## 4 Discussion  
An initial exploration of the results outlined above indicates that remote evaluation generally works well. Apart from excellent instrumental reliability (\(\alpha\)= 0.801), the fact that there is a strong direct correlation between courses is a powerful argument in favor of it thanks to the stability of the individuals partaking in it. Despite the change in the evaluation method, student performance still constitutes the major determinant of their grade. Even though in general grades were higher after remote evaluation, differences in student performance were maintained. Notwithstanding the expert committee that approved of the self-assessment items, other aspects appear to support the robustness of their design: strong correlation within each category--stress, difficulty, satisfaction--as well as between the overall opinion of remote exams and the probability of desiring to repeat, or that those that were more satisfied with the experience felt less stress doing it. These correlations indicate that there is a coherence between the results and the responses. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Course Title** & **AyDP** & **EyESyF** & **PyCE** \\ \hline _Learning and development of personality_ & 1 & 0.564 \({}^{**}\) & 0.603 \({}^{**}\) \\ \hline _Education and Social and Family Environment_ & 1 & 0.571 \({}^{**}\) \\ \hline _Educational Processes and Contexts_ & 1 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Correlation tables between grades using [PERSON]’s correlation coefficient (r). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **St 1** & **St 2** & **St 3** & **D 1** & **D 2** & **D 3** & **Sa 1** & **Sa 2** & **Sa 3** \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{c} **Academic** \\ **performance** \\ \end{tabular} & \(-0.082\) & \(-0.192\)\({}^{**}\) & \(-0.049\) & \(-0.031\) & \(-0.016\) & \(-0.034\) & \(-0.195\)\({}^{**}\) & 0.082 & 0.009 \\ \hline
**Stress 1** & 1 & 0.561 \({}^{**}\) & 0.270 \({}^{**}\) & \(-0.022\) & \(-0.011\) & \(-0.045\) & \(-0.224\)\({}^{**}\) & \(-0.087\)\({}^{*}\) & 0.010 \\ \hline
**Stress 2** & 1 & 0.246 \({}^{**}\) & 0.017 & \(-0.076\) & \(-0.011\) & \(-0.239\)\({}^{**}\) & \(-0.083\) & 0.027 \\ \hline
**Stress 3** & & 1 & \(-0.242\)\({}^{**}\) & 0.232 \({}^{**}\) & \(-0.323\)\({}^{**}\) & \(-0.328\)\({}^{**}\) & \(-0.389\)\({}^{**}\) & \(-0.181\)\({}^{**}\) \\ \hline
**Difficulty 1** & & & 1 & \(-0.198\)\({}^{**}\) & 0.158 \({}^{**}\) & 0.131 \({}^{**}\) & 0.167 \({}^{**}\) & 0.094 \({}^{*}\) \\ \hline
**Difficulty 2** & & & & 1 & \(-0.324\)\({}^{**}\) & \(-0.228\)\({}^{**}\) & \(-0.180\)\({}^{**}\) & \(-0.212\)\({}^{**}\) \\ \hline
**Difficulty 3** & & & & & 1 & 0.251 \({}^{**}\) & 0.231 \({}^{**}\) & 0.206 \({}^{**}\) \\ \hline
**Satisfaction 1** & & & & & & 1 & 0.494 \({}^{**}\) & 0.234 \({}^{**}\) \\ \hline
**Satisfaction 2** & & & & & & & 1 & 0.395 \({}^{**}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{*}\) Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level/\({}^{**}\) Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level.  
\end{table} 
Table 7: Correlations using Spearman’s correlation coefficient as a contrasting statistic. The first research objective was focused on comparing the academic performance in the three compulsory courses of the Secondary Education Master's in both the last on-site evaluation and the first remote one, while also factoring in certain attributes such as age, gender, and academic discipline. It is safe to say that performance improved significantly in the latter cohort, with an increase of more than 10% in average grades. Age, gender, or discipline did apparently affect this improvement in any way. Despite these variables being usually blamed for academic performance [59; 60; 61], they did not seem to change at all from one cohort to the next. These results could be due to the various circumstances which may have affected remote evaluation momentarily, and not because of the type of evaluation per se [41; 42; 49].