ELEKTROTEHNIŠKI VESTNIK 92(4): 166-173, 2025 
ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPER 
Students’ Self-Evaluation of Learning Outcomes in Control 
Engineering Courses of the Post-Bologna Reform at the 
University of Ljubljana 
David Nedeljković 
Univerza v Ljubljani, Fakulteta za elektrotehniko, Tržaška 25, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija 
E-pošta: davidn@fe.uni-lj.si 
 
Abstract. The paper analyses the students’ self-evaluation of learning outcomes for the Control Engineering (academic level 
program) and Fundamentals of Control Engineering (professional level program) courses at the University of Ljubljana, Faculty 
of Electrical Engineering, after the implementation of the Bologna reform. The students predicted their written exam and 
colloquium results before and after each assessment, rounded to 10 percentage points. The data for the 2011/2012 to 2024/2025 
study period reveal the presence of the Dunning-Kruger effect with the lower-performing students overestimating and the high-
performing students underestimating their results. The study compares three periods: the early post-Bologna (2011/2012–
2014/2015), pre-pandemic (2015/2016–2018/2019), and post-pandemic (2019/2020–2024/2025) period. The self-evaluation 
accuracy improved over time, particularly in the post-pandemic period, despite fewer self-evaluation instances due to the 
increased project-based assessments. The academic program students outperformed the professional program students in the 
achieved results, likely due to their stronger mathematical skills, and demonstrated more accurate self-evaluations, possibly due 
to their broader educational background. The findings highlight the self-evaluation role in enhancing learning outcomes and 
provide guidance for improving the engineering education. 
 
Keywords: Self-evaluation, assessment, students, learning outcomes, control engineering, Dunning-Kruger 
effect, Bologna reform 
 
 
Študentska samoevalvacija učnih izidov pri predmetih s 
področja regulacijske tehnike po bolonjski prenovi na 
Univerzi v Ljubljani  
Prispevek obravnava študentsko samoevalvacijo učnih izidov 
na Univerzi v Ljubljani, Fakulteti za elektrotehniko, za 
predmet Regulacijska tehnika (RT) v 3. letniku na 
dodiplomskem univerzitetnem študijskem programu prve 
stopnje Elektrotehnika, na smeri Energetika in mehatronika, in 
za predmet Osnove regulacijske tehnike (ORT) na 
dodiplomskem visokošolskem strokovnem študijskem 
programu prve stopnje Aplikativna elektrotehnika, na smeri 
Energetska tehnika in avtomatizacija postrojev. 
Samoevalvacija pri navedenih predmetih se izvaja tako, da 
študenti predvidijo svoj pisni izpitni in kolokvijski rezultat tik 
pred izpitom in takoj po njem, zaokroženo na 10 odstotnih 
točk. Pri študentski samoevalvaciji je sicer Dunning-Krugerjev 
učinek [1-5] zaznala že prva tovrstna raziskava na 
predbolonjskih študijskih programih [6], njeno nadaljevanje 
[7] pa je pokazalo, da so rezultati samoevalvacije po bolonjski 
prenovi boljši, kar pomeni, da so s strani študentov 
napovedani rezultati manj odstopali od njihovih dejanskih 
dosežkov. V prispevku so predstavljeni podatki o 
samoevalvaciji od 2011/2012 do 2024/2025, ki prav tako 
razkrivajo Dunning-Krugerjev učinek, pri čemer študenti s 
slabšim uspehom precenjujejo svoje dosežene rezultate, 
študenti z boljšim uspehom pa jih podcenjujejo. Študija 
primerja tri zaporedna obdobja: zgodnje postbolonjsko 
(2011/2012-2014/2015), predpandemsko (2015/2016-
2018/2019) in postpandemsko (2019/2020-2024/2025). 
 Rezultati kažejo, da se je natančnost samoevalvacije 
sčasoma izboljšala, zlasti po pandemiji, čeprav v tem obdobju 
opažamo nekaj anomalij. Študenti univerzitetnega programa 
so v vseh treh obdobjih dosegali boljše rezultate od študentov 
visokošolskega strokovnega programa, kljub temu da so 
vsebine na visokošolskem strokovnem programu manj 
poglobljene, kar je mogoče pripisati razlikam v njihovih 
matematičnih spretnostih. 
 Prehod na ocenjevanje projektnega dela študentov v 
obdobju po pandemiji je zmanjšal število pisnih izpitov in 
kolokvijev ter posledično opravljenih samoevalvacij, zato bi 
morale prihodnje raziskave najti možnost integriranja 
samoevalvacije in ocenjevanja projektnega dela, s čimer bi še 
izboljšali natančnost samoevalvacije in podprli prilagojene 
izobraževalne pristope v inženirskih študijskih programih. 
 
Ključne besede: Samoevalvacija, ocenjevanje, študenti, učni 
izidi, regulacijska tehnika, Dunning-Krugerjev učinek, 
bolonjska reforma 
 
1 INTRODUCTION 
In education, self-evaluation is an important component 
of quality assurance systems. Numerous processes are 
assessed by applying the classical control engineering 
principle: detection of the actual value, its comparison 
with the reference value (set point), and based on the 
Received: 30 June 2025 
Accepted: 15 September 2025 
 
Copyright: © 2025 by the authors 
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 
International License 
 

STUDENTS’ SELF-EVALUATION OF LEARNING OUTCOMES IN CONTROL ENGINEERING COURSES OF THE POST… 167 
difference between the reference value and the actual 
value, the system is affected in the way to reduce this 
difference (error). However, in engineering, systems 
and their requirements are typically well-defined, 
making the negative feedback loops a common solution. 
On the other hand, the “controlled variables” in the field 
of education (and also in many other non-engineering 
fields) are much more complex and interlaced. Besides 
the multiple – sometimes conflicting – set points, 
measuring the “actual values” through regular 
institutional meetings or mass surveys is a time-
consuming process, prone to delays, “noise”, and 
“disturbances”. Despite these obstacles, the feedback 
loops are an efficient tool in the quality assurance. 
Among the self-evaluations commonly conducted in 
education [1], the students’ self-evaluation of the 
knowledge tests verifies their achievement of the 
desired learning outcomes. At the tertiary level of 
education, the students are expected to objectively 
evaluate their learning outcomes due to an appropriate 
prior training [2, 3]. Nevertheless, in this type of the 
self-evaluation, the so-called Dunning-Kruger effect [4] 
is often noticed. Namely, the students who are assessed 
by evaluators as below average usually give themselves 
a higher grade than their actual grade. The same applies 
to the students who achieve above-average results. They 
rate themselves worse than the evaluator. This effect 
cannot be avoided even in the self-evaluations of the 
students who are studying to become teaching 
professionals, although their assessment competencies 
are already quite well developed and certainly better 
than those of the students from non-educational study 
programs [5]. 
The author of the paper is in charge of the courses 
that cover the field of the control engineering for the 
students of the Power Engineering options at the 
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Electrical 
Engineering. A noticeable decline in the average written 
exam and colloquium results, coupled with weaker 
student preparedness for oral examinations, indicated 
declining learning outcomes in these courses. With the 
upcoming Bologna reform, we were in a search for 
measures that could systematically improve the 
situation, especially in the forthcoming new study 
programs. A small step taken in this direction was the 
introduction of the students’ self-evaluation at written 
examinations and colloquia. The first self-evaluation 
gave a clear indication of the Dunning-Kruger effect 
that was more pronounced for the students of the 
professional study programs compared to the students of 
the academic level study programs [6]. Continued 
research led to a comparison between the self-
evaluation results for the students before and after the 
significant change in study programs introduced by the 
Bologna reform [7]. The students’ self-evaluation after 
the Bologna reform has been significantly better than 
for the students of the older study programs. Their self-
evaluation results differ less from their achieved results 
than of their predecessors. This can be attributed to a 
significant reduction in the number of enrolment places 
for the electrical engineering study programs after the 
implementation of the Bologna reform, because the 
students who only needed their status were no longer 
enrolling. 
In this paper, further results of the self-evaluation are 
presented, taking into account the students of both the 
academic and the professional level first cycle Electrical 
Engineering study programs after the implementation of 
the Bologna reform. The following three consecutive 
time intervals are considered: early study years after the 
Bologna reform implementation (2011/2012–
2014/2015), pre-pandemic study years (2015/2016–
2018/2019), and post-pandemic study years 
(2019/2020–2024/2025). 
 
2 METHODOLOGY OF STUDENTS’ SELF-
EVALUATION 
Before their written exam or colloquium, the students 
are asked to take one minute to estimate their 
anticipated results based on their preparedness, rounded 
to 10 percentage points. Before the implementation of 
the Bologna reform, the students were required to 
forecast their results rounded to 5 percentage points. As 
the most of the predictions were rounded to 10 
percentage points, the rounding requirement was 
changed to 10 percentage points. 
After completing their written exam or colloquium, 
the students are asked to take another one minute to 
reestimate their results based on their actual experience, 
rounded to 10 percentage points. 
Before the Bologna reform, the third phase of the 
self-evaluation followed. Namely, after reviewing and 
scoring the examination papers, the students were 
invited to see the unexamined and unscored copies of 
their examination papers. They were given a detailed 
scoring plan with correct answers and solutions. They 
were then asked to evaluate their own examination 
papers according to the scoring plan and compare their 
originally revised exam sheet with their self-evaluation 
[6]. Unfortunately, due to the time constraints, this 
procedure was discontinued after the introduction of the 
revised study programs. Regardless of their written 
examination results, the students are still invited to 
attend the oral exams. They are given the scoring plan 
so that they can thoroughly check how their 
performance in the written part of the exam is evaluated. 
The discussion with the student while viewing the 
written exam results continues into the oral part of the 
examination. This process also helps students in 
developing their broader communication competence. A 
direct impact of this insight to the written exam and the 
following discussion provides an in-depth and 
consistent correction of possible errors in the 
assessment of the student's written examination. The 
experience helps developing more appropriate exam 

168 NEDELJKOVIĆ 
questions and tasks and makes the scoring plans 
properly balanced. 
 
3 SELF-EVALUATION RESULTS AND 
DISCUSSION 
At the University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Electrical 
Engineering, there are two first-cycle study programs of 
electrical engineering following the implementation of 
the Bologna reform: the academic level program and the 
professional level program, each lasting three years with 
the total of 180 credit points, compliant with the 
European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System 
(ECTS). The students of the Power Engineering and 
Mechatronics option within the first-cycle academic 
level program have the compulsory Control Engineering 
(CE) course in the 5th semester. On the other hand, the 
students of the Power Engineering and Plant 
Automation option within the first-cycle professional 
level program have the compulsory Fundamentals of 
Control Engineering (FCE) course in the fourth 
semester. For the observed study years (2011/2012–
2024/2025), the number of the students enrolling the 
Control Engineering course for the first time, varied 
from 22 to 45 per year (on average 30), and the number 
of students that enrolled the Fundamentals of Control 
Engineering course for the first time, varied from 16 to 
51 per year (on average 29). 
The research takes into account the students’ self-
evaluation of all written exams and colloquia for the 
Control Engineering and Fundamentals of Control 
Engineering courses after the adoption of the Bologna 
reform, i.e., from the 2011/2012–2024/2025 study 
years. Exceptions that could distort the overall picture, 
for example, the students who registered for the exam 
but did not take it without providing a justifiable reason 
are not taken into account; they received a 0% score in 
the written exam record. 
Table 1 presents the achieved exam results, the 
students’ self-evaluation prior to the written exam, and 
the students’ self-evaluation after taking the written 
exam, for the Control Engineering and Fundamentals of 
Control Engineering courses for the 2011/2012–
2024/2025 study years. The achieved results for the 
Fundamentals of Control Engineering course in the 
professional level study program are approximately 
15% lower than for the Control Engineering course in 
the academic level study program. Although the 
knowledge required for Fundamentals of Control 
Engineering course is less in-depth than for Control 
Engineering course, professional program students’ 
weaker mathematical skills – due to taking only two 
mathematics courses compared to four in the academic 
program – contribute to their lower results. Also, more 
students of the professional level program take their 
exam without a proper preparation. This can be seen 
from Figures 1 and 2, where the self-evaluation results 
prior and after the exam are shown together with the 
achieved exam results for the Control Engineering and 
Fundamentals of Control Engineering courses, 
respectively. 
On average, the difference between the self-
evaluation and the achieved results (rows B–A and C–A 
in Table 1) is significantly lower for the Control 
Engineering course students (1.39% and 1.86%) than 
for the Fundamentals of Control Engineering course 
students (8.90% and 3.16%). This could be due to the 
wider educational background of the students of the 
academic level program, so they can carry out a more 
accurate self-evaluation. However, the Dunning-Kruger 
effect has to be considered, as it is evident that the 
students of the professional level program have much 
higher expectations prior to the exam. This particularly 
applies to the students who are not well prepared, as 
they rarely set their self-evaluation prior to the exam 
below 50% (Figure 2, left side). If there is an 
overestimation in the self-evaluation prior to the exam 
for the students achieving the exam results below the 
average or even negative (below 50%), the Dunning-
Kruger effect is also noticed for the students with the 
best achieved results, but in the opposite direction. They 
quite frequently underestimate themselves not only prior 
to the exam, but also after the exam. Moreover, the 
phenomenon is more pronounced for the students of the 
Control Engineering course (see Figure 1, right side). 
The distribution of the self-evaluation (prior and after 
the exam) and the achieved exam results for the Control 
Engineering (Figure 3, left) and for the Fundamentals of 
Control Engineering course (Figure 3, right) is shown 
for all the written examinations and colloquia in the 
2011/2012–2024/2025 study years. 
As the time after the adoption of the Bologna reform 
is quite long, the paper reviews separate results for three 
consecutive time intervals: early study years after the 
adoption of the Bologna reform (2011/2012–
2014/2015), pre-pandemic study years (2015/2016–
2018/2019), and post-pandemic study years 
(2019/2020–2024/2025). Despite it may be seen that 
these three time intervals are determined arbitrarily, the 
pandemic period lead to some major changes in the 
teaching and learning process and the necessity of using 
new approaches to the assessment of the students 
learning outcomes, e.g., by evaluating their work on 
project tasks. Consequently, the number of the self-
evaluations for the written exams and the colloquia is 
reduced for the post-pandemic interval. 
 
 
 

STUDENTS’ SELF-EVALUATION OF LEARNING OUTCOMES IN CONTROL ENGINEERING COURSES OF THE POST… 169 
Table 1: Achieved and self-evaluation results for written exams and colloquia in Control Engineering (academic) and 
Fundamentals of Control Engineering (professional) courses, 2011/2012–2024/2025. Note: STD = Standard Deviation. 
  Control Engineering Fundamentals of Control Engineering 
  
Number of 
students 
Average  
(%) 
STD 
Number of 
students 
Average  
(%) 
STD 
Achieved result A 744 72.82 20.33 808 57.53 26.01 
Self-evaluation prior to the exam B 744 74.21 11.75 808 66.44 13.29 
Self-evaluation after the exam C 744 74.68 17.25 808 60.69 20.10 
Difference of self-evaluation prior B–A 744 1.39 18.76 808 8.90 24.31 
Difference of self-evaluation after C–A 744 1.86 16.02 808 3.16 18.11 
 
Table 2: Achieved and self-evaluation results for written exams and colloquia in Control Engineering (academic) and 
Fundamentals of Control Engineering (professional) courses, 2011/2012–2014/2015. Note: STD = Standard Deviation. 
  Control Engineering Fundamentals of Control Engineering 
  
Number of 
students 
Average  
(%) 
STD 
Number of 
students 
Average  
(%) 
STD 
Achieved result A 284 72.28 20.56 395 53.08 24.60 
Self-evaluation prior to the exam B 284 75.28 11.61 395 66.20 14.13 
Self-evaluation after the exam C 284 75.88 17.06 395 58.84 19.70 
Difference of self-evaluation prior B–A 284 3.00 18.06 395 13.12 23.50 
Difference of self-evaluation after C–A 284 3.60 15.27 395 5.75 16.85 
 
Table 3: Achieved and self-evaluation results for written exams and colloquia in Control Engineering (academic) and 
Fundamentals of Control Engineering (professional) courses, 2015/2016–2018/2019. Note: STD = Standard Deviation. 
  Control Engineering Fundamentals of Control Engineering 
  
Number of 
students 
Average  
(%) 
STD 
Number of 
students 
Average  
(%) 
STD 
Achieved result A 257 70.60 20.63 170 61.04 26.86 
Self-evaluation prior to the exam B 257 74.94 11.51 170 70.29 9.54 
Self-evaluation after the exam C 257 73.46 18.10 170 64.71 19.74 
Difference of self-evaluation prior B–A 257 4.34 18.24 170 9.25 24.62 
Difference of self-evaluation after C–A 257 2.86 16.58 170 3.66 17.35 
 
Table 4: Achieved and self-evaluation results for written exams and colloquia in Control Engineering (academic) and 
Fundamentals of Control Engineering (professional) courses, 2019/2020–2024/2025. Note: STD = Standard Deviation. 
  Control Engineering Fundamentals of Control Engineering 
  
Number of 
students 
Average  
(%) 
STD 
Number of 
students 
Average  
(%) 
STD 
Achieved result A 203 76.37 19.09 243 62.32 26.42 
Self-evaluation prior to the exam B 203 71.77 11.90 243 64.12 13.53 
Self-evaluation after the exam C 203 74.53 16.25 243 60.91 20.57 
Difference of self-evaluation prior B–A 203 -4.60 19.02 243 1.80 23.73 
Difference of self-evaluation after C–A 203 -1.84 15.72 243 -1.41 19.65 
 

170 NEDELJKOVIĆ 
 
Figure 1. Self-evaluation and achieved exam results for the Control Engineering course (academic level), 2011/2012–2024/2025. 
 
 
Figure 2. Self-evaluation and achieved exam results for the Fundamentals of Control Engineering course (professional level), 
2011/2012–2024/2025. 
 
 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 21 41 61 81 101 121 141 161 181 201 221 241 261 281 301 321 341 361 381 401 421 441 461 481 501 521 541 561 581 601 621 641 661 681 701 721 741
Individual exam (sorted by achieved result)
Control Engineering (academic level)
2011/2012 –2024/2025
Achieved result (%) Prior to the exam (%) After the exam (%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 21 41 61 81 101 121 141 161 181 201 221 241 261 281 301 321 341 361 381 401 421 441 461 481 501 521 541 561 581 601 621 641 661 681 701 721 741 761 781 801
Individual exam (sorted by achieved result)
Fundamentals of Control Engineering (professional level)
2011/2012 –2024/2025
Achieved result (%) Prior to the exam (%) After the exam (%)

STUDENTS’ SELF-EVALUATION OF LEARNING OUTCOMES IN CONTROL ENGINEERING COURSES OF THE POST… 171 
     
Figure 3. Distribution of self-evaluation and achieved exam results for the Control Engineering course (academic level, left) and 
for the Fundamentals of Control Engineering course (professional level, right), 2011/2012–2024/2025. 
 
 
      
Figure 4. Distribution of self-evaluation and achieved exam results for the Control Engineering course (academic level, left) and 
for the Fundamentals of Control Engineering course (professional level, right), 2011/2012–2014/2015. 
 
 
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Proportion
Result (%)
Control Engineering (academic level)
2011/2012 –2024/2025
Prior to the exam After the exam Achieved result
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Proportion
Result (%)
Fundamentals of Control Engineering (professional level)
2011/2012 –2024/2025
Prior to the exam After the exam Achieved result
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Proportion
Result (%)
Control Engineering (academic level)
2011/2012 –2014/2015
Prior to the exam After the exam Achieved result
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Proportion
Result (%)
Fundamentals of Control Engineering (professional level)
2011/2012 –2014/2015
Prior to the exam After the exam Achieved result

172 NEDELJKOVIĆ 
      
Figure 5. Distribution of self-evaluation and achieved exam results for the Control Engineering course (academic level, left) and 
for the Fundamentals of Control Engineering course (professional level, right), 2015/2016–2018/2019. 
     
Figure 6. Distribution of self-evaluation and achieved exam results for the Control Engineering course (academic level, left) and 
for the Fundamentals of Control Engineering course (professional level, right), 2019/2020–2024/2025. 
 
3.1 Students’ Self-evaluation Results for the 
2011/2012–2014/2015 Study Years 
Table 2 shows the written exam results and the students’ 
self-evaluations for the Control Engineering and 
Fundamentals of Control Engineering courses for the 
2011/2012–2014/2015 study years. These early years 
after the adoption of the Bologna reform show a larger 
difference in the achieved results between the academic 
and the professional program students (19%) than for 
the entire post-Bologna period average (15%, Table 1). 
The difference between the self-evaluation and the 
achieved results (rows B–A and C–A in Table 2) is 
lower for the students of the academic level program 
(3.00% and 3.60%) than for the students of the 
professional level program (13.12% and 5.75%). These 
figures are higher than average for the entire 
2011/2012–2024/2025 period (Table 1). Distribution of 
the self-evaluation (prior to the exam and after it) and 
the achieved exam results for both courses for the 
2011/2012–2014/2015 study years is shown in Figure 4. 
Again, the Dunning-Kruger effect is pronounced. 
3.2 Students’ Self-evaluation Results for the 
2015/2016–2018/2019 Study Years 
In later years after the implementation of the Bologna 
reform (2015/2016–2018/2019; Table 3), the difference 
in the achieved results between the students of the 
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Proportion
Result (%)
Control Engineering (academic level)
2015/2016 –2018/2019
Prior to the exam After the exam Achieved result
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Proportion
Result (%)
Fundamentals of Control Engineering (professional level)
2015/2016 –2018/2019
Prior to the exam After the exam Achieved result
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Proportion
Result (%)
Control Engineering (academic level)
2019/2020 –2024/2025
Prior to the exam After the exam Achieved result
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Proportion
Result (%)
Fundamentals of Control Engineering (professional level)
2019/2020 –2024/2025
Prior to the exam After the exam Achieved result

STUDENTS’ SELF-EVALUATION OF LEARNING OUTCOMES IN CONTROL ENGINEERING COURSES OF THE POST… 173 
academic level and the professional level program 
(10%) is lower than in the previous interval 
(2011/2012–2014/2015; Table 2). The difference 
between the self-evaluation and the achieved results 
(rows B–A and C–A in Table 3) is again lower for the 
students of the academic level program (4.34% and 
2.86%) than for the students of the professional level 
program (9.25% and 3.66%). Compared to the previous 
interval (2011/2012–2014/2015; Table 2), the self-
evaluation accuracy improves, with the majority of the 
differences reduced. In Figure 5, where the Dunning-
Kruger effect is evident, no students of the professional 
level program set their self-evaluation prior to the exam 
below 50%. 
3.3 Students’ Self-evaluation Results for the 
2019/2020–2024/2025 Study Years 
During the pandemic period, some major adaptations of 
the teaching and learning process were required, as well 
as for the assessment (examinations). Those changes 
which bring certain advantages to the students learning 
outcomes are continued even after the pandemic period. 
In the assessment of the students’ knowledge, more 
emphasis is given to the students’ achievements in 
project tasks. Consequently, the number of the written 
exams and colloquia has been reduced, thus contributing 
to a lower number of self-evaluations in the post-
pandemic years, especially for the students of the 
academic level program. 
The achieved results of the written exams in the post-
pandemic period (Table 4) show a slight increase 
compared to the previous interval (Table 3). It is 
interesting to note that the difference between the self-
evaluation and the achieved results (rows B–A and C–A 
in Table 4) is now lower for the professional program 
students (1.80% and –1.41%) than for the academic 
program students (–4.60% and –1.84%). These negative 
numbers indicate that all the students on average 
underestimated themselves in their self-evaluation 
before or after the exam. From Figure 6, it can be 
concluded that the main reason for this underestimation 
is the Dunning-Kruger effect, as the students with the 
best achieved results are very self-critical in their self-
evaluations. 
4 CONCLUSION 
The analysis of the students’ self-evaluation in the 
Control Engineering (academic level program) and 
Fundamentals of Control Engineering (professional 
level program) courses at the University of Ljubljana, 
Faculty of Electrical Engineering in the period from 
from 2011/2012 to 2024/2025 highlights the persistence 
of the Dunning-Kruger effect. The lower-performing 
students overestimate their outcomes, while the higher-
performing students underestimate theirs. The analysis 
of the three consecutive post-Bologna periods shows an 
improvement in the self-evaluation accuracy, 
particularly in the post-pandemic period, but with some 
anomalies. The academic program students demonstrate 
a more accurate self-evaluation than the professional 
program students, likely due to their broader educational 
background. This suggests that a structured self-
evaluation, combined with a transparent scoring and 
oral exam discussions that follow the written exam, 
enhances reflective learning and improves teaching 
practices. The shift towards a project-based assessment 
in the post-pandemic period reduces the number of the 
written exams and the corresponding self-evaluations, 
so the future research should explore the integration of 
the self-evaluation with the project-based assessment to 
further enhance the self-evaluation accuracy and to 
support tailored educational approaches in the 
engineering study programs. 
 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
The research was supported by the Slovenian Research 
and Innovation Agency through the research programme 
“Electric Power Converters and Controlled Drives” 
(grant no. P2-0258). 
 
REFERENCES 
[1] V. Podgornik, J. Mažgon: Self-Evaluation as a Factor of Quality 
Assurance in Education, Review of European studies. Vol. 7, no. 
7 (2015), pp. 407-415. 
[2] D. Rus Kolar: Students' self-evaluation in the context of practical 
pedagogical training, People: international journal of social 
sciences. Vol. 4, iss. 1 (2018), pp. 700-715. 
[3] S. Kalender Smajlović, M. Smodiš: Razlike med ocenjevanjem in 
samoocenjevanjem kliničnega usposabljanja s strani kliničnih 
mentorjev in študentov Fakultete za zdravstvo Angele Boškin, 
Obzornik zdravstvene nege : strokovno glasilo Zveze društev 
medicinskih sester in zdravstvenih tehnikov Slovenije = journal of 
the Nurses Association of Slovenia. - Letn. 53, št. 2 (2019), pp. 
128-136. 
[4] J. Kruger, D. Dunning: Unskilled and Unaware of It: How 
Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to 
Inflated Self-Assessments, Journal of Personality and Social 
Psychology, 1999, Vol. 77, No. 6, pp. 1121-1134. 
[5] M. Podgoršek, A. Lipovec: Vpliv Dunning-Krugerjevega učinka 
pri študentovem samoocenjevanju, Novodobni izzivi družbe: 
znanstvena monografija, Rakičan : RIS Dvorec, 2016, pp. 145-
154. 
[6] D. Nedeljković: “Forecasts and results of written exams at 
courses of control engineering for students of power 
engineering,” in Proc. SPEEDAM 2012, Int. Symp. Power 
Electron., Electr. Drives, Autom. Motion, Sorrento, Italy, 20–22 
June, 2012. [Piscataway]: IEEE, cop. 2012. pp. 988-992. 
[7] D. Nedeljković: Primerjava samoevalvacij študentov pri 
predmetih s področja regulacijske tehnike pred bolonjsko prenovo 
študijskih programov in po njej. Elektrotehniški vestnik, letn. 87, 
št. 4, 2020, pp. 193-201). 
 
 
David Nedeljković received his B.Sc., M.Sc., and Ph.D. 
degrees from the University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Electrical 
Engineering, Slovenia, in 1991, 1996, and 1998, respectively. 
In 1993, he joined the same faculty where he is currently 
employed as an Associate Professor and Vice Dean for 
Quality and Sustainable Development. His research interests 
include active power filters, power converters, electric 
vehicles, and control of electrical drives.