VIETNAM JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, 2022

Volume 6, Issue 2, 150-160

https://doi.org/10.52296/vje.2022.165

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Student Self-assessment in Regard to the Learning Outcome Achievement Level

When Using the CDIO Approach at University of Information Technology - Vietnam
National University, Ho Chi Minh City

PhD student, University of Social Sciences and Humanities - Vietnam National

Phuong Thi Le University Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Email: ltphuong0809@gmail.com

Article history ABSTRACT

Received: March 9, 2022 In 2010, Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City implemented the
Accepted: May 16, 2022 application of the CDIO (Conceiving - Designing - Implementing -
Published: June 15, 2022 Operating) approach, which has improved the quality of training in science
and engineering majors. Nearly all of the curricula of Vietnam National
Keywords University Ho Chi Minh City’s member schools are built completely or
Self-assessment, learning partially based on CDIO principles. The CDIO approach is well-suited to the
outcome achievement, CDIO practical context of Vietnamese technology training, which is adapted to the
approach, University of Vietnam National Qualification Framework and domestic as well as
Information Technology international quality accreditation criteria. CDIO-based programs focus on
learners’ competency upon the completion of a program. A quantitative study
was conducted to analyze student self-assessment concerning achievements
in their learning outcomes, and to determine the correlation between their
performance and how well they fulfilled learning outcomes requirements.
The data was collected from a random sample of 502 students at University
of Information Technology - Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City.
The results indicated that student self-assessments of learning outcomes are
similar to their assigned grades, which means there was a positive correlation
in the evaluation. In addition, results acquired from the Analysis of variance
(ANOVA) revealed that there is a significant variation in the assessments of
learning outcomes between majors from different faculties (5 items out of 17
items.) The findings are meaningful to lecturers, students and managers in
improving learning, teaching and evaluation activities, which in turn help
students improve their performance and prepare them for their future careers.

1. INTRODUCTION
Universities in Vietnam have confronted a shortage of high-quality personnel that can meet the demands of
the labor market due to the large gap between theory and practice, and insufficient skills of designing,
implementing and operating to create the best products in their jobs. Therefore, higher education is in urgent need
of solutions to improve training quality and address the issues related to inadequate approaches, without too much
time or too excessive costs. CDIO, abbreviated from four English words: Conceive - Design - Implement - Operate
(Building ideas, designing ideas, implementing ideas and operations) (Wu, 2018), is a comprehensive solution for
the whole training process, including building learning outcomes, designing curricula, implementing them and
assessing their effectiveness for further improvements. The features of learning outcomes in an CDIO-based
educational program are divided into 4 major groups: (1) knowledge and deductive methods, (2) personal skills

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyrighted © 2022 Vietnam Journal of Education

 150 
 VIETNAM JOURNAL OF EDUCATION

and attitudes, (3) communication skills (teamwork, communication) and (4) forming awareness, design,
implementation and operation in the context of business and society (Junaid et al., 2018). Vietnam National
University Ho Chi Minh City (VNU-HCM) spent two years from 2008 to 2009 preparing for the CDIO
implementation process, and officially conducted a pilot program at two engineering faculties belonging to two
VNU-HCM’s school members in 2010; then, based on the pilot results, extensively applied it to other programs
in VNU-HCM. The university considers the CDIO approach a standard framework to develop curricula as Choo
et al. (2015) affirms that CDIO plays a key role in meeting the US’s Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology’s (ABET) criteria.
At the end of 2012, Crawley introduced the CDIO approach to the lecturers, managers and other stakeholders in
engineering education which resulted in a major educational innovation at Queen’s University of Australia. Subjects
and ideas from the CDIO approach were incorporated into several of this school’s curricula to some extent. Feedback
from the lecturers, students and employers was frequently collected to improve the programs (Crawley et al., 2007).
The CDIO approach focuses on the agreement of opinions from university and faculties’ managers together with
primary stakeholders because it is believed that by this way, the board of directors can figure out what to teach
students so that they can meet the expected standards of the society. Thus, in designing curricula, learning outcomes
under the CDIO approach always refer to stakeholders’ feedback as compulsory evidence. However, currently,
soliciting opinions is usually performed just to evaluate enterprise’ satisfaction with the Alumni and to adjust the
curricula. Although self-assessment is seen as an important practice that helps learners get actively involved in the
learning process, it is still uncommon among Vietnamese higher educational institutions for the following reasons: 1
- Students feel that evaluation is the responsibility of lecturers; 2 - Teachers are yet willing to trust students’
assessments and, 3 - Students lack sufficient self-assessment skills (Lee, 2011). This study aims to investigate the
students’ perceptions of whether they achieve the CDIO-based learning outcomes as well as the relationship between
student self-assessments and learning results. To achieve these objectives, the study seeks to answer the three
following questions:
1. Are there statistically significant differences (α = 0.05) in mean values between student self-assessments and
years of learning?
2. What is the correlation between student self-assessments and their performance?
3. Are there any significant differences between the students’ individual characteristics and self-assessments
regarding their learning outcomes when using the CDIO approach?

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Once students understand the goals and criteria of a process, they must be given opportunities to self-assess their
performance and make appropriate adjustments. In addition, teachers should utilize this as an opportunity to help
them gain broader knowledge rather than just assign it as homework (Pintrich & Schunk 1996). Lecturers should
give students rights that allow them to recognize their own strengths and weaknesses in learning because self-
assessment is a very useful method for making effective use of feedback. (Sadler, 1989; Black & Wiliam, 1998).
Moreover, students who are taught self-assessment skills often persist in completing difficult assignments, are more
self-confident in their capabilities and more responsible for their jobs (Rolheiser & Ross, 2001).
Stiggins et al. (2007) point out that while self-assessment benefits all students, those with poorest performance
benefit the most. Self-assessment plays an important role in developing students’ self-awareness and creating
increasing motivation because the participation of students depends on their beliefs about the ability to do well on a
specific assignment and the good value of this job (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Schunk, 2004).
Bruce (2001), Schunk (1989), Zimmerman (2002), and Kitsantas et al. (2004) indicate that students’ performance
can be improved simply by allowing them to report their learning results. Students need to understand the purposes
of knowing whether they achieve the goals that they have set. This is because they are more satisfied with their
accomplishments when they can assess them and are provided with clear steps on how to attain their goals and bring
about high levels of self-effectiveness.
Research on self-assessment as a tool for learning: Arter (1996), Dochy and McDowell (1997), O’Malley and
Valdez (1996), Wendi (2001), Chamot and O’Malley (1994) state that self-evaluation is a tool for predicting
challenges related to learning strategies and placing students at the center of their own learning.

 151 
 VIETNAM JOURNAL OF EDUCATION

Research on the roles of self-assessment claims that self-assessment is the combination of three elements in a
process following a cycle, including: self-monitoring, self-judgement and implementation. The most fundamental
objective of self-assessment is to give students a chance to provide feedback on both positive and negative aspects
in their learning results (Saribeyli, 2018). Self-assessment can serve as a tool for encouraging students to take
responsibility, stimulate them to work independently, and make the learning process their own. Because evaluation
should not only be considered a duty and a task assigned by teachers, it needs to be shared and cooperated by lecturers
and learners (Spiller, 2012). Besides, self-assessment involves both reflecting and evaluating results of the activities
in the student learning process, so self-assessment gives them an opportunity to re-assess the learning activities,
which helps develop positive attitudes and increase motivation for studying (Paris & Paris, 2001).
Research on the influence of student self-assessment: Sharma et al. (2016) contend that there is a significantly
positive correlation between teachers’ assessments and students’ self-assessments. Self-evaluation increases
students’ interest and motivation in subjects, leading to improved learning and learning results, and the development
of their critical skills. Similar to the point of Sharma et al. (2016), McMillan and Hearn (2008) investigate how
students’ self-evaluation is a crucial skill that enables students to boost their motivation and achievements. When
learners set goals to improve their learning results, then identify the criteria, self-evaluate their progress, and put
forward study strategies, they will see improvements in their learning results. In addition, self-assessment helps
achieve two important goals: 1- improving the self-efficacy and confidence of students in learning, and 2 - achieving
high scores in tests to raise the accountability. Ushioda (1996) confirms that by treating students fairly as academic
peers in the learning and evaluation process, their self-esteem and ego are uplifted. As a result, learners develop a
favorable perception of themselves thanks to their opinions being respected, which has a positive impact on their
motivation.
Research on the relationship between teachers’ assessments and student self-assessments: The study of Lee
(2011) compare the evaluations made by lecturers and second year students majoring in interpretation and translation
themselves. The findings showed that there were relatively significant differences between grades given by teachers
and student self-assessments. Secondly, different from lecturers, students usually regarded note-taking,
memorization, and psychological factors as important assessment criteria, implying that while students’ self-assigned
grades were similar to teachers’ grades, they did not hold the same opinion in terms of assessment content. Finally,
there were more comments during the process of student self-assessment than in teacher’s assessment. This study
also shows that student self-assessment had distinct characteristics that can be used to supplement evaluation by
teachers. Furthermore, the study of Thawabieh (2017) also compares the results of evaluation performed by these
two groups. A quasi-experimental study of 71 students at Tafila Technical University studying Introduction to
Psychology was conducted with the goal of determining the accuracy of the student self-assessments and their link
with the teachers’. In the first experiment, the results showed that there was a statistically significant difference
between the assessments made by these two categories because students had more positive assessments than
lecturers, which could be explained by the fact that students who had just entered university (freshmen) being
overconfident in their abilities, failing to master self-assessment skills and understand the nature of university tests.
The following experiment revealed that there was almost zero statistically significant difference between the
evaluation results of these two groups after teachers provided feedback to learners on self-assessment criteria and
objectivity in self-assessment. Finally, the author concluded that students could correctly self-assess if they were
instructed how to do so properly.
Similarly, Tejeiro et al. (2012) conduct a study on the accuracy and validity of summative self-assessment of two
groups of total 122 freshmen majoring in two pedagogical majors at the Universidad de Cadiz (Spain), and
participating in two different courses over a six-month period. Upon the completion of these courses, both groups
completed a self-assessment questionnaire that includes sections on capacity, learning results, and content based on
their self-assessment. Although all students participating in this study were to assign themselves grades at the end of
courses, only half of them were informed that their self-assigned grades would count for 5% of their final grade.
Students’ self-assessment data was compared to the given teacher’s scores, and the ten students with the greatest
difference were chosen for an interview. In both groups, the student self-assessment results are better than the
teacher’s scores, especially significantly higher in the group of students with poorer academic results and the group
of which the self-assessment result was included in the final scores. Tejeiro et al. (2012) concluded that when not
included in the final scores, student self-assessments tended to be very similar to those of teachers; however, when

 152 
 VIETNAM JOURNAL OF EDUCATION

self-assessment was counted towards final grades, there were two distinct increasing trends: overestimation and
underestimation. The authors explained this difference by suggesting that students were motivated by the desire to
get the best grades possible or were affected by the stress associated with self-evaluation. Furthermore, the results of
the student self-assessment showed no gender differences.
Studies on difficulties when students self-assess their learning outcomes: Lindblom et al. (2006) explored the
experiences of 15 law students on the self-assessment process. The scoring matrix was used to facilitate the
assessment for both teachers and learners. The findings showed that the students sometimes struggled with self-
assessment because they believed they couldn’t be objective when evaluating their performance, and they also had
difficulty giving criticism in peer-assessment. At the same time, the students agreed that it was harder to assess
content-related aspects as compared to technical ones. According to Gurbanov’s (2016) study of 31 lecturers and 100
students at Qafqaz University in Baku, Azerbaijan, both teachers and students believed that self- and peer-assessment
reduced anxiety and rendered the evaluation less stressful to some extent. They also put forward a positive view that
self-assessment improved accountability and promoted self-awareness and learning in both students and teachers.
However, both parties agreed that the reliability, scoring method, and objectivity of student self- and peer assessment
were not as reliable as those performed by teachers.
Authors such as Vu Thi Lan Anh and To My Vien (2018) clarify the processes and procedures to develop
curricular which meet social demands and international standards. Besides, this paper also mentions the principles to
implement evaluation of students’ results with CDIO; Liu et al. (2009) indicate that the CDIO approach is an
innovative educational framework for producing the next generation of engineers. The authors demonstrate some
advantages of the CDIO approach in reforming at School of Information and Electronic Engineering of Zhejiang
University of Science and Technology (ZUST). The school comprehensively revised the curriculum system, the
assessment method, and the experiential learning environments. Personal, interpersonal and system building skills
are codified in the CDIO-based Syllabus.
The studies mentioned above highlighted the roles and impacts of summative self-assessment as well as the link
between self-assessment and students’ learning motivation and their relationship with teachers in the evaluation
process. Self-evaluation increases students’ achievements and learning activities, or there is a substantial positive
association between evaluations made by students themselves and by teachers (Lindblom-ylänne et al., 2006).
Nevertheless, the study of student self-assessments on the learning outcome achievement level using the CDIO
approach remains a gap that needs to be filled to contribute to the improvement of teaching and learning quality in
higher education that uses CDIO-based curricula.

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

A quantitative study was designed to identify students’ perceptions of learning outcomes under the CDIO
approach at VNU-HCM-UIT. The majority of the data collected for this study was examined with descriptive
statistics and statistical correlation analysis (ANOVA) by SPSS 20.0.
A questionnaire was used to collect background information from students as well as their summative self-
assessments with the use of the CDIO approach. The study involved 502 students, including 16.9 percent of
freshmen, 26.9 percent of sophomores, 34.5 percent of juniors, and 21.7 percent of seniors, who were randomly
chosen from VNU-HCM-UIT and were all in the same age range (17-20). This sample population’s demographics
were as follows: females (13.9 percent) and males (86.1 percent). Only 0.8 percent of those who responded to the
survey are ranked very poor, 14.3 percent are ranked average, 62.2 percent are ranked good, and the rest are ranked
excellent. Furthermore, the percentage of students who had jobs while studying at the university was 74.1 percent.
The survey in this study used a 5-point scale, with responses ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 being very poor and 5
being excellent.
Besides, according to VNU-HCM-UIT regulations, curriculum and learning outcomes must be clearly disclosed
to learners and stakeholders. In addition, the significant task of the lecturer in the first lesson is to introduce a syllabus,
which clearly shows the forms of assessing and evaluating that may be used to help students achieve the learning
outcomes. Therefore, this article will not present more details on the dissemination of learning outcomes when using
the CDIO approach.

 153 
 VIETNAM JOURNAL OF EDUCATION

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Results
4.1.1. Student’s self-evaluation of their learning outcomes when using the CDIO approach
The following learning outcomes are part of the fundamental outcome standards of engineering curricula. This
study used factor loading, total variance explained, and internal consistency analysis (Cronbach’s) to assess the
validity and reliability of the measuring methods for students’ self-assessments when using the CDIO approach.
Values of factor loading for the items of student self-assessment ranged from 0.637 to 0.739, higher than the threshold
level of 0.6. Total variance explained was 66.30 percent, higher than the threshold level of 60 percent and meeting
the requirement for social science research (Hair et al., 2009). With Cronbach’s α coefficient of 0.937, exceeding the
threshold level of 0.6 (Hair et al., 2009) and 0.7 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994), proved satisfactory reliability.
The descriptive statistics of the students’ summative self-assessments in conformity with the CDIO approach are
shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Statistical analysis for student self-assessment in regard to their learning outcomes
when using the CDIO approach
Std.
Learning outcomes (LOs) Mean (M) Deviation
(SD)
1. Technical knowledge and reasoning
1.1. Principal knowledge 4.04 .909
1.2. Engineering fundamental knowledge 4.08 .873
1.3. Major knowledge 4.07 .895
2. Personal and professional skills and attributes
2.1. Analytical ability and problem solving (identification, definition, analysis and
4.00 .886
conclusion problems)
2.2. Experiment and knowledge discovery (look for information, conduct survey,
3.94 .904
hypothesis testing, and defense)
2.3. System thinking (holistic analysis, identifying emerging issues, identifying core
4.03 .902
driving factors, looking for solutions, etc.)
2.4. Personal skills and attitudes (Initiative, willing to take risks, perseverance,
flexibility, creative thinking, self-awareness, lifelong learning, resources and time 4.02 .934
management, etc.)
2.5. Professional skills and attitudes (professional ethics, integrity, responsibility,
update frequently information related to engineering field, professional behavior to 3.99 .923
person and organization, etc.)
3. Interpersonal skills: teamwork and communication
3.1. Teamwork (forming team, organizing team, developing team, leadership,
4.09 .914
technical and multidisciplinary team collaboration)
3.2. Communication (communication strategy, presentation, written communication/
3.95 1.008
multimedia, developing social skills)
3.3. Communication in foreign languages (English communication, English proficiency) 3.83 1.040
4. Problem solving abilities: conceiving, designing, implementing and operating
skills in enterprise and society context

 154 
 VIETNAM JOURNAL OF EDUCATION

4.1. External context (roles, responsibility of engineers, the impact of Information

3.95 .907
Technology on society, engineering society codes of ethics, etc.)
4.2. Enterprise context (respecting diversity in enterprise cultures, goals, strategies
3.94 .885
và business plan, adapting to different workplaces, etc.)
4.3. Conceiving and engineering systems (setting system goals and requirements,
4.05 .823
defining function, system structures, ensuring goal-setting fulfillment)
4.4. Designing (designing process, method, approaches, utilizing knowledge, major
4.14 .844
design, multidisciplinary/multi-objective design)
4.5. Implementing (making a plan, hardware detail machined and assembled,
4.00 .857
controlling and implementing software systems, testing and managing process)
4.6. Operating (designing and optimizing operating process, improving and
3.95 .889
developing, operating management, etc.)
Total variance explained (%) 66.30
Cronbach’s α .937
Total M(SD) 4,00 0,90
Table 1 shows that almost all values were assigned with more than four points, indicating that students achieved
generally good learning outcomes. Two of them namely technical knowledge and reasoning, were rated higher than
other learning outcomes (all values are above 4-point). The findings also revealed that students found themselves
able to acquire the principle, fundamental and specialized knowledge.
The training is designed to follow the CDIO standards to train engineers who can conceive, design, implement,
and run complicated processes in modern, multi-disciplinary environments. This requires students to understand the
theories and principles of engineering operations, as well as to assess, apply, and evaluate these theories. Therefore,
students being able to assess whether they achieve the learning outcomes is a strong foundation for students to gain
knowledge at higher levels.
Besides, there are some criteria with lower scores than the others, as follows: Experiment and knowledge
discovery (M = 3.94, SD = 0.94); Professional skills and attitudes (M = 3.99, SD = 0.923); Communication in foreign
languages (M = 3.95, SD = 1,008); External context (M = 3.83, SD = 1,040); Enterprise context (M = 3.94, SD =
0.885), and Operating (M = 3.95, SD = 0.889). Of these, External context and Enterprise context of learning outcomes
with SD measures greater than one indicate that the data strongly fluctuated and those values were far lower from
the mean value, meaning that there was no consistency in the self-assessments of the students that responded. In
addition, the results were consistent when being compared to the annual reports by VUN-HCM-UIT because
practically all of the reports revealed that some of the student learning outcomes (communication and behavior skills,
foreign language skills, and practical skills) were generally limited.
Overall, it was found that students at VNU-HCM-UIT fulfilled the CDIO learning outcomes in all categories to
varying extents (Total M = 4.00, SD = 0.90).
4.1.2. Comparison between students’ achievements and their self-assessment in relation to learning outcomes when
using the CDIO approach at the Vietnam National University - Ho Chi Minh City, University of Information
Technology
When the relationship between students’ grades and learning outcomes were taken into consideration, there were
only significant differences for 2 out of 17 criteria, but there were no significant differences in other categories, such
as principle knowledge, engineering fundamental knowledge, Analytical ability and problem solving, system
thinking, personal skills and attitudes, teamwork, communication, and problem solving abilities: conceiving,
designing, implementing and operating in enterprise and society context.
However, when students’ majors and their self-evaluation in relation to their learning outcome achievement level
were compared, the finding showed that there were significant differences in 5 out of 17 items.

 155 
 VIETNAM JOURNAL OF EDUCATION

Table 2. ANOVA for comparing students’ self-assessments and assigned grades in relation to learning outcomes
when using the CDIO approach
M(SD)
Experiment Analytical
Factors N Personal Professional
Major and ability and Enterprise
skills and skills and Operating
knowledge knowledge problem context
attitudes attitudes
discovery solving
2.75 2.75
Poor (A) 4 - - - - -
(.500) (1.708)
Average 4.11 3.94
72 - - - - -
Grade (B) (.958) (.870)
description 4.08 3.88
Good (C) 312 - - - - -
(.904) (.915)
Excellent 4.06 4.15
114 - - - - -
(D) (.812) (.812)
4.05 4.00 3.78 4.15 3.96
C&CN(A) 175 - -
(.870) (.891) (1.057) (.838) (.886)
InfoSec 4.33 4.44 4.32 3.99 4.22
79 - -
(B) (.693) (.747) (.856) (.840) (.673)
4.01 4.07 4.05 3.80 3.96
Major IT (C) 74 - -
(.884) (.782) (.719) (.721) (.851)
4.09 4.21 4.08 3.98 4.18
CS (D) 221 - -
(.824) (.880) (.875) (.879) (.811)
3.81 3.98 3.93 3.79 3.81
CE (E) 57 - -
(.833) (.834) (.942) (.921) (.875)
Freshman 3.86 3.92 3.87
85
(1) (.978) (.848) (.768)
Sophomore 3.84 3.87 3.88
Years of (2) 135
(.874) (.913) (.864)
university
learning Junior (3) 173 4.11 4.17 4.24
(.859) (.859) (.775)
3.85 3.96 3.89
Senior (4) 109
(.921) (.892) (.966)
5.003*/ 3.496*/ 4.109*/
F 2.992* 4.662* 5.489* 3.285*
3.227** 3.592** 6.736**
D > C; B>C A, C, E < E < B, D;
Post Hoc A<B D>A A>C
2<3 2<3 B 1,2,4 < 3
Note. CN&C: Communication and computer network; InfoSec: Information security; IT: Information
technology; CS: Computer science; CE: Computer engineering
*p< .05, p< .01

 156 
 VIETNAM JOURNAL OF EDUCATION

The ANOVA data showed that there were significant differences in student self-assessment concerning the
criteria Major knowledge (F = 2.992, p 0.05) and Experiment and knowledge discovery (F = 5.003, p 0.05), as shown
in Table 2. Furthermore, post-hoc analysis revealed that students with “poorer results” (M = 2.75, SD = 0.50) had
lower scores in the assessment of their own learning outcomes than average students (M = 4.11, SD = 0.958). The
findings also revealed that students who were ranked excellent had a higher assessment of the experiment and
knowledge discovery of learning outcomes than those who were ranked good. It is an indisputable fact that students
who were ranked at high positions tended to self-evaluate themselves better than others.
On the other hand, the results of student self-assessment regarding learning outcome achievements in different
majors also had significant differences as follows:
• Analytical ability and problem solving: InfoSec (M = 4.33, SD = 0.693), in comparison with IT (M = 4.01, SD
= 0.884), p < .05*
• Personal skills and attitudes: InfoSec (M = 4.44, SD = 0.747), in comparison with C&CN (M = 4.00, SD =
0.891), IT (M = 4.07, SD = 0.782), CE (M = 3.98, SD = 0.834), p < .05*
• Professional skills and attitudes: CS (M = 4.08, SD = 0.875), in comparison with C&CN (M = 3.78, SD =
1.057), p < .05*
• Enterprise context: C&CN (M = 4.15, SD = 0.838), in comparison with IT (M = 3.80, SD = 0.721), p < .05*
• Operating: InfoSec (M = 4.22, SD = 0.673), in comparison with CS (M = 4.18, SD = 0.811), and CE (M = 3.81,
SD = 0.875), p < .05*
Furthermore, Table 3 also shows a positive correlation between the student self-assessment of their learning
outcome achievement and their years of learning. Juniors had higher scores of self-assessments than other grades
(p<0.01). This result showed that students in more senior years achieved higher scores of learning outcomes
(specifically, in this study, third year students achieved higher output achievements than first and second year
students, even seniors) because the more senior the students were, the higher level of difficulty of specialization of
the majors was designed with. However, the results also pointed out that final year students had lower self-assessment
regarding their learning outcome achievement compared to the third year students.
Nevertheless, according to the findings, when students were divided into two groups (the first group for students
who had a poor to average ranking and the second for the other rankings) and data was analyzed by Independent
sample test (t-test), only the learning outcome of operating differed significantly between the two groups. Moreover,
there was a very slight difference between two groups when it came to the learning outcome of experiment and
knowledge discovery.
Table 3. T-test for Comparing Self-Assessment and students’ assigned grade between two groups
LO t-test for Equality of Means
F 1.607
t 2.363
df 500
Operate
Sig. (2-tailed) .019
Poor to Average 4.01(.849)
M (SD)
Good to Excellent 3.00(1.418)
4.1.3. The relationship between background factors and learning outcomes achievement level when using the CDIO
approach of Vietnam National University - Ho Chi Minh City, University of Information Technology students
The authors such as Maldilaras (2002), Kirmani and Siddiquah (2008), Hansen (2000), Hijazi and Naqvi (2006)
demonstrate that personal characteristics, accommodation, gender, time to attend class, family finances, etc. have a
significant influence on students’ learning outcomes. In this study, Table 4 suggests four factors that influenced the
students’ self-assessment regarding learning outcomes in conformity with the CDIO approach of the VNUHCM-
UIT students. These factors explained 13.4% of variance in terms of the student self-assessment of learning outcome

 157 
 VIETNAM JOURNAL OF EDUCATION

achievement level (Adj. R 2 = .134). Multicollinearity diagnosis yielded no value of variance inflation factor (VIF)
in the regression models higher than 10 (in this research VIF = 1.008 to 1.015), indicating no risk of serious
multicollinearity of the models (Hair et al. 2009). Durbin-Watson coefficient = 2,050 (ranging from 1.5 to 2.5), so
there was no autocorrelation for first-order sequences (Qiao, 2011).
Table 4. Regression analysis of students’ individual characteristics impact on learning outcomes
under CDIO approach at the VNUHCM - UIT students
Standardized
Factors Unstandardized B Coefficients t Sig. VIF
Beta (β)
(Constant) 2,830 16.556 .000
Gender .155 .085 2.040 .042 1.012
Accommodation .013 .022 .581 .561 1.008
Time in class .316 .363 8.664 .000 1.012
Employment status .048 .033 .796 .426 1.015
Adjusted R Square .134
R Square .140
F (Anova) 20.308
Sig. (Anova) .000b
Durbin-Watson 2.050
The first symbol is the unstandardized beta (B), this value represents the slope of the line between the predictor
variable and the dependent variable. For every one-unit increase in Variable 1, the dependent variable increases by
1.57 units. In other words, B reflects the amount by which the dependent variable changes if we change the
independent variable. Concerning the specific relationship between independent factors and learning outcomes, only
two out of four items, gender (= .085, p.05) and class participation time (= .363, p.05), had an impact on achieving
the learning outcomes. Accommodation factors and employment status had sig. value greater than .05 means no
impact on learning outcomes.
4. Discussion
The study investigates VNU-HCM-UIT students’ self-assessment regarding their level of achievement of
learning outcomes when using the CDIO approach, as well as the factors influencing student self-assessment.
According to the findings of this study, the followings are some critical points:
To begin, there was a positive correlation between student self-evaluation at VNU-HCM-UIT and their assigned
learning results, and there was no conflict with teachers’ evaluation. These findings contradicted previous research
by Tejeiro et al. (2012), who discovered that students tend to either overestimate or underestimate in self-assessment
(Thawabieh, 2017).
Secondly, there were significant differences between majors and years of learning in the students’ self-assessment
in relation to learning outcome achievement level when using the CDIO approach. These results also revealed that
the learning outcomes in the curriculum were represented through the series of subjects and designed with increasing
difficulty, so the deeper students were into their majors, the higher learning outcomes would be. The study also
proved that although there were differences in student self-assessments regarding their learning outcome
achievement levels all share the same thought that various subjects had different learning outcomes according to the
CDIO approach. Simultaneously, compared to those from the other years, third-year students gave the highest points
during this process.
Finally, the study’s findings were partly consistent with the previous research by Bratti and Staffolani (2013),
which suggested that students’ demographic characteristics such as gender and time spent in class play the primary
and only role in the achievement of learning outcomes and have a direct relationship to it. Therefore, lecturers and
managers should consider these factors in their teaching and assessment activities in order to improve training quality.

 158 
 VIETNAM JOURNAL OF EDUCATION

5. CONCLUSION
Student self-assessment is the act of monitoring students’ processes and products in order to take effective actions
with the purpose of deepening learning and improving performance. The study also demonstrates that student self-
assessment in regard to the achievement level of learning outcomes can be implemented at any stage of a course,
such as at the end of a lesson, a subject, or summative assessment.
What is unclear are the guidelines, criteria, and how to apply the CDIO approach’s self-assessment, all of which
require additional research.
Another limitation of the study is that the population sample is, to some extent, unbalanced in terms of gender,
years of learning, and student learning results in order to fully review all aspects of the CDIO-based self-assessment.
As a result, future research should collect data that meet the aforementioned requirements for more complete
empirical evidence on self-assessment regarding learning outcomes of engineering students in Vietnam.
Another limitation found during the research process is that student self-assessments on the learning outcomes
are subjective, so appropriate tools and instructions for students to perform this accurately at the end of a study period,
such as a semester, are needed.

Conflict of Interest: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

REFERENCES
Arter, J. (1996). Using Assessment as a Tool for Learning. In Blum, R. & Arter, J. (Eds.), Student Performance
Assessment in an Era of Restructuring (p. 1-6). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Bratti, M., & Staffolani, S. (2013). Student Time Allocation and Educational Production Functions. Annals of
Economics and Statistics, 111/112, 103-140. https://doi.org/10.2307/23646328
Bruce, L. B. (2001). Student Self-Assessment: Making Standards Come Alive. Classroom Leadership, 1(5), 1-6.
Chamot, A. U., & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The CALLA Handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Language Learning
Approach. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Choo. K. W, Tan. D., Chong. J. & Wee. K. S. (2015). CDIO and ABET accreditation - The Nanyang Polytechnic
Experience. Proceedings of the 11th International CDIO Conference, Chengdu, June 11-15, 2015.
Crawley, E., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., & Brodeur, D. (2007). Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO
Approach. Springer US.
Dochy, F. J. R. S., & McDowell, L. (1997). Assessment as a Tool for Learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation,
23(4), 279-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-491X(97)86211-6
Gurbanov, E. (2016). The Challenge of Grading in Self and Peer-Assessment (Undergraduate Students’ and
University Teachers’ Perspectives). Journal of Education in Black Sea Region, 1(2), 82-91.
Hair, J. F., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., Black, W. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (6 ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hansen, J. B. (2000). Student Performance and Student Growth as measure of success: A evaluator’s perspective.
Presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Hijazi, S. T., & Naqvi, S. M. M. R. (2006). Factors affecting students’ performance: A Case of Private Colleges.
Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology, 3(1), 1-10.
Junaid, S., Gorman, P., & Leslie, L. J. (2018). Deliberate Practice Makes Perfect! Developing Logbook Keeping as
a Professional Skill through CDIO. In 5th Annual Symposium of the United Kingdom & Ireland Engineering
Education Research Network (pp. 80-85). Aston University.
Kirmani, N. S., & Siddiquah, A. (2008). Identification and Analysis of Factors Affecting Students Achievement in
Higher Education. International Conference on assessing quality in higher education, Lahore - Pakistan.
Kitsantas, A., Reiser, R., & Doster, J. (2004). Developing Self-Regulated Learners: Goal Setting, Self-evaluation,
and Organizational Signals during Acquisition of Procedural Skills. Journal of Experimental Education, 72(4),
269-287. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.72.4.269-287

 159 
 VIETNAM JOURNAL OF EDUCATION

Lee, Y. (2011). Comparing Self-assessment and Teachers Assessment in Interpreter Training. Retrieved June, 12,
2021, from http://cms.ewha.ac.kr/user/erits/download/review_1/04_Yun-hyang%20Lee.pdf
Lindblom-ylänne, S., Pihlajamäki, H., & Kotkas, T. (2006). Self, peer- and teacher-assessment of student essays.
Active Learning in Higher Education, 7(1), 51-62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787406061148
Liu, Y., Yang, C., & Yang, X. (2019). Teaching Reform and Innovation Based on CDIO. 2009 Second International
Conference on Education Technology and Training, 301-304. https://doi.org/10.1109/ETT.2009.91
McMillan, J., & Hearn, J. (2008). Student Self-Assessment: The Key to Stronger Student Motivation and Higher
Achievement. Educational Horizons, 87(1), 40-49.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
O’Malley, J. M. & Valedez Pierce, L. (1996). Authentic Assessment for English Language Learners: Practical
Approaches for Teachers. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom Applications of Research on Self-regulated Learning. Educational
Psychologist, 36(2), 89-101. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3602_4
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Applications. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Qiao, Y. (2011). Interstate Fiscal Disparities in America (2th ed.). New York and London: Routledge.
Rolheiser, C., & Ross, J. (2001). Student Self-Evaluation: What Research Says and What Practice Shows. Retrieved
July 14, 2021, from http://eloewen.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/118309278/Student%20Self%20Evaluation%20
What%20Research%20Says%20and%20What%20Practice%20Shows.pdf
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional Systems. Instructional Science, 18(2),
119-144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714
Saribeyli, F. (2018). Theoretical and practical aspects of student self-assessment. The Education and Science Journal,
20(6), 183-194. https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2018-6-183-194
Schunk, D. (2004). Learning theories: An educational perspective. Upper Saddle River. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Schunk, Dale H., & Meece, Judith L. (2008). Motivation in Education: Theory, Research, and Applications (2nd
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Sharma, R., Jain, A., Gupta, N., Garg, S., Batta, M., & Dhir, S. (2016). Impact of self- assessment by students on
their learning. International Journal and Basic Medical Research, 6(3), 226-229. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-
516X.186961
Spiller, D. (2012). Assessment Matters: Self-Assessment and Peer Assessment. Hamilton, New Zealand: Teaching
Development, University of Waikato.
Stiggins, R., Arter, J., Chappuis, J., & Chappuis, S. (2007). Classroom assessment for student learning. Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Tejeiro, R. A., Gomez-Vallecillo, J. L., Romero, A. F., Pelegrina, M., Wallace, A., & Emberley, E. (2012).
Summative self-assessment in higher education: implications of its counting towards the final mark. Electron. J.
Res. Educ. Psychol, 10(2), 789-812.
Thawabieh, A. M. (2017). A comparison between student self-assessments and teachers’ assessment. Journal of
Curriculum and Teaching, 6(1), 14-20. https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v6n1p14
Ushioda, E. (1996). Learner Autonomy 5: The Role of Motivation. Dublin: Authentik.
Vu Thi Lan Anh & To My Vien (2018). Innovation of Curriculum Planning in Accordance with CDIO Standards at
Ho Chi Minh City University of Transport. European Journal of Engineering and Technology Research, 3(9),
29-33. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejeng.2018.3.9.887
Wu, G. (2018). Based on complex learning theory CDIO project master of management education model research.
Learn. Educ, 6(2), 1-20.
Zimmerman, B. (2002). Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64-70.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2

 160 