class 0.393*** Table 8. Analysis of variance between F260 and F301 classes Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Between groups .014 1 .014 .015 .902 Within groups 103.093 110 .937 If a choice is given, how often would you prefer the homework assignments? Total 103.107 111 Between groups .545 1 .545 3.041 .084 Within groups 19.705 110 .179 Does homework help to understand the text material discussed in the class? Total 20.250 111 Between groups .007 1 .007 .018 .895 Within groups 43.270 110 .393 Does homework help to understand the text material not discussed in the class? Total 43.277 111 Between groups .274 1 .274 .499 .481 Within groups 60.440 110 .549 Does homework help to understand the material clearly? Total 60.714 111 Between groups 1.024 1 1.024 2.566 .112 Within groups 43.896 110 .399 Does homework help you to prepare for the next class? Total 44.920 111 Between groups .009 1 .009 .020 .887 Within groups 49.420 110 .449 Does homework make your learning experience enjoyable? Total 49.429 111 Between groups .007 1 .007 .040 .841 Within groups 18.984 110 .173 Does homework help you in thinking or problem solving? Total 18.991 111 Between groups .300 1 .300 1.330 .251 Within groups 24.807 110 .226 Do you do your homework yourself (alone or in a group)? Total 25.107 111 Between groups 1.940 1 1.940 1.781 .185 Within groups 119.837 110 1.089 How many times you did not hand in your home work? Total 121.777 111 Between groups .000 1 .000 . . Within groups .000 110 .000 Are you familiar with use of computers? Total .000 111 Between groups .238 1 .238 .538 .465 Within groups 48.753 110 .443 Do you use spreadsheet and/or word processor in completing homework? Total 48.991 111 Between groups .128 1 .128 .466 .496 Within groups 30.122 110 .274 Do you use Internet in completing homework? Total 30.250 111 Between groups 2.395 1 2.395 7.590 .007 Within groups 34.712 110 .316 Does your instructor require you to use spreadsheet and/or word processor for this? Total 37.107 111 Insurance Markets and Companies: Analyses and Actuarial Computations, Volume 1, Issue 3, 2010 85 Table 8 (cont.). Analysis of variance between F260 and F301 classes Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig. Between groups .009 1 .009 .028 .868 Within groups 35.705 110 .325 Does your instructor require you to use Internet for this course? Total 35.714 111 Between groups 6.014 1 6.014 9.158 .003 Within groups 72.236 110 .657 Does your instructor himself/herself use technology during the class? Total 78.250 111 Between groups .862 1 .862 .946 .333 Within groups 100.245 110 .911 Does your instructor himself/herself use technology outside the class for this? Total 101.107 111 Between groups 23.017 1 23.017 30.860 .000 Within groups 82.045 110 .746 Does your instructor regularly post class related information (like but not limited)? Total 105.063 111 Notes: *** Coefficient is significant 1 percent level, ** Coefficient is significant 5 percent level. Appendix B Proposed instrument is for the survey of the importance of homework assignments and use of technology by the per- sonal finance students. Please do not write your name on it. Questions 1 through 9 relate to student’s information (Please check only one answer) 1. Have you received your high school diploma? a. Yes b. No 2. If answer to question 1 is yes, how many years back did you receive the diploma? a. Less than 1 b. 1 to 2 c. 2 to 3 d. 3 to 4 e. More than 4 3. What is your gender? a. Male b. Female 4. What grade are you expecting in this class? a. A b. B c. C d. D e. F 5. Are you working towards your Associate/Bachelor degree? a. Yes b. No If answer to question 5 is no then go to question 10, otherwise answer questions 6 through 9 6. What is your current GPA? a. Less than 2.0 b. 2.0 to 2.49 c. 2.5 to 2.99 d. 3.0 to 3.49 e. 3.5 to 4.0 7. Are you a full time student, meaning you are enrolled in at least 12 credit hours? a. Yes b. No 8. What is your major? a. Business b. Non-Business 9. What is your student status? a. Freshman b. Sophomore c. Junior d. Senior Questions 10 through 18 relate to homework assignments (Please check only one answer) 10. If a choice is given, how often would you prefer the homework assignments outside the class room? a. Never b. Once every scheduled class c. Once every two scheduled classes d. Once every three scheduled classes e. Other 11. Does homework help to understand the text material discussed in the class? a. Yes b. No c. Other 12. Does homework help to understand the text material not discussed in the class? a. Yes b. No c. Other Insurance Markets and Companies: Analyses and Actuarial Computations, Volume 1, Issue 3, 2010 86 13. Does homework help to understand the material clearly? a. Yes b. No c. Other 14. Does homework help you to prepare for the next class? a. Yes b. No c. Other 15. Does homework make your learning experience enjoyable? a. Yes b. No c. Other 16. Does homework help you in thinking or problem solving? a. Yes b. No c. Other 17. Do you do your homework yourself (alone or in a group)? a. Yes b. No c. Other 18. How many times you did not hand in your home work? a. 0 b. 1 c. 2 d. 3 e. 4 f. Other Questions 19 through 26 relate to technology use to assist you in this course (Please check only one answer). Use of technology may imply (but is not restricted to) using spreadsheet, word processor, power point and Internet. 19. Are you familiar with use of computers? a. Yes b. No c. Other 20. Do you use spreadsheet and/or word processor in completing homework? a. Never b. Sometimes c. Always 21. Do you use Internet in completing homework? a. Never b. Sometimes c. Always 22. Does your instructor require you to use spreadsheet and/or word processor for this course? a. Yes b. No c. Other 23. Does your instructor require you to use Internet for this course? a. Yes b. No c. Other 24. Does your instructor himself/herself use technology during the class? a. Never b. Sometimes c. Very Often d. Always 25. Does your instructor himself/herself use technology outside the class for this course? a. Never b. Sometimes c. Very Often d. Always 26. Does your instructor regularly post class related information (like but not limited to) class notes, announcements, assignments and grades on Internet or on Oncourse? a. Never b. Sometimes c. Very Often d. Always 27. Approximately how many minutes did you take to complete this questionnaire? a. 1-5 b. 5-10 c. 10-15 d. More than 15 Thank you for completing this questionnaire! “Homework assignments and use of technology comparison of F301 and F260 classes at Indiana University South Bend”