Student Survey carried out at UBC

Which do you prefer?

69% preferred assignments conducted and marked on the web by AIM
31% preferred paper assignments that are handed in to be marked.

Computer access:

94% used their home computer (of those 66% used home computer exlusively)
25% used library computers
15% used computer university computer labs.

On the scale from -2 (disagreement) to +2 (agreement), grade the following features.	% responded					Avg
	2	1	0	-1	-2	Avg
There was sufficient instruction/resources provided to start using AIM:	72	25	3	0	0	1.7
AIM was easy for me to learn to use:	63	38	0	0	0	1.6
The opportunity to re-attempt questions in case of a wrong answer helped me to better understand the material:	56	34	6	3	0	1.4
The feedback from AIM was helpful:	19	44	22	6	9	0.6
The penalty system (deduction of 15% for every wrong answer) was fair:	38	16	19	25	3	0.6
The questions asked in AIM were capable of testing material that required a deeper understanding of the course:	34	41	9	13	3	0.9
The time available to complete the assignments was adequate:	69	22	6	3	0	1.6
Give your overall rating for AIM the way you experienced it, on the scale from -2 (bad) to +2 (good):	47	28	22	3	0	1.2
Give your overall rating for the potential that AIM has for use in future math courses.	44	44	6	6	0	1.3

What did you like best and worst about AIM? (selected responses)

The best part of this system, is the ability to retry answers and learn from your mistakes. The promptness of a response from the system can not be matched by paper assignments. Instead of handing in an assignment and getting it back three weeks later, when you've forgotten what its about and have other things on your mind, AIM allowed you to correct the work and see your problem areas right away! The only problem I could see was that full solutions were rarely given. If better solutions could be given to us that would help a lot for the situations where you got the answer, but you weren't entirely clear on some part of the question.
Best: I got my assignments marked immediately. I could try the first part of a question and see if I was on the right track before going on further. I was able to rework a problem that I got wrong and learn more. I could still do this with paper assignments after I get them back - and sometimes I do - but the extra incentive for additional marks made me do it every time. Worst: When I got a question wrong I didn't know if I had just missed a negative sign or if I had missed the entire point of the question. In this respect the part marks were not fair. On paper assignments we lose a number of marks which correspond to the severity of the error. This also caused me to spend much time going through (sometimes lengthy) calculations at a painstakingly slow speed just to see if I had made a minor error.
Learned more than if doing a paper quiz, due to being able to fix wrong answers.
I liked the ability to try a question over until I get it right. It forced me to mull over the assignment and think about solutions. I didn't like how mis-prints of answers counted against me.
Best: I have to complete every questions correctly in order to get marks. This can force us to really complete each question rather than just do part of it (since there is no part mark given for incomplete answer). Worst: No part marks given unless we have the correct answer. Same amount of marks were deducted whether I made a small mistake (like forgetting to put a minus sign) or I entered a completely wrong answer.
Best: I can know if my answer is wrong or not right away, so I will rethink the problem. Worst: my process of solving the problem can't be shown on AIM.
If I get a question wrong, it instantly show up that I have an error and be able to correct it. For paper assignments, I won't be able to know whether I am right or wrong until it is handed back.
Best: I will know whether I got the answer right or wrong immediately, and I have consecutive tries to correct my method or calculation. Worst: If you were stuck on a question often there was no help to point you in the right direction.
AIM is easy to use and it is convenient for me because I can access it from my home computer at anytime.
It was easy to use and it gave you several attempts to get an answer correct, but at the same time, continually getting a question wrong was frustrating and did not neccesarily allow a TA or instructor to comment on the method of approach. Detailed solutions to all questions would have been helpful
Best: that it lets you attempt questions again if you get them wrong. Worst: you work from a computer, so you can get distracted by stuff online.
The best thing is that the system allowed us to questions over, which was great because in written homework one little error could cost alot of marks.the worst thing is that you have to have a computer and if you dont have one thing there is alot of running around. Another bad thing would be that students come to class less because they cant work at home which wouldn't be smart.
The best thing about AIM is that it is more environmental friendly (no paper has to be used) and also, math department no longer has to hire TA's to grade our assignments. The worst thing about AIM is that not everyone has Internet access so it will not be very convenient for those particular users.
I think AIM should provide some room for students to show their details of solving the problems.
I thought it was the same as written assignments because i would print out a copy of the questions and work on them.
Perhaps the best alternative is to combine both paper and AIM methods. Having paper homework once every two weeks and AIM homework in the intervening weeks. This way the AIM assignments could focus just on those types of problems for which the system is reasonably well suited and the paper assignments can be used where the AIM system would be insufficient.