## 2 Materials and Methods
### Assessment Methods and Variables  
The data in this study was obtained using different sources. Exam results were obtained from the standard February exams of the three mandatory courses within the Master's program: _Education and Social and Family Environment_, _Learning and development of personality_, and _Educational Processes and Contexts_ for the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 editions, which enjoyed high reliability based on a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of \(\alpha=0.801\). Further information was collected using a simple questionnaire that included basic data and a consent form. Finally, student surveys included three self-assessment questions which were appended to the three exams of the 2020-2021 cohort, which used a single-response Likert scale.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Type of Assessment** & **Frequency** & **Percentage** & **Mean Age** & **Standard Deviation** \\
**Used** & & & & \\ \hline On-site (year & & & \\
2019–2020) & 402 & 43.7 & 34.74 & 7.83 \\ Online (year & & & \\
2020–2021) & 517 & 56.3 & 35.04 & 7.57 \\ \hline
**Academic Discipline** & **Frequency** & **Percentage** & **Mean Age** & **Standard Deviation** \\ \hline Biology and Geology & 184 & 20.0 & 33.01 & 7.24 \\ Economy & 178 & 19.4 & 36.08 & 7.54 \\ Technology & 265 & 28.8 & 37.98 & 7.14 \\ Physics and Chemistry & 69 & 7.5 & 32.90 & 6.49 \\ Geography and History & 77 & 8.4 & 32.70 & 7.91 \\ English & 51 & 5.5 & 31.96 & 8.06 \\ Spanish Language and & 29 & 3.2 & 28.97 & 5.63 \\ Literature & 66 & 7.2 & 34.26 & 7.59 \\ Mathematics & 66 & 7.2 & **Mean Age** & **Standard Deviation** \\ \hline
**Gender** & **Frequency** & **Percentage** & **Mean Age** & **Standard Deviation** \\ \hline Female & 521 & 56.7 & 34.44 & 7.50 \\ Male & 398 & 43.3 & 35.53 & 7.88 \\ \hline
**Sample Total** & **919** & **100.0** & **34.91** & **7.68** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Sample description.  
All assessment instruments were validated by an external committee that oversaw the scientific and ethical issues. Their role was key in approving and monitoring the experiment. In order to be able to be part of the sample, participants needed to provide informed consent in writing, in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration on the ethical principles of human experimentation [58].  
The variables used were attributes, academic performance, and self-assessment. The four attributes were: gender (with two options allowed: female and male), age (a discrete quantitative variable), cohort (two options, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, i.e., on-site vs remote), and academic discipline, based on the degree obtained prior to the Master's (with eight nominal possibilities: Biology and Geology, Economy, Technology, Physics and Chemistry, Geography and History, English, Spanish Language and Literature and Mathematics).  
The academic performance variables were three: grades on a 0-10 number scale obtained in the final exam for the three mandatory courses within the Master's program: _Education and Social and Family Environment, Learning and development of personality_, and _Educational Processes and Contexts_. The exams were structurally the same in both calls and the duration was similar. In the years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 the same contents were evaluated. The exams were carried out by the same teachers in both calls as well. Therefore, it is possible to affirm that the main differences in the results are due to the change in the evaluation format.  
Finally, self-assessment variables were nine items on a Likert scale. The first three were related to the perceived stress levels, the following three to the perceived difficulty of the exam, and the final three were aimed at understanding overall student satisfaction with the online grading experience. Table 2 details the three items described.