A countless variant simulation-based toolkit for remote learning and evaluation

References

• ACM/IEEE-CS joint task force on computing curricula, “computer science curricula 2013,”. Tech Rep. ACM Press and IEEE Computer Society Press. December. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1145/2534860.
   Google Scholar
• Avery, R. J., Bryant, W. K., Mathios, A., Kang, H., & Bell, D. (2006). Electronic course evaluations: Does on online delivery system influence student evaluations? The Journal of Economic Education, 37(1), 21–12. https://doi.org/10.3200/JECE.37.1.21-37
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basilaia, G., & Kvavadze, D. Transition to Online Education in Schools during a SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic in Georgia. (2020). Pedagogical Research, 5(4), 2468–4929. em0060, e-ISSN:. https://doi.org/10.29333/pr/7937
   Google Scholar
• Blackboard Learn 9.1. Blackboard Inc: http://www.blackboard.com/. 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Broemer, E. and Recktenwald, G. (2021). Cheating and Chegg: A Retrospective, 2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Long Beach, USA. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2–36792
   Google Scholar
• Burton, W. B., Civitano, A., & Steiner-Grossman, P. 2012.Online versus paper evaluations: Differences in both quantitative and qualitative data. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 24(1), 58–69. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12528-012-9053-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Candy, P. C., Crebert, G., & O’Leary, J. (1994). Developing lifelong learners through undergraduate education. National Board of Employment, Education and Training, Australian Government Publishing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Canvas LMS and the instructure learning PlatformBlackboard. Instructure Inc: https://canvas.instructure.com/. 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Carini, R. M., Hayek, J. C., Kuh, G. D., Kennedy, J. M., & Ouimet, J. A. (2003). College students responses to web and paper surveys: Does mode matter? Research in Higher Education, 44(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021363527731
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chegg study pack. Chegg Inc: https://www.chegg.com/study-pack. 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Dendir, S., & Maxwell, R. S. (2020). Cheating in online courses: Evidence from online proctoring. Computers in Human Behaviour Reports, 2, 100033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100033
   Google Scholar
• Donovan, J., Mader, C., & Shinsky, J. (2006). Constructive student feedback: Online vs. traditional course evaluations. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 5(5), 283–296.
   Google Scholar
• Draves, W. A. (2002). Teaching online. Learning Resources Network (LERN.
   Google Scholar
• Gamliel, E., & Davidovitz, L. (2005). Online versus traditional teaching evaluation: Mode can matter. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(6), 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500260647
   Google Scholar
• George, M. L. (2020). Effective teaching and examination strategies for undergraduate learning during COVID-19 school restrictions. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520934017
   Google Scholar
• Grün, B., & Zeileis, A. (2009). Automatic generation of exams in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 29(10), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v029.i10
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasan, N., & Bao, Y. (2020). Impact of “e-Learning crack-up” perception on psychological distress among college students during COVID-19 pandemic: A mediating role of “fear of academic year loss”. Children and Youth Services Review, 118, 105355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105355
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hmieleski, K., & Champagne, M. V. (2020). Plugging into course evaluation. The Technology Source.
   Google Scholar
• Kasiar, J. B., Schroeder, S. L., & Holstad, S. G. (2002). Comparison of traditional and web-based course evaluation processes in a required, team-taught pharmacotherapy course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 66(3), 268–270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manoharan, S. (2019). Cheat-resistant multiple choice examinations using personalization. Computers and Education, 130, 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.11.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manoharan, S. (2021). On individualized online assessments in STEM subjects. Proceeding of the IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology & Education (TALE), December, 2021, Wuhan, China. https://doi.org/10.1109/TALE52509.2021.9678631
   Google Scholar
• Martin Dougiamas, “Moodle,” https://moodle.org visited 2021-05-31.
   Google Scholar
• Medina-Herrera, L. M. and Miranda-Valenzuela, J. C. (2019). What kind of teacher achieves student engagement in a synchronous online model?. Proceedings of the IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
   Google Scholar
• The Microsoft store. June (2021). url (windows only): ms-windows-store://publisher/?name=Luis F Romero, visited 2021-05-31
   Google Scholar
• Morrison, K. (2013). Online and paper evaluations of courses: A literature review and case study. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19(7), 585–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2013.834608
   Google Scholar
• Noorbehbahani, F., Mohammadi, A., & Aminazadeh, M. (2022). A systematic review of research on cheating in online exams from 2010 to 2021. Education and Information Technologies, 27(6), 8413–8460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-10927-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OLAT 7.6 – User Manual. (2012). IT Services, Universität Zürich. http://www.olat.org/url
   Google Scholar
• ONYX Testsuite. (2014a). BPS Bildungsportal Sachsen GmbH. http://onyx.bps-system.de/ URL
   Google Scholar
• OpenOLAT 9.4 – User Manual. URL. http://www.openolat.org. 2014b.
   Google Scholar
• Poehlein, G. W. (1996). Universities and information technologies for instructional programmes: Issues and potential impacts. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 8(3), 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329608524251
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romero, L. F. and Bandera, G., “The casium project,” 2021, https://casium.uma.es.
   Google Scholar
• Smaill, C., The Implementation and Evaluation of OASIS, a web-based learning and assessment tool in electrical engineering, 36th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2006.322482. 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Stowell, J. R., Addison, W. E., & Smith, J. L. Comparison of online and classroom-based student evaluations of instruction. Assessment & evaluation in higher educationVol. 37. 4pp. 465–473. ISSN 0260-2938. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.545869. 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Volery, T., & Lord, D. (2000). Critical success factors in online education. International Journal of Education Management. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/09513540010344731/full/html
   Google Scholar
• Zeileis, A., Umlauf, N., & Leisch, F. (2014). Flexible generation of e-learning exams in R: Moodle quizzes OLAT assessments, and beyond. Journal of Statistical Software, 58(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v058.i01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar