239
1 INTRODUCTION
Theprocessofstudiesconsistsofdifferentelements,
suchas teaching,learning, assessment, etc. thereare
no doubts that aassessment process goes along with
learning process and influences it. Assessment of
students’achievementsinhighereducationdidactics
isconsideredasaproblematicpartofstudyprocess,
in maritime studies thi
s problem exists as well.
Therefore, the actual difficulties arise on a practical
levelwhentheassessmentofstudents’achievements
areorganizedinformativeway‐inordertoimprove
students’ learning and positively influence the
effectiveness of studies. Assessment may take place
periodically:inthebeginning,duringandattheend
of studies for the diagnostic, summa
tive and
formative purposes. Analysis of scientific literature
andperviousresearchrevealedthemaincomponents
of periodic assessment positively influencing
effectiveness of studies: frequency of assessment,
feedback and self‐evaluation (Bartuseviciene &
Rupsiene2011).
Theshiftofeducationalparadigmsfromteaching
to learning influences understanding of studies and
changestherolesofstudyprocesspart
icipants.New
learningparadigmhighlightsactivestudent’srolein
the educational process. The paradigms shift makes
changes in understanding of assessment process as
well: summative assessment based on behaviourism
theories mainly used previously has been
transformedtotheformativeassessmentgroundedby
constructi
vism(e.g. Piaget 1929, Ausubel et al. 1968,
Lefrancois 1997), involving teachers and students
participatory activities which are explained by
sociocultural theories (see Vygotsky 1978, 2001;
Engestrometal.1999,Wenger1998,etc.).Assessment
nowadaysfromformativepointofviewisunderstood
as continuous, systematic, and multilevel process
aiming to collect the informat
ion about student’s
learning and achievements in order to improve
her/hislearning.
Self-evaluation as an Attribute of Formative
Assessment of Students’ Achievements in Maritime
Studies
I.Bartusevičiene
LithuanianMaritimeAcademy,Klaipeda,Lithuania
ABSTRACT:Assessment of students’achievements in higher education didactics and inmaritimestudies is
consideredasaproblematicpartofstudyprocess.Especiallyitisdifficulttouseassessmentpracticallyinorder
to improve students’ learning, for formative purposes. The role of formative assessment in the learning
educationalpa
radigmisessential.Oneofmainattributesofformativeassessment‐self‐evaluationofstudents
‐hasbeenchosenastheobjectoftheresearch.Fortheempiricalresearch,acaseoffull‐timestudiesofMarine
Engineering was decided upon. An originally created questionnaire was used for the research. The
charact
eristics of self‐evaluation, such as its frequency, forms, and content were analysed with the aim of
findingouttheirinfluenceontheimprovementofstudents’learningandeffectivenessofmaritimestudies.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 8
Number 2
June 2014
DOI:10.12716/1001.08.02.09
240
The essence of formative assessment can be
understood by using three approaches of the
interpretationofassessment(Earl2003):
1 assessmentoflearning;
2 assessmentforlearning;
3 assessmentaslearning.
Inthefirstcase(assessmentof learning)assessment
isunderstoodassummative.Itisappliedattheendof
any process (e.g. end of study course, study
programmes,etc.).Theaimof suchanassessmentis
to evaluate students’ achievements (knowledge and
skills) by appointing appropriate mark
and to
compare students according to their achievements
andtoranktheminlinewiththeirresults.Themain
assessment method in this case is test, feedback is
providedmostlyin themark form.This approachis
based on behaviourism theories. This type of the
assessment is used for a
long time, it is convenient,
howeverthescientistsdoubttorelatethegivenmarks
totherealachievementsofthestudents,becauseitis
difficult to evaluate by a single mark the variety of
students‘knowledge,abilitiesandskills.Sometimes
thistypeofassessmentdemotivatesstudentslearning
(Gronlund & Linn 1990,
Gronlund 2002, McMillan
2000).
Usingassessmentforlearningapproachthepriority
isgivennottocomparestudents achievementsas in
the first case,but to identify every student‘s
strengths and weaknesses, help teachers to adjust
teachingtechniquesaccordingly,providefeedbackto
thestudentswhichhelpsthemtoimproveindividual
learning.
The constructivism is used as a theoretical
basisforunderstandingthisapproachofassessment.
This type of assessment is usually used during the
process of studies, on a continuous basis. It can be
called as diagnostic; the portfolio, as continuous
collectionofevidencesaboutstudent’sachievements,
canillustratetheexampleof
thistypeofassessment.
Inthethirdcase(assessmentaslearning)assessment
becomes more integrated to the study process. The
formative role of assessment is extended by
highlighting student‘s role as critical evaluator of
individuallearning.Thistypeofassessmentappears
when student monitors, assesses and evaluates
his/her own
achievements individually according to
personal needs in order to improve learning. The
student‘s learning improves by continuous self‐
evaluationofpersonalachievement,constructingnew
learningaimsand adoptingstudy processaccording
tothepersonalneedsandabilities.Theteachersand
learners act in collaboration using participatory
activities.Thisapproachisgrounded
bysociocultural
theories.
The assessment as learning approach is the most
appropriate having in mind changes of educational
paradigms from teaching to learning when the
student assigns an active role in the study process,
whenthestudentsisnotconsideredjustarecipientof
teacher’sknowledge,butratheranactive
learnerwho
develops their own individual knowledge by means
ofinteractionwiththeenvironmentandonthebasis
oftheirpreviousexperience(Lefrancois1997). That’s
whyinthenewlearningparadigmthemostemphasis
has to be stressed on the concept of assessment as
learning,usingtheideasofboth
concepts(assessment
forlearningandassessmentoflearning)andaimingto
improvestudents’learning.Therefore,theroleofthe
self‐evaluation as a n attribute of formative
assessmentisextremelyimportantinthelattercase.
Although self‐evaluation is defined in rather
differentways,itcanbementionedthatalldefinitions
of self‐evaluation characterize it as learner’s activity
during which decisions are taken about their own
progress and the degree of achievement of the set
standard(criterion)inordertoimprovetheprocessof
learning (Stellwagen 1997, Garcia & Roblin 2008,
Brew 1999). Self‐evaluation can be understood as
feedback
provided by the student to him/herself in
order to make a decision about his/her performance
andeffectivenessofstudies.Itmayinvolve different
processes, such as self‐evaluation, self‐testing,
reflection,etc.inordertomakesounddecision.
The researches revealed different aspects of
influence of self‐evaluation to student‘s learning:
some of them prove that self‐evaluation enhances
academicresults (e.g.,McDonald&Boud2003,Irving
et al. 2003, Cambra‐Fierro & Cambra‐Berdun 2007,
etc.), help to develop personal competencies:
readiness to help colleagues (Ross 1998, 2006),
orientation ability (Henry 1994), cultivation of self‐
control(Nelsonetal.1995);
trainingofindependence
(Cassidy2006); education ofactive citizen andlong‐
lifelearner(Malone&Pederson2008);fosterintrinsic
motivation to study (Ross & Starling 2008). The
scientistsanalyseself‐evaluationformsandmethods,
frequency,difficultiesofitsorganisation.
The concept of the effectiveness of maritime studies,
in relation to quality
assurance in maritime studies,
was defined as an attribute of learning at maritime
educationandtraininginstitutionwhichindicatesthe
achievement of the intended learning outcomes
(Rupsiene & Bartuseviciene 2010, 2011). The
assessment of students’ achievements is one of the
factors that influence students’ learning and
effectiveness of maritime studies.
As witnessed by
previousresearch,thecomponentsoftheassessment
of students’ achievements, such as assessment
frequency, assessment methods, feedback
characteristics, and student involvement in the
assessment process positively influence the
effectiveness of maritime studies wheneverproperly
used. As witnessed in previous research the marine
engineering students mentioned advantages of their
involvement into assessment process in the form of
self‐evaluation (Bartuseviciene & Rupsiene 2011).
However, the self‐evaluation and its characteristics
influencing the effectiveness of maritime studies
neededdeeperinvestigation.Theaimoftheresearch
wastodeterminehowthefrequencyofstudent’self‐
evaluation, its form, and the content
influenced
effectiveness of maritime studies, and which of the
above mentioned elements was more important for
the improvement of students’ learning and for the
effectiveness of maritime studies. The research
methods included a questionnaire survey and
statisticalanalysisofquantitativedata.
241
2 RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY
2.1 Researchsample
For the empirical research, a case study of the
programme of maritime specialty was chosen. The
researchpopulationconsistedofMarineEngineering
students of the Lithuanian Maritime Academy. 132
full‐timestudentsofMarineEngineering(95%ofall
population) in all the study
years of the said study
programme were surveyed. The research sample
includedmerelymalestudents.
The questionnaires were handed to each student
personally. To ensure the ethical character of the
research,anofficialpermissionforitsconductingwas
obtained from the Head of the Academy. Moreover,
alltheparticipantsof
theresearchwereintroducedto
the research objective and the specific requirements
for the completing of the questionnaire. The
questionnaires were compiled in such a way as to
maximally ensure the participant anonymity; it was
impossibletoidentifytherespondentbymeansofthe
questionnairedata.Therefore,theessentialprinciples
of
the social science research were observed, viz.,
voluntariness and anonymity that accounted for the
situationinwhichtherespondentswereabletofully
expresstheirviewsofthephenomenonortheeventof
theresearch.
2.2 Researchinstrument
The research instrument was developed by the
authors, given the aim of
the research. The
questionnaire entailed an open question about the
study subject to which, in the respondents’ opinion,
student self‐evaluation was applied the most
effectively. The question was necessary to establish
the limitations of the application of the research
findings. 38% of the respondents pointed out such
subjects: the figure
proved that student self‐
evaluation was insufficiently practiced inthe Marine
Engineering studyprogramme, proba bly the teachers
do not have enough knowledge and experience in
includingself‐evaluationintotheassessmentprocess,
but this topic needs deeper investigation. However,
theanalysisofthenamedacademicsubjects revealed
thatstudentself‐
evaluationwaseffectivebothinthe
subjectsofprofessionalqualificationandprofessional
specialization.
The most frequently named subjects of
professionalqualificationincludedChemistry,Physics,
Information Technologies, and Physical Training. It
turned out that the majority of the teachers of the
subjects of professional specialization, such as
Electrical Engineering or Theory of
Internal Combustion
Engines, also applied student self‐evaluation.
Therefore,thefindingsoftheresearchprovidedinthe
article are limited to one study programme (viz.
MarineEngineering)andthesubjectsofthestudyfield
(subjects of professional qualification and
specialization).Therelevanceoftheresearchfindings
for other study
programmes could be established
afteradditionalresearch.
The itemsof the questionnaire contributed to the
identification of the forms, the frequency, and the
contentofstudentself‐evaluationandstudents’views
oftheinfluenceofself‐evaluationontheeffectiveness
of the mastering of academic subjects. All the
questionswereformulated
insuchawayastoenable
students who provided answers to them to refer to
their own experience in the studies of the subject
wherethe applicationof studentself‐evaluation was
themostsuccessful.Thefrequencyofself‐evaluation
was measured on the basis of the number of
times
thatstudentself‐evaluationwasappliedinthecourse
ofthestudiesofthesubject.
The form of self‐evaluation was assessed in
accordance with the way of its most frequent
application (written, oral, or both written and oral).
The content of self‐evaluation was judged by the
frequency that
the students had to assess their
progress,tonotethings theyhadnot understood,to
point out learning difficulties, and to plan the
prospects of further learning on the request of their
teachers.
Theanswers to the questionDo you feel you better
mastered the academic subject in which student
self‐
evaluation was applied in the best way? revealed the
effectivenessofthemasteringoftheacademicsubject.
Eventhoughtheopinionsmayhavebeensubjective,
in our case, the provision was observed (see Fitz‐
Gibbon & Kochan 2000, Petty & Green 2007) that it
was possible to refer to learners’
opinion when
judging the effectiveness of studies. However, the
second limitation of the research findings was
identified there, as the teachers’ opinion or other
parameters of the evaluation of study effectiveness
were not taken into consideration. To eliminate the
said limitations, additional research would also be
necessary.
3 RESEARCHOUTCOMES
3.1 Isself‐evaluationimportantformarineengineering
students?
Afterdefiningthemainassessmentcomponents,such
as periodicity of assessment events, methods of
assessment, provision of feedback after evaluation,
ability of students to evaluate themselves, the
respondents were asked to rank the mentioned
componentsofassessmentinrelationandimportance
of
eachofthemfortheeffectivenessofstudies(which
of the mentioned features give the better result of
studies).
Analysing, which of the assessment components
critically influences effectiveness of studies; it was
revealed that 37% of respondents give the highest
priority to the frequency of periodic assessment
events,23%of
respondents–toassessmentmethods,
23% – to students’ involvement into assessment
process, and 18%‐to feedback (Bartuseviciene &
Rupsiene,2011).
That figures prove that self‐evaluation is
importantforthestudentsandthisissueisworthto
be investigated more deeply. Moreover the value of
self‐evaluation enhances, because more
than half of
surveyedstudents(62%oftherespondents)pointed
out that, in their opinion, they better mastered the
subjects in which self‐evaluation was applied the
mostsuccessfully.
242
3.2 Frequencyandformsofself‐evaluationusedin
maritimestudies
Before establishing the impact of self‐evaluation
componentsontheeffectivenessoftheirmasteringof
academic subjects, we have to find out how
frequently, in which form(s), and in what way in
terms of the content the learners evaluate their
achievementsduringthestudies.
While answering to the quest
ion how often the
students had a chance to evaluate themselves, it
turnedoutthatself‐evaluationwasappliedfrom0to
11times.Therespondents’answerswitnessedthatin
25%ofthecases,self‐evaluationwasusedonlyonce;
onaverage,studentshadanopportunity toevaluate
themselves3.32ti
mes(sd=2.83)(Fig.1).Therearenot
doubts that the number of self‐evaluation events
depends of the number of assignments given to the
studentsduringthecourse.However,thefactthat11
assignment events during one course were given to
thestudentscandoubtfulandma
ybeconsideredas
overload for the learners, but this issue needs more
detailsaboutthecharacteristicsofthesubjectandof
theassignmenttasks.
Figure1.Frequencyofself‐evaluation.
The forms of self‐evaluation were determined as
written,oral,andbothwrittenandoral.Inaccordance
with the respondents’ answers, the students
evaluatedthemselvesindifferentforms:inwriting‐6
%; orally‐46%; and in writing and orally‐48%.
Usageofthedifferentformsofself‐evaluationalmost
in the half of cases can be considered as positive
charact
eristic, however not practical. In author’s
opinionself‐evaluationcanbemoreeasilyorganized
inwrittenform.
On the basis of the aforementioned facts, a
conclusion can be drawn that the regularity of the
self‐evaluation events can be improved, in ideal
situationeveryassignmenthastobeself‐evaluatedby
students. The research revealed tha
t the students
evaluated themselves in different forms (in writing,
orally, in combination of both) almost in half of
assignmentevents;thevarietyofformsshowpositive
tendency, however using written form can be
consideredasmorepracticala
pproach.Probably,the
teachers themselves need more information about
self‐evaluation techniques, its importance and
influenceontheeffectivenessofthemaritimestudies.
Thisissueneedsfurtherinvestigations.
3.3 Thecontentoftheself‐evaluation
Thecontentofself‐evaluationcanbeveryhelpfulfor
teachers in getting information about students’
progress,learningdifficult
ies,organizationofstudies,
andother.Mentionedinformationisimportantforthe
students aswell. Analysis of obtained data revealed
some of the mentioned issues. The respondents’
answers about the content of self‐evaluation (Fig.2)
witnessed that they most often self‐evaluated the
things they failed to understand (64%), how to
organize furt
her learning (61%), pointed out the
difficulties they encountered while studying the
subject(54%), andself‐evaluated theprogress made
(52%).So, more thanin halfcasesof self‐evaluation
events, students identified independently their
learningdifficulties.Thisfacthastobetakenforthe
considerat
ion of teachers, because proper
identification of learning difficulties by the students
themselves is a good start for the individual
organization of independent learning taking more
responsibility for studies which is extremely
important in the context of development of
professional competencies in life‐long learning
perspective.
Figure2.Contentofself‐evaluation.
The method of regression analysis was used to
explainthemeaningsofthevariableTheeffectivenessof
masteringofanacademicsubjectinaccordancewiththe
meanings of independent variables: self‐evaluation
form, self‐evaluationcontent (which was aggregated
from the four self‐evaluation content variables
presentedinFig.2),andself‐evaluationfrequency.On
performing the regression analysis (Table 1), the
influenceofthreeva
riablesontheeffectivenessofthe
masteringofthesubjectwasestablished(r=0.570).The
three variables accounted for 32.5 % of dependent
variable dispersion (r
2
=0.325; r
2
adj=0.271). The
regression model was appropriate (p=0.002), and it
described a statistically significant relation (F=5.949)
between the dependent variable and the three
identifiedindependentvariables.Tmeaningsshowed
that the dependent variable could be forecast by
means of the three identified variables (form,
frequency,andcontentofself‐evaluation).
Table1.Coefficientsoftheappropriatenessofaregression
model
_______________________________________________
Model R R Adjusted Std.Error F Sig.
Square RSquare ofthe
Estimate
_______________________________________________
1 ,570 ,325 ,271 ,906 5,949 ,002
_______________________________________________
243
Standardized (Beta) coefficients (Table 2)
witnessed that the effectiveness of the mastering of
the subject mainly depended on the content of self‐
evaluation.
Table2.Coefficientsoftheregressionmodel.
_______________________________________________
Model Unstandardized Standardizedt Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std.Error Beta
_______________________________________________
1 (Constant)2,315 ,7243,199 ,003
Self‐‐,106 ,256‐,059‐,416 ,680
evaluation
forms
Self‐ ,155 ,037 ,624 4,194 ,000
evaluation
content
Self‐‐,058 ,051‐,169‐1,127 ,267
evaluation
frequency
_______________________________________________
Theregressionanalysismethodhelpedtoexplain
importance of three characteristics of self‐evaluation
(form,frequency,andcontent)fortheeffectivenessof
maritime studies, emphasizing the content of self‐
evaluation. That means that in order to make
maritimestudiesmoreeffective,theteachershaveto
learn how to use
self‐evaluation of students in the
assessment process in proper way, highlighting not
onlyformandfrequencyofself‐evaluationevent,but
mostlythecontentofit.
3.4 Conclusions
As established by the research, self‐evaluation
encouraged students to improve their individual
learning and to become more responsible for their
study
outcomes,whichwasimportantinthecontext
ofthelearningparadigm.Thisissueisalsosignificant
forthemaritimestudies.
Intheinitialstageoftheresearch,theimportance
ofthefrequency,theform,andthecontentofstudent
self‐evaluation was established. Self‐evaluation was
usedwithdifferentregularity
(from0to11times),in
idealsituationithastobeusedineveryassignment.
For better effectiveness of the maritime studies,
different forms of student self‐evaluation can be
applied(written,oral,orcombined),howeverforthe
betterpracticalityofself‐evaluationeventsthewritten
form is more applicable.
The content of self‐
evaluationisalsoimportantfortheeffectivemaritime
studies, because it can help to identify the students’
learning progress, their encountered difficulties,
learninggaps,orplanningofthelearningprospects.
Although all three self‐evaluation elements were
significant in the context of the effectiveness of the
subject mastering, self‐evaluation ofthe content had
thegreatestinfluenceonthelatter.The effectiveness
of studies increased when students had to self‐
evaluatetheirownindividualprogressinthewritten
formandtoindicatethedifficultiestheyencountered
inthestudiesofthesubject.
The research proved that self
‐evaluation is
important attribute of formative assessment of
students’achievementinmaritime studies. However
some observations has led to the assumption that
probably, the teachers themselves need more
information about self‐evaluation techniques, its
importanceand influence onthe effectiveness of the
maritimestudies.
REFERENCES
Ausubel, D., Novak, J., Hanesian, H. 1968. Educational
psycology.Acognitiveview. NewYork:Holt,Rinehart
&Winston.
Bartusevičienė, I., Rupšienė, L. 2010. Studentų pasiekimų
vertinimo periodiškumas kaip studijų rezultatyvumo
veiksnys: socialinės pedagogikos studijų programų
studentųnuomonė.Tiltai2(51):99‐112.
Bartuseviciene, I., Rupšienė,
L. 2011. Assessment
Components Influencing Effectiveness of Studies:
MarineEngineeringStudents’Opinion.In:A.Weintrit&
T.Neumann (Eds.). Human Resources and Crew
Resourcemanagement.MarinenavigationandSafetyof
SeaTransportation.London:Taylor&FrancisGroup:71‐
77.
Brew,A.1999.Towardsautonomousassessment:usingself‐
assessment and peer‐assessment. In S.
Brown, A.
Glasner(eds.).AssessmentMattersinHigherEducation.
Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher
Education/OpenUniversityPress.
Cassidy, S. 2006. Developing employability skills: Peer
assessment in higher education. Education & Training,
48(7),508‐517
Cambra‐Fierro,J.&Cambra‐Berdun,J.2007.Students’self‐
evaluation and reflection, part 2:
An empirical study.
Education&Training49(2):103–111.
Earl,L.M.2003. AssessmentasLearning:UsingClassroom
assessment to maximize Student Learning. Thousand
Oaks,California:Corwin Press Inc. A SagePublication
Company.
Engestrom, Y., Meittinen, R., Punamaki, R.L. 1999.
Perspectives on Activity Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Fitz‐Gibbon,C.&
Kochan,S.2000.Schooleffectivenessand
education indicators. In T. & D. Reynolds (eds.). The
internationalhandbookofschooleffectivenessresearch.
London:FalmerPress:257–282.
Garcia,L.M.,Roblin,N.P.2008.Innovation, researchand
professionaldevelopmentinhighereducation:Learning
from our own experience. Teaching and Teacher
Education: An International
Journal of Research and
Studies24(1):104–116.
Gronlund, N. E., Linn, R. L. 1990. Measurement and
evaluationinteaching.NewYork:Macmillan.
Gronlund, N.E. 2002. Assessment of student achievement.
7thedn.Boston:Allyn&Bacon.
Henry, D. 1994. Whole language students with low self‐
direction: A self‐assessment tool. Charlottesville:
UniversityofVirginia.
Irving,S.,Moore,D.,Hamilton,R.2003.Mentoringforhigh
abilityhighschoolstudents.EducationandTraining,45,
pp.100‐9.
Lefrancois, G. 1997. Psychology for Teaching. Belmont:
WadsworthPublishingCompany.
Malone,V.&Pederson,P.V.2008.Designingassignments
inthesocial studies to meet curriculumstandards
and
prepare students for adult roles. Clearing House: A
JournalofEducationalStrategies,IssuesandIdeas81(6):
257–262.
McDonald, B. & Boud, D. 2003. The impact of self‐
assessment on achievement: the effects of self‐
assessment training on performance in external
examinations.AssessmentinEducation10(2):209–220.
McMillan, J. H.
2000. Fundamental assessment principles
for teachers and school administrators. Practical
Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(8). Prieiga per
244
Internetą [žiūrėta 2008 03 12]:
http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=8.
Nelson, J.R., Smith, D.J., Colvin, G. 1995. The effects of a
peer‐mediated self‐evaluation procedure on the recess
behavior of students with behavioral problems.
RemedialandSpecialEducation16,no.2: 117–126.
Piaget, J. 1929. The child‘s conception of the world.
London:RoutledgeandKogalPaul.
Petty, N. W. & Green, T. 2007. Measuring Educational
Opportunity as Perceived by Students: A process
indicator.SchoolEffectivenessandSchoolImprovement
18(1):67–91.
Ross, J. A. 1998. The antecedents and consequences of
teacherefficacy.InJ.Brophy(Ed.)AdvancesinResearch
on Teaching. Vol.
7 (pp. 49‐74). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Ross,J.A.2006.Thereliability,validity,andutilityofself‐
assessment. Practical Assessment, Research and
Evaluation 11(10). Retrieved from Internet:
http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=11&n=10.
Ross, J. A. & Starling, M. 2008. Self‐assessment in a
technologysupportedenvironment:Thecaseofgrade9
geography.
AssessmentinEducation:Principles,Policy
&Practice15(2):183‐199.
Rupšienė,L.,Bartusevičienė,I.2011.Analysisoftheconcept
ofeffectiveness of studies.AndragogikaMokslodarbai
1:59‐71.
Stellwagen, J. B. 1997. Phase two: using student learning
profile to develop cognitive self‐assessment skills.
AmericanSecondaryEducation
26:1–8.
Vygotsky,L.1978.Mindinsociety:Thedevelopmentofhigher
psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, mea‐
ning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University
Press. Stallings, V. & Tascione, C. 1996. Student self‐
assessment and self‐evaluation. Mathematics Teacher
89(7):548–555.
