TELECOMMUNICATION AND NETWORK ENGINEERING EDUCATION
SecRet: How to Apply the 5E Model for a
Master’s Level Network Security Course
Engagement, exploration,
explication, elaboration,
and evaluation are the
five stages of learning
of the 5E’s Instructional
Model. The authors show
that the 5E’s main con-
cepts can be successfully
applied to a Master’s level
course in network security
to provide a student-cen-
tered learning approach.
Digital Object Identifier:
10.1109/MCOM.001.1900228
54
OLIMID_LAYOUT.indd 54
Ruxandra F. Olimid
Abstract
Engagement, exploration, explication, elab-
oration, and evaluation are the five stages of
learning of the 5E’s Instructional Model. We
show that the 5E’s main concepts can be suc-
cessfully applied to a Master’s level course in
network security to provide a student-centered
learning approach. We present the various tech-
niques that we have used during the course,
with a focus on active learning enhanced
by technology usage. We provide examples,
insights, and recommendations that are intend-
ed to help other educators. Our findings are
general and can be applied in other contexts
as well.
Introduction
The introduction of a standalone network security
course in the curricula for engineering and com-
puter science education is a subject of debate.
Network security aspects are usually part of other
courses, and still, not many Master’s programs
have a dedicated network security course.
This article presents a way to implement the
main objectives and thus benefit from the advan-
tages of applying the 5E Instructional Model [1] in
the context of a Master’s level course in network
security. The applicability to our context is strictly
in terms of the goals and objectives of each of
the 5E’s phases: engage, explore, explain, elabo-
rate, and evaluate. This is because the model is
usually time-consuming and not appropriate for a
Master’s course for which the technical informa-
tion is abundant. In this article, we present and
discuss our findings. We consider our work to be
an example of how various active learning tech-
niques can be successfully applied in general, in
the design and conduction of similar courses. In
addition to well-known active learning techniques,
we emphasize novel aspects (e.g., students creat-
ing and leading laboratory activities). We exem-
plify various techniques and show how we have
enhanced the learning process by making use of
technology. We give examples and recommenda-
tions that hopefully will be helpful for other edu-
cators.
The article is organized as follows. The next
section introduces our course. We describe the
5E Instructional Model. We explain the methods
that we have used to apply the 5Es to our course.
We give some insights and discuss our findings.
Finally, we conclude.
The author is with the University of Bucharest.
0163-6804/19/$25.00 © 2019 IEEE
Course Overview
The Network Security course is a first-year
Master’s course given at the University of
Bucharest. This article refers to the spring
2019 course given by the author, who is also
the proposer of the course as part of the cur-
riculum. We call the course SecRet, which
comes from Securitatea Retelelor, the name
of the Network Security course in Romanian.
Thirty-one students participated actively in the
lectures, laboratories, and projects. Because
the passing criteria do not require 100 percent
presence, not all students took part in all activ-
ities. For course completion, students have to
pass a final written exam and obtain an overall
score of at least 50 percent (50 out of 100
points). Table 1 shows the complete grading
scheme. The number of credits allocated for
the course is six (ECTS).
The course is organized in a two-hour lecture
per week and two-hour laboratory every two
weeks with a total duration of 14 weeks. We
reserved the first half of the semester for lectures
and lecture activities, with laboratory assignments
proposed by the course staff. We dedicated the
second part of the semester for students’ projects.
We refer to these activities in more detail later.
As prerequisites, students need a background
in networking and cryptography. The Master’s
curriculum includes the Advanced Cryptography
course in fall, but no mandatory course on net-
working, so students are expected to come with
the proper background from the bachelor pro-
gram.
The 5E Instructional Model
For the course, we adopted a student-centered
method of instruction, with a predominant con-
structionism learning perspective based on active
learning [2–5]. We started from the 5E Instruction-
al Model, first introduced by Bybee and Landes
back in the 1990s [1], and later applied to other
engineering fields as well [6,7]. The model was
first described in the context of a Biological Sci-
ences Curriculum Study, so some differences will
be noticed within instructional modalities when
applying it to a network security course. More-
over, because of time limitations and applicability
for our purposes, we did not follow the model
as such but considered the five phases of the
model for our needs. The 5E Instructional Model is
described as follows [1, 6]:
IEEE Communications Magazine • November 2019
11/6/19 2:42 PM
 Engagement: The instructor seeks to know the Score We present the various
students, understand the level of their knowledge, Activity Type
(max. 100)
and identify strong and weak aspects in their edu- instructional methods
cational background. This phase also deals with 15 Laboratory Individual we have used for
the motivational aspects, aiming to engage stu-
15 Laboratory project Group work SecRet. Our methods
dents and make them like to learn.
Exploration: The students explore new con- 20 Course project Group work follow the 5E Instruc-
cepts by reading, experimentation, or discussions. tional Model in terms
The concepts have not been lectured or direct- 50 Written exam Individual
ly explained before. Using this approach, the of goals and main con-
Lecture activity
students actively increase their knowledge. The +10
(bonus)
Individual/group work
cepts (engage, explain,
instructor answers questions or gives directions
but does not directly transmit knowledge to the Most voted course explore, elaborate, and
+5 (Students’ proposal)
students in a traditional way. project (bonus) evaluate), but for the
Explanation: The instructor introduces the for- Table 1. Grading. overall syllabus, and not
mal definitions of concepts. This phase focuses
on particular aspects and usually comes as a con- a single unit of learning.
sequence of the exploration phase, where stu- Therefore, there are
dents should use the knowledge gained during
the exploration phase. Students are invited to ask differences in relation
questions and clarify their concepts. to the traditional 5E
Elaboration: Students develop a deeper and Instructional Model.
broader understanding by practicing what they
have already learned. They are supposed to per-
form new experiments, create presentations, or
explain concepts to their fellow students.
Evaluation: Students are evaluated by formal
or informal methods, such as exams, quizzes,
writing assignments, projects, and portfolios. This
phase allows the instructor to be aware of the stu-
dents’ progress and take corresponding actions.

APPlIed Methods
We present the various instructional methods we
have used for SecRet. Our methods follow the 5E
Instructional Model in terms of goals and main
concepts (engage, explain, explore, elaborate,
and evaluate), but for the overall syllabus, not a
single unit of learning. Therefore, there are differ-
ences in relation to the traditional 5E Instructional
Model. This mainly comes from a lack of time to
cover all the topics of the course, because the 5E
Instructional Model might require several days
for a single topic. This makes it more suitable for
school learning, where the number of allocated
hours is higher, and the quantity of information is
lower than in the higher education system. Never-
theless, we show that the main concepts can be
successfully applied to higher education programs
as well and nicely adapted to students, who are
expected to be more independent learners. Fig-
ure 1 gives an overview of how we have applied
the 5E model to our SecRet course.
surveys And feedbAck
In the first lecture, we conducted a survey to dis-
cover the students’ backgrounds. We then based
our teaching process on their previous knowl-
edge. This is not an easy task, especially if they
have disparate backgrounds and knowledge lev-
els, but it makes the course more comprehensible
for the majority. As a consequence, the students
are generally pleased to attend the lectures.
Feedback is essential. Thus, we consider a good
practice to collect feedback whenever possible
during the course. In our case, we collected spe-
cific feedback at the end of the interactive labora-
tories and general feedback using an anonymous
online form. For both the survey in the first lecture
and the feedback we have used Google Forms.
Figure 1. The 5E Model applied to the SecRet
course.
The surveys and feedback questionnaires were
conducted with the main goal of increasing the
engagement of the students in the course.
lectures
The course maintained the traditional tech-
niques of lecturing, but we enhanced the teach-
ing process through modern technologies.
Examples include video and audio support with
real-life examples. Usage of slides and projector
was the usual method to explain and discuss
the topics.
We used lecturing as the main technique
to explain new concepts and protocols. These
include the mandatory topics, such as general
principles and security aspects, widely used stan-
dards and protocols for wired and wireless net-
works (e.g., WEP/WPA/WPA2, 2G/3G/4G), and
attacks and vulnerabilities.
The lectures included inquiry-based teaching
methods: asking questions, reviewing what is
already known, and reasoning about comparisons
and predictions [6]. Moreover, we have tried to
repeat important concepts and make analogies to
previously studied notions to make students learn
by repetition.
lecture ActIvItIes
During the lecture hours, we sometimes paused
teaching and involved students in different
activities on the given topic. To preserve the

IEEE Communications Magazine • November 2019 55

OLIMID_LAYOUT.indd 55 11/6/19 2:42 PM

 Name Description
Students participated in quizzes (created in Kahoot or Quizizz). Examples
Quizzes
include quizzes to test general knowledge, knowledge about standards and
protocols related to IEEE802.11i, and mobile networks. They are valuable to
test students’ knowledge, attention, and understanding.
Students argue about the security of a given protocol. Examples include
Security evaluation
the analysis of WEP and EAP-MD5. They are valuable to test the capacity of
of protocols
reasoning.
Students fill in missing words in sentences or phrases. They are valuable to test
Fill in forms
students’ capacity of memorizing or comparison of similar notions.
Students evaluate if the given statements are true or false. They are valuable to
True/false
test the students’ level of knowledge or reasoning about different facts.
Students fill in crosswords. Examples include complete naming of acronyms in
Crosswords
WiFi or mobile networks. They are valuable to fix acronyms.
Table 2. Lecture activities.
students’ attention and enthusiasm, we changed
the type of activities over time. For example,
after talking about WiFi standards, we conduct-
ed a short Kahoot quiz to fix the notions, and
after finishing the lectures dedicated to WiFi,
we asked the students to fill in a cross-word
puzzle. Table 2 describes the main types of
activities that we used during our course. Some
of them make use of mobile technologies. This
is the case of Kahoot and Quizizz applications
used to evaluate the students’ knowledge and
understanding. These, along with the crossword
games, aimed to increase the engagement of
students. More advanced activities, such as
exercises related to the security evaluation of
protocols, required students to work in small
groups (of two or three students) and elaborate
on specific topics. All lecture activities helped
to operate a continuous evaluation during the
semester.
For every activity, we rewarded the three top
students with 3, 2, and 1 activity point(s), respec-
tively. At the end of the course, we granted a
bonus of 10 points to the final grade to the top
three students. This proved to highly motivate
students and engage them actively in the lecture
activities.
We used the lecture activities as a method
of learning by repetition because the questions
were always related to the notions discussed
during the lectures. This is also the method we
have used to bring learn by gaming to class,
because most of the times the activities were
interactive and funny.
Laboratory
The hands-on activities performed during the
laboratory hours helped students explore and
gather practical skills. To solve the tasks, the
students used technology in terms of simula-
tors, virtual machines, and online tools. Exam-
ples include VirtualBox, Wireshark, OpenSSL,
and programming languages. To exemplify,
one of the laboratory assignments asked the
students to analyze and understand the struc-
ture of a digital certificate, reason about the
cryptographic primitives, use Putty to generate
a pair of OpenSSH keys, and experiment with
certificates in OpenSSL. The laboratory assign-
ment was created in Google Forms to allow
56
OLIMID_LAYOUT.indd 56
step-by-step interaction. The students were
asked to show their progress to the course staff,
and they had the possibility to provide direct
feedback via the laboratory platform at the end
of their work.
While performing practical tasks, students
experienced through learning by doing.
Course and Laboratory Projects
During the semester, the students had to deliver
a course and a laboratory project. Both are exam-
ples of collaborative work, and students were
asked to work in teams of two or three mem-
bers. We allowed the students to make their own
teams, but we requested that all group members
must be involved in presenting the course project
in leading the laboratory assignment.
For the course projects, the students presented
a new topic in a 30-minute time slot during the
lecture. The course project deliverables consist
of materials (e.g., slides, written report) so that
the notions can be comprehensible by absent
students as well. This is because the course proj-
ects become part of the syllabus and material for
the final exam. At students’ proposal, a bonus of
5 (out of 100) points was awarded for the most
voted project. This motivated the students even
more to deliver high-quality work.
For the laboratory, the students created and
led a laboratory for their fellow students. While
project work is a known approach covered
by inquiry-based learning [8], leading the lab-
oratory also engages the students in teaching
activities (e.g., prepare the prerequisites for the
laboratory assignment, give hints and respond
to questions). Hence, we consider this to be an
innovative approach in active learning. The stu-
dents were allowed to use whatever tool they
found useful, under the restriction that the tool
had to be either freely available for educational
purposes or available within the university labo-
ratories. The deliverables consist of a laboratory
assignment, with required steps to complete
the tasks. The fellow students participating in
the laboratory had to follow the steps and solve
the proposed tasks. The material covered by
the laboratory projects was not part of the final
written exam.
Projects help students explore new topics,
papers, and research results, evaluate their con-
tribution to the topic, elaborate, and explain their
findings to the other students.
Students conducted project-based learning.
While presenting the projects or leading the lab-
oratory, students learned by teaching. While pre-
paring the laboratory tasks or participating in the
other proposed laboratories, students performed
hands-on activities, so they were learning by
doing.
For all the above-mentioned activities, we have
used a wide variety of techniques, such as:
• Alternating individual (e.g., some lecture
activities, all laboratory activities) and collab-
orative learning (e.g., some lecture activities,
the course and laboratory projects)
• Guided learning (e.g., lecturing) and indepen-
dent learning (e.g., projects)
• Active learning techniques (e.g., learn by
gaming, learn by teaching, learn by doing,
learn by inquiring)
IEEE Communications Magazine • November 2019
11/6/19 2:42 PM
 Discussion
In the following, we present our findings and give
some recommendations for educational practices
based on our observations.
We are aware that helping students enjoy the
course and activities is very important. Thus, we
endeavored to make the learning process fun and
engaging. One particular example is the acronym
of the course itself: SecRet. This artifice adopted
from the beginning was nicely received by stu-
dents. A recommendation is to collect information
about the students’ background in the first lecture
[9]. To accomplish this, we used an anonymous
questionnaire built in Google Forms, a simple
solution that is freely available to all educators.
Twenty-nine students responded to the survey, of
whom two had never studied networking before.
Twenty-three students were employed full-time,
three students were employed part-time, and one
student worked occasionally.
We found continuous evaluation in combi-
nation with a reward (bonus points for the top
three students) to be a good strategy for several
reasons: it increases the number of students that
attend the lectures, it keeps them more atten-
tive and active, and it helps to fix new concepts
and principles in memory. The fact that continu-
ous evaluation improves performance is already
known from the existing literature [10].
For the projects, students were allowed to
choose their own group. There was no restric-
tion regarding the composition of the groups
other than the number of students. We asked
for a maximum of three students in a group,
because it is believed that group learning gives
best results in small groups of two to five stu-
dents [9, 11, 12]. Table 3 shows the groups’
structure and the topics chosen for the projects.
Not surprisingly, everybody decided to keep the
same group for the course and laboratory proj-
ects. This means that they preferred stability and
continuity within the team. Moreover, many of
the groups decided to maintain the same topic
for the course and laboratory assignments. If so,
they presented the theoretical concepts at the
course and brought experimentation at the lab-
oratory. This is marked by a single project title
in Table 3.
We consider it a good idea to allow students
to select their topics for several reasons. First,
the syllabus of the course changes from year to
year, which brings novelty and keeps it updated.
Second, students choose topics in which they are
interested, so they find it more enjoyable and are
more engaged in their work. We found it helpful
to ask students to send the course project topic in
time and request approval to proceed with it. The
main reason for this is to prevent duplicate top-
ics. A second reason is to prevent students from
selecting topics that are insignificant or unrelated
to the course. On the contrary, for the laboratory
project, we have assumed the risk of lower- qual-
ity content as a trade-off with increasing students’
independence and responsibility concerning their
work. We did not ask for any deliverable and only
provided feedback before the presentation on
students’ requests. We consider this to be feasible
when working with graduate students who are
more mature and experienced.
IEEE Communications Magazine • November 2019
OLIMID_LAYOUT.indd 57
Group Id No. of students Title of the course/laboratory project
1 3 Tor
2 3 Cloud security
3 3 Digital certificates
4 3 Attacks against 4G and 5G networks
5 2 FTP and FTPS/Network Analyzer with NMAP and Python
6 2 IPSec
7 3 Security management/Best Practices to Secure a Network
8 3 Quick UDP Internet Connections (QUIC)/CTF Wireshark
9 2 SSH/CTP Apache
10 2 PPoE
11 2 DHCP/Web Security
12 3 TLS/Docker
Table 3. Projects groups and topics.
We scheduled all projects in the second half
of the semester to give students enough time to
prepare. This left us the first half of the semes-
ter to lecture the mandatory topics. Hence, look-
ing at the overall course, conducting the explain
phase before the explore phase might be seen
as a change from the traditional 5E Instructional
Model [1]. Nevertheless, this is not entirely true
because many of the project topics were new,
and a short explain phase was conducted after
each project presentation in the form of questions
and clarifications.
Overall, learning by teaching proved to be
successful for the presenting groups, but also
for the audience. In particular, the laboratory
exercises proposed by the students were well
received by their fellow students. Students
enjoyed leading the laboratory, and they helped
others whenever they were stuck on a particu-
lar task. One specific example is a laboratory
built by the students in the form of a Capture
the Flag exercise. The knowledge required to
complete the tasks and find the flag included
Wireshark configuration to decrypt SSL traffic
after recovering a password by Google Chrome
SSL key logging and using real-time capture of
Wi-Fi traffic.
Group-based learning has its disadvantages,
and it might be difficult for students to handle
(e.g., workload distribution, management prob-
lems, interpersonal relations) [9, 12]. We have
also experienced a problem with one of the
groups: a student tried to ignore the other two
members and work individually on the laboratory
assignment.
Throughout the semester, the students
learned about ethical aspects through demon-
stration. For example, many of the lecture
activities were conceived so that the students
compute the score by themselves. More pre-
cisely, students wrote down their answers
(individually or in a group). Then we discussed
and pointed out the correct and incorrect
answers and reasoning. Based on the discus-
sions and explanations, the students computed
their score. Nevertheless, we cannot generally
assume correct behavior in the student popula-
57
11/6/19 2:42 PM
 The course was well-re- Main targeted Not Very I don’t know/
Activity Little Medium Much
goals at all much I don’t answer
ceived by students.
They were engaged Lectures G1 — — 9% 36% 55% —

and motivated to learn Lecture activities G2 — 27% — 27% 46% —

throughout the semes- Laboratory G3
ter, and not just before Course project G1, G2
the final exam. This Laboratory project G3
leads to better overall
Course projects of other students G1
performance. We also
Laboratory projects of other students G3
found that the students
Table 4. Students’ perception on how helpful each activity was in the learning process.
are more inclined to
find more valuable the tion because of a variety of factors [13], so we
traditional means of often collected a copy of the students’ answers
before the discussions.
teaching: lecturing and We found that feedback is not simple to col-
laboratory scheduled lect, even though we had facilitated anonymous
hours. and easily filled in questionnaires. We received
most of the feedback during the scheduled
hours. Alternatively, we also obtained valuable
feedback when we asked the students via email
to fill in the form. We asked the students to
express their opinion about the course in gener-
al, and how useful they found each of the activ-
ities in the course. Table 4 lists the results. The
students considered the lectures to be the most
helpful for their learning process. We obtained
similar but lower results for the utility of the
laboratory. The opposition of students toward
change to active learning is perceived as nor-
mal: students can perceive that they learn less,
but actually research shows the opposite [11,
12]. The students considered the course and lab-
oratory projects equally helpful. With respect
to the lecture activities, some students consid-
ered them to be a waste of time. They suggested
maintaining the bonus, but they preferred to be
awarded by simple questions that the lecturer
addresses to the students. We see this as a direct
consequence of the students’ opinion on the
importance of lecturing: the lecture activities
are time-consuming, and the students prefer to
use the allocated time for lecturing, which they
believe maximizes the learning process. To over-
come this while preserving the benefits of active
learning, we have conducted quickly completed
activities (e.g., fill-in forms, true/false questions).
We have used different lecture activities to
maximize the learning goals: (G1) learn about
security protocols and standards in wired and
wireless communication, (G2) analyze and rea-
son about security techniques and protocols, and
(G3) develop practical abilities and skills. Table 4
indicates the main goals targeted by each activity
type. The evaluation of reaching specific objec-
tives that derive from these goals has been done
both during the semester (course and laboratory
projects, laboratory work, and lecture activities)
and at the final exam. We note that the final exam
did not evaluate any objectives related to (G3),
but mostly (G2) and to some extent (G1).
Throughout the course, we tried to maximize
the opportunities to enhance learning using tech-
nology, which is recommended due to strong
pedagogical reasons [9]. Examples in this respect
include:
— — 18% 46% 36% —
— — 36% 36% 28% —
— — 36% 36% 28% —
— 9% 46% 36% — 9%
— 9% 27% 46% 9% 9%
• The educational platform Moodle used to
communicate with the students, deliver
materials, news, and assignments, and post
grades
• Interactive online quizzes for which students
use their mobile phones to respond
• Software tools for the laboratory activities
(e.g., virtual machines, programming lan-
guages, PacketTracer, OpenSSL, Wireshark,
Nmap, Tor, FTP servers)
• Cloud storage used by students to publish
their projects (e.g., Google Drive, Gitlab)
• Other online resources (e.g., videos, presen-
tations, papers)
Conclusions
We have described how to implement a stu-
dent-centered learning environment based on
active learning for a network security course at
the Master’s level. Our pedagogical method was
focused on the 5Es: engagement, exploration,
explication, elaboration, and evaluation. During
the course, we have successfully used known
techniques such as learn by gaming, learn by
repetition, learn by doing, learn by projects, and
learn by teaching. Whenever possible, we have
enhanced the learning environment using tech-
nology.
The course was well received by students.
They were engaged and motivated to learn
throughout the semester, not just before the
final exam. This leads to better overall perfor-
mance. We also found that the students are
more inclined to find the traditional means of
teaching more valuable: lecturing and laboratory
scheduled hours.
The methods, techniques, and examples we
have presented and discussed in the article can
be applied to any course in network engineering
or computer science, at both the undergraduate
and graduate levels. This makes our findings valu-
able in a general context.
Acknowledgment
This work was partially supported by a grant from
the Romanian Ministry of Research and Innovation
CCCDI-UEFISCDI project no. 17PCCDI/2018.
References
[1] R. W. Bybee and M. L. Nancy, 1990, “Science for Life & Liv-
ing: An Elementary School Science Program from Biological
Sciences Curriculum Study,” The American Biology Teacher,
vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 92–98.
[2] S. E. Cooperstein and E. Kocevar-Weidinger, 2004, “Beyond
Active Learning: A Constructivist Approach to Learning,”
Reference Services Review, vol. 32, no. 2, pp.141–48.

58 IEEE Communications Magazine • November 2019

OLIMID_LAYOUT.indd 58 11/6/19 2:42 PM

 [3] G. B. Wright, “Student-Centered Learning in Higher Educa-
tion,” Int’l. J. Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, vol.
23, no. 1, 2011, pp. 92–97.
[4] R. M. Felder and R. Brent, “Active Learning: An Introduc-
tion,” ASQ Higher Education Brief, vol. 2, no. 4, pp.1–5.
[5] M. Prince, 2004, “Does Active Learning Work? A Review of
the Research,” J. Engineering Education, vol. 93, no. 3, 2009,
pp. 223–31.
[6] L. B. Duran and E. Duran, “The 5E Instructional Model: A
Learning Cycle Approach for Inquiry-Based Science Teach-
ing,” Science Education Review, vol. 3, no. 2, 2004, pp.
49–58.
[7] P. Cheng, “5E Mobile Inquiry Learning Approach for Enhanc-
ing Learning Motivation and Scientific Inquiry Ability of Uni-
versity Students,” IEEE Trans. Education, vol. 59, no. 2, 2016,
pp. 147–53.
[8] P. Kahn and K. O’Rourke, “Guide to Curriculum Design:
Enquiry-Based Learning,” Higher Education Academy, vol.
30, no. 3, 2004, .
[9] L. B. Nilson, Teaching at Its Best: A Research-Based Resource
for College Instructors, 2016, Wiley.
[10] J. L. Poza-Lujan et al., “Assessing the Impact of Continu-
ous Evaluation Strategies: Tradeoff Between Student Perfor-
mance and Instructor Effort,” IEEE Trans. Education, vol. 59,
no. 1, 2015, pp. 17–23.
IEEE Communications Magazine • November 2019
OLIMID_LAYOUT.indd 59
[11] P. L. Machemer and P. Crawford, “Student Perceptions of
Active Learning in A Large Cross-Disciplinary Classroom,” Active
Learning in Higher Education, vol. 8, no. 1, 2007, pp. 9–30.
[12] E. Swanson et al., “The Effect of Team-Based Learning on
Content Knowledge: A Meta-Analysis,” Active Learning in
Higher Education, vol. 20, no. 1, 2019, pp. 39–50.
[13] M. Brimble, “Why Students Cheat: An Exploration of the
Motivators of Student Academic Dishonesty in Higher Edu-
cation,” Handbook of Academic Integrity, 2016, pp. 365–82.
Biographies
Ruxandra F. Olimid (ruxandra.olimid@fmi.unibuc.ro) is a lec-
turer in the Department of Computer Science, University of
Bucharest, and an adjunct associate professor in the Depart-
ment of Information Security and Communication Technology,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.
She received her Ph.D. in computer science from the University
of Bucharest in 2013. She has a background in both computer
science (B.Sc. and M.Sc. from the University at Bucharest, 2008
and 2010) and telecommunications (B.Sc. from the University
Politehnica of Bucharest, 2009). Her past experience includes
Cisco certifications (CCNA, WLAN/FE) and almost 10 years at
Orange Romania. Her research interests include cryptography
and privacy, with a current focus on security and privacy in com-
munication networks.
59
11/6/19 2:42 PM