Review Article

Computer-based assessment research trends and future directions: A bibliometric analysis

Johan Syahbrudin 1 2 * , Edi Istiyono 3 , Moh. Khairudin 4 , Anita Anggraini 5 6 , Indah Urwatin Wusqo 1 7 , Metta Mariam 5 , Yenni Muflihan 1 8
More Detail
1 Graduate School of Educational Research and Evaluation, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Sleman, INDONESIA2 Department of Informatics Engineering, Universitas Pamulang, Banten, INDONESIA3 Department of Physics Education, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Sleman, INDONESIA4 Department of Electrical Engineering, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Sleman, INDONESIA5 Graduate School of Technology and Vocational Education, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, INDONESIA6 Department of Economic Education, Universitas Pamulang, Banten, INDONESIA7 Program of Science Education Study, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Semarang, INDONESIA8 Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Manajemen Indonesia Meulaboh, Aceh Barat, INDONESIA* Corresponding Author
Contemporary Educational Technology, 17(1), January 2025, ep554, https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/15743
Published Online: 23 December 2024, Published: 01 January 2025
OPEN ACCESS   161 Views   125 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

Computer-based assessment (CBA) is a top-rated tool for conducting assessments, mapping learning outcomes, and selecting new candidates. Research that examines the development and use of CBA is also increasing from year to year, so without bibliometric analysis, it would be quite challenging to keep up with all of these studies. This study aims to clarify the status and world trends in CBA research around the world. Bibliometric analysis was performed using bibliometrix based on 2,020 articles published in Scopus from 1982 to 2023 (data update time on 5 January 2024). This bibliometric analysis identified the state of research publications, scientific productivity, the network state of research publications, and CBA research priorities and directions going forward. Results show that research on CBA has grown rapidly, with the highest number of publications in 2022, with the USA being the most productive country. Greiff is the most prolific and Wise is the most impactful author. The journal with the highest impact is “Computers and Education”. These findings also indicate that research themes that show research potential due to their high relevance to CBA but are still little studied are those related to “regression analysis”, “automation”, “information technology”, “assessment”, “motivation”, “quality control”, “problem solving”, “online systems”, “decision making”, and “teaching”.
Keywords: bibliometric, bibliometrix, computer-based assessment, assessment

CITATION (APA)

Syahbrudin, J., Istiyono, E., Khairudin, M., Anggraini, A., Wusqo, I. U., Mariam, M., & Muflihan, Y. (2025). Computer-based assessment research trends and future directions: A bibliometric analysis. Contemporary Educational Technology, 17(1), ep554. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/15743

REFERENCES

  1. Adesina, A., Stone, R., Batmaz, F., & Jones, I. (2014). Touch arithmetic: A process-based computer-aided assessment approach for capture of problem solving steps in the context of elementary mathematics. Computers & Education, 78, 333–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.015
  2. Adhikari, K. P., Joshi, D. R., Khadka, J., & Khanal, B. (2024). Effect of preference and management of e-assessment system on its quality assurance process. Journal of Educators Online, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2024.21.3.9
  3. Aggarwal, R., & Ranganathan, P. (2017). Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: Linear regression analysis. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 8(2), 100–102. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.203040
  4. Alsadoon, H. (2017). Students’ perceptions of e-assessment at Saudi Electronic University. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 147–153.
  5. Andrews-Todd, J., Jiang, Y., Steinberg, J., Pugh, S. L., & D’Mello, S. K. (2023). Investigating collaborative problem solving skills and outcomes across computer-based tasks. Computers and Education, 207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104928
  6. Antón-Sancho, Á., Vergara, D., Lamas-Álvarez, V. E., & Fernández-Arias, P. (2021). Digital content creation tools: American University teachers’ perception. Applied Sciences, 11(24), Article 11649. https://doi.org/10.3390/app112411649
  7. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
  8. Asamoah, M. K., Nketiah-Amponsah, E., Allassani, W., & Aziale, L. K. (2017). Examining students’ experience with the use of some selected ICT devices and applications for learning and their effect on academic performance. Journal of Computers in Education, 4, 441–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-017-0089-2
  9. Baharun, H., Hefniy, Fauzi, A., Faridy, & Fatmasari, R. (2019). National assessment management based on information and communication technology and its effect on emotional intelligence learners. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1175, Article 012225. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1175/1/012225
  10. Bello, H., & Abdullah, N. A. (2021). Investigating the influence of quality factors on user satisfaction with summative computer-based assessment. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 19(6), 490–503. https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.19.6.2487
  11. Bihari, A., Tripathi, S., & Deepak, A. (2023). A review on h-index and its alternative indices. Journal of Information Science, 49(3), 624–665. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515211014478
  12. Boyko, M., Turko, O., Dluhopolskyi, O., & Henseruk, H. (2021). The quality of training future teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A case from TNPU. Education Sciences, 11, Article 660. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110660
  13. Brooks, C. M., Dismukes, W. E., Williams, G. R., & Brown, S. (1982). A computer-based test item-bank for cognitive assessment of medical students during a clinical medicine clerkship. Medical Education, 16, 12–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1982.tb01212.x
  14. Bulut, O., Cutumisu, M., Aquilina, A. M., & Singh, D. (2019). Effects of digital score reporting and feedback on students’ learning in higher education. Frontiers in Education, 4, Article 65. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00065
  15. Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., & Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemistry. Scientometrics, 22(1), 155–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019280
  16. Chen, X., Chen, J., Wu, D., Xie, Y., & Li, J. (2016). Mapping the research trends by co-word analysis based on keywords from funded project. Procedia Computer Science, 91, 547–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2016.07.140
  17. Christensen, R. (2020). Plane answers to complex questions: The theory of linear models (5th ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32097-3_6
  18. Cohen, J. (1968). Multiple regression as a general data-analytic system. Psychological Bulletin, 70(6), 426–443. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026714
  19. Colonna, L. (2024). Teachers in the loop? An analysis of automatic assessment systems under Article 22 GDPR. International Data Privacy Law, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipad024
  20. Cuaton, G. P. (2020). Philippines higher education institutions in the time of COVID-19 pandemic. Revista Românească Pentru Educaţie Multidimensională, 12(1Sup2), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/12.1sup2/247
  21. Desai, N., Veras, L., & Gosain, A. (2018). Using Bradford’s law of scattering to identify the core journals of pediatric surgery. Journal of Surgical Research, 229, 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2018.03.062
  22. Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047239520934018
  23. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
  24. Efendi, R., Lesmana, L. S., Putra, F., Yandani, E., & Wulandari, R. A. (2021). Design and implementation of computer based test (CBT) in vocational education. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1764, Article 012068. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1764/1/012068
  25. Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics, 105(3), 1809–1831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z
  26. Farooq, F., Rathore, F. A., & Mansoor, S. N. (2020). Challenges of online medical education in Pakistan during COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan, 30(6), 67–69. https://doi.org/10.29271/jcpsp.2020.Supp1.S67
  27. Fassin, Y. (2023). The ha-index: The average citation h-index. Quantitative Science Studies, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00259
  28. Gernsbacher, M. A. (2015). Why internet-based education? Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 1530. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01530
  29. Goosen, R., & Steenkamp, G. (2023). Activating accounting students’ decision-making skills through a reflective self-assessment workshop on learning styles. The International Journal of Management Education, 21, Article 100858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100858
  30. Greiff, S., Niepel, C., Scherer, R., & Martin, R. (2016). Understanding students’ performance in a computer-based assessment of complex problem solving: An analysis of behavioral data from computer-generated log files. Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.095
  31. Greiff, S., Wüstenberg, S., & Avvisati, F. (2015). Computer-generated log-file analyses as a window into students’ minds? A showcase study based on the PISA 2012 assessment of problem solving. Computers & Education, 91, 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.10.018
  32. Gulikers, J., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2009). Developer, teacher, student and employer evaluations of competence-based assessment quality. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 35(2–3), 110–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2009.05.002
  33. Habib, R., & Afzal, M. T. (2019). Sections-based bibliographic coupling for research paper recommendation. Scientometrics, 119(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03053-8
  34. Hasselbring, T. S. (1984). Computer-based assessment of special-needs students. Special Services in the Schools, 1(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1300/J008v01n01_03
  35. Hirsch, J. E., & Buela-Casal, G. (2014). The meaning of the h-index. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1697-2600(14)70050-X
  36. Huan, C., & Meng, C. C. (2021). Profiling the research landscape on electronic feedback in educational context from 1991 to 2021: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Computers in Education, 8, 551–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-021-00192-x
  37. Huang, P.-Y., Lin, W.-C., Chiu, B. Y.-C., Chang, H.-H., & Lin, K.-P. (2013). Regression analysis of radial artery pulse palpation as a potential tool for traditional Chinese medicine training education. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 21, 649–659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2013.08.011
  38. Huerta, M., Caballero-Hernández, J. A., & Fernández-Ruiz, M. A. (2022). Comparative study of Moodle plugins to facilitate the adoption of computer-based assessments. Applied Sciences, 12, Article 8996. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12188996
  39. Hunsu, N. J. (2015). Issues in transitioning from the traditional blue-book to computer-based writing assessment. Computers and Composition, 35, 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2015.01.006
  40. Ilgaz, H., & Adanır, G. A. (2020). Providing online exams for online learners: Does it really matter for them? Education and Information Technologies, 25, 1255–1269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10020-6
  41. Jawaid, M., Moosa, F. A., Jaleel, F., & Ashraf, J. (2014). Computer based assessment (CBA): Perception of residents at Dow University of Health Sciences. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 30(4), 688–691. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.304.5444
  42. Jiang, J., Wu, B., Chang, L., Liu, K., & Hao, T. (2020). The design and application of an web-based online examination system. In: E. Popescu, T. Hao, T. C. Hsu, H. Xie, M. Temperini, & W. Chen (Eds.), Emerging technologies for education. SETE 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (), vol 11984 (pp. 246–256). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38778-5_27
  43. Kuklick, L., & Lindner, M. A. (2023). Affective-motivational effects of performance feedback in computer-based assessment: Does error message complexity matter? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 73, Article 102146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2022.102146
  44. Kuklick, L., Greiff, S., & Lindner, M. A. (2023). Computer-based performance feedback: Effects of error message complexity on cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational outcomes. Computers & Education, 200, Article 104785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104785
  45. Kundu, A., & Bej, T. (2021). Experiencing e-assessment during COVID-19: An analysis of Indian students’ perception. Higher Education Evaluation and Development, 15(2), 114–134. https://doi.org/10.1108/HEED-03-2021-0032
  46. Kushairi, N., & Ahmi, A. (2021). Flipped classroom in the second decade of the Millenia: A bibliometrics analysis with Lotka’s law. Education and Information Technologies, 26(4), 4401–4431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10457-8
  47. Langenfeld, T. (2020). Internet-based proctored assessment: Security and fairness issues. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 39(3), 24–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12359
  48. López-Zambrano, J., Lara, J. A., & Romero, C. (2020). Towards portability of models for predicting students’ final performance in university courses starting from Moodle logs. Applied Sciences, 10(1), Article 354. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10010354
  49. Luecht, R. M. (2005). Computer-based testing. In Encyclopedia of social measurement (pp. 419–427). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-369398-5/00443-6
  50. Ma, T., Yuan, H., Yang, X., Li, Y., Yao, J., & Mu, D. (2023). Design of online formative assessment of nursing humanities curriculum during the COVID-19 pandemic: A teaching practice research. Nurse Education Today, 128, Article 105874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105874
  51. Maryati, I., Sumartini, T. S., & Sofyan, D. (2021). Experiences of Pearson formula in analysis regression. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 1098, Article 032088. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/1098/3/032088
  52. McLaughlin, T., & Yan, Z. (2017). Diverse delivery methods and strong psychological benefits: A review of online formative assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(6), 562–574. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12200
  53. Mellar, H., Peytcheva-Forsyth, R., Kocdar, S., Karadeniz, A., & Yovkova, B. (2018). Addressing cheating in e-assessment using student authentication and authorship checking systems: Teachers’ perspectives. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-018-0025-x
  54. Nadeem, M., Nasir, S., Moazzam, K. A., & Kashif, R. (2018). The impact of information and communication technology in education: Opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Educational and Pedagogical Sciences, 12(12), 1591–1596. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2022121
  55. Nangawe, A. G. (2015). Adoption of web-based assessment in higher learning institutions (HLIs). Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 7(1), 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-03-2014-0036
  56. Navaneedhan, C. G., & Kamalanabhan, T. J. (2015). Efficacy of innovative technological approach ensuring quality assurance in teaching learning process in open and distance learning. Open Access Library Journal, 2, Article e2166. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1102166
  57. Nguyen, Q., Rienties, B., Toetenel, L., Ferguson, R., & Whitelock, D. (2017). Examining the designs of computer-based assessment and its impact on student engagement, satisfaction, and pass rates. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 703–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.028
  58. Nikou, S. A., & Economides, A. A. (2016). The impact of paper-based, computer-based and mobile-based self-assessment on students’ science motivation and achievement. Computers in Human Behavior, 55(B), 1241–1248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.025
  59. Nurrijal, Setyosari, P., Kuswandi, D., & Ulfa, S. (2023). Creative problem solving process instructional design in the context of blended learning in higher education. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.21.2.2653
  60. Palmer, N. (2020). Automating the assessment of networking and security in higher education. Annals of Emerging Technologies in Computing, 4(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.33166/AETiC.2020.02.001
  61. Pei, L., & Wu, H. (2019). Does online learning work better than offline learning in undergraduate medical education? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical Education Online, 24(1), Article 1666538. https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2019.1666538
  62. Phan Tan, L. (2022). Bibliometrics of social entrepreneurship research: Cocitation and bibliographic coupling analyses. Cogent Business and Management, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2124594
  63. Poirrier, M., Moreno, S., & Huerta-Cánepa, G. (2021). Robust h-index. Scientometrics, 126(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03857-z
  64. Qazi, A., Naseer, K., Qazi, J., AlSalman, H., Naseem, U., Yang, S., Hardaker, G., & Gumaei, A. (2020). Conventional to online education during COVID-19 pandemic: Do develop and underdeveloped nations cope alike. Children and Youth Services Review, 119, Article 105582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105582
  65. Savulescu, C., Polkowski, Z., & Alexandru, A. I. (2015). The online and computer aided assessment. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Electronics, Computers and Artificial Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1109/ECAI.2015.7301226
  66. Schmidt, F. L. (1971). The relative efficiency of regression and simple unit predictor weights in applied differential psychology. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31(3), 699–714. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447103100310
  67. Schoen-Phelan, B., & Keegan, B. (2016). Case study on performance and acceptance of computer-aided assessment. International Journal for E-Learning Security, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.20533/ijels.2046.4568.2016.0061
  68. Shakeel, A., Shazli, A., Salman, ohd S., Naqvi, asan R., Ahmad, N., & Ali, N. (2021). Challenges of unrestricted assignment-based examinations (ABE) and restricted open-book examinations (OBE) during COVID-19 pandemic in India: An experimental comparison. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3, 1050–1066. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.290
  69. Sokku, S. R., & Anwar, M. (2019). Factors affecting the integration of ICT in education. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1244, Article 012043. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1244/1/012043
  70. Sudakova, N. E., Savina, T. N., Masalimova, A. R., Mikhaylovsky, M. N., Karandeeva, L. G., & Zhdanov, S. P. (2022). Online formative assessment in higher education: Bibliometric analysis. Education Sciences, 12(3), Article 209. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030209
  71. Tang, K. Y. (2021). Paradigm shifts in e-book-supported learning: Evidence from the Web of Science using a co-citation network analysis with an education focus (2010-2019). Computers and Education, 175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104323
  72. Tang, K. Y., Li, M. C., Hsin, C. T., & Tsai, C. C. (2016). A co-citation network of young children’s learning with technology. Educational Technology and Society, 19(3).
  73. Tang, K. Y., Tseng, Y. H., & Tu, Y. F. (2023). Identifying mainstreams of contemporary digital reading research: Insights from a co-citation network analysis and systematic review. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(7), 3913–3930. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2023.2192757
  74. Thwe, W. P., & Kálmán, A. (2023). The regression models for lifelong learning competencies for teacher trainers. Heliyon, 9(2), Article e13749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13749
  75. Tomasik, M. J., Berger, S., & Moser, U. (2018). On the development of a computer-based tool for formative student assessment: Epistemological, methodological, and practical issues. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2245. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02245
  76. Topuz, A. C., Saka, E., Fatsa, Ö. F., & Kurşun, E. (2022). Emerging trends of online assessment systems in the emergency remote teaching period. Smart Learning Environments, 9(17). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00199-6
  77. Tran, C. Y., & Aytac, S. (2021). Scientific productivity, Lotka’s law, and STEM librarianship. Science & Technology Libraries, 40(3), 316–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2021.1907268
  78. Vásquez, A., Nussbaum, M., Sciarresi, E., Martínez, T., Barahona, C., & Strasser, K. (2016). The impact of the technology used in formative assessment: The case of spelling. Journal of Educational Computing, 54(8). https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633116650971
  79. Venable, G. T., Shepherd, B. A., Roberts, M. L., Taylor, D. R., Khan, N. R., & Jr., P. K. (2014). An application of Bradford’s law: Identification of the core journals of pediatric neurosurgery and a regional comparison of citation density. Child’s Nervous System, 30(10), 1717–1727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-014-2481-9
  80. Villegas-Ch, W., Palacios-Pacheco, X., Roman-Cañizares, M., & Luján-Mora, S. (2021). Analysis of educational data in the current state of university learning for the transition to a hybrid education model. Applied Sciences, 11, Article 2068. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11052068
  81. Viloria, R. P. (2016). Incorporating computer-assisted assessment to Bachelor of Science in industrial technology courses. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, 7(2), 27–33. https://doi.org/10.4314/iijikm.v7i2.3
  82. Wampold, B. E., & Freund, R. D. (1987). Use of multiple regression in counseling psychology research: A flexible data-analytic strategy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(4), 372–382. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.34.4.372
  83. Wang, C., Lv, T., Cai, R., Xu, J., & Wang, L. (2022). Bibliometric analysis of multi-level perspective on sustainability transition research. Sustainability, 14, Article 4145. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074145
  84. Wang, Z., Cao, Y., & Gong, S. (2023). Who can benefit more from more or less elaborated feedback in a computer-based assessment? Dominant goal orientation matters. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 61(3), 671–695. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221132079
  85. Wang, Z., Gong, S.-Y., Xu, S., & Hu, X.-E. (2019). Elaborated feedback and learning: Examining cognitive and motivational influences. Computers & Education, 135, 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.003
  86. Wise, S. L., & Kong, X. (2005). Response time effort: A new measure of examinee motivation in computer-based tests. Applied Measurement in Education, 18(2), 163–183. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame1802_2
  87. Xie, X., Siau, K., & Nah, F. F. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic: Online education in the new normal and the next normal. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 22(3), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2020.1824884
  88. Zamahsari, G. K., Putikadyanto, A. P. A., & Maulana, F. I. (2020). The contribution of assessment platform technology to promote teacher’s work in schools. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Interactive Digital Media. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIDM51048.2020.9339634
  89. Zammarchi, G., & Conversano, C. (2021). Application of eye tracking technology in medicine: A bibliometric analysis. Vision, 5(4), Article 56. https://doi.org/10.3390/vision5040056
  90. Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education–Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0171-0
  91. Zinilli, A., Pierucci, E., & Reale, E. (2024). Organizational factors affecting higher education collaboration networks: Evidence from Europe. Higher Education, 88(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-023-01109-6