Evaluation in teacher training institutions: reflexive, constructive, democratic and emancipating evaluative forms

5/5 - (3 votes)



MIRIONE, Domingos Carlos [1]

MIRIONE, Domingos Carlos. Evaluation in teacher training institutions: reflexive, constructive, democratic and emancipating evaluative forms. Revista Científica Multidisciplinar Núcleo do Conhecimento. 04 year, Ed. 07, Vol. 01, pp. 148-162. July 2019. ISSN: 2448-0959


Evaluation is one of the main competencies of the teaching process that extrapolates the classroom. The educational institutions dedicated to teacher education need to pay attention to this component of the educational teaching process. However, the evaluation in the institutions of higher education, aimed at the formation of teachers in Mozambique seems an exclusive exercise of the professors, excluding the student in the evaluation of both their own performance and the others. This essay aims to stimulate reflection on the importance of reflexive, constructive, democratic and emancipating forms of evaluation, highlighting the self-assessment and mutual evaluation among students and proposing some approaches to these two forms of Evaluation with special focus on teacher training institutions and with examples facing the course of physical education and sport of the extinct Pedagogical University-delegation of Nampula.

Keywords: evaluation, test, measurement.


The evaluation is one of the 10 new competencies of the teaching process (PERRENOUD, 2000), and one of the questions that deals with it even outside the classroom, at the time of evaluation of its professional performance.

The Pedagogical University of Mozambique is dedicated to the training of teachers for different levels and education systems, however, the existing forms of evaluation seem to be ignored that the students that we are currently forming will deal with the evaluation process in Your day to day in the future.

Despite many criticisms of traditional evaluation paradigms, the traditional type of evaluation in our universities remains practical.

Few professors apply the diagnostic evaluation and apply many do not make use of the information it brings. Even worse, we never talk about self-assessment or mutual evaluation in our universities.

Do these forms of evaluation have any usefulness for the future teacher as part of the teaching skills?

The present work intends to stimulate reflection on the importance of reflexive, constructive, democratic and emancipating forms of evaluation, highlighting the self-assessment and mutual evaluation among students and proposing some approaches to these two Evaluation forms.

For this, it was supported in several articles that deal with reflective and constructive evaluative processes in higher education.



According to KRAEMER (2005), the word evaluation comes from the Latin A + valere meaning to attribute value and merit to the object under study. This idea is corroborated by the electronic dictionary Houaiss of the Portuguese Language 3.0 which defines to evaluate on the one hand how to establish the value or price of something, on the other hand, how to determine, have idea, quantity, quality, extension, intensity, etc. of something.

Assigning a value, is issuing a judgment and that judgment can only be issued after determining, and this determination, can be done by comparing the object to be evaluated with a reference. Hence, for many authors, to evaluate is to compare the results or the performance of the student and the objectives previously defined (TYLER, 1949, BLOOM et. al., 1971, CARDINET, 1993)

When comparing an object with a scale as a reference we are measuring, so as to understand the evaluation as the act of comparing a performance with the proposed objectives, we put the evaluation as synonymous with measurement or measurement.

Almost always to measure something we need an instrument, and when it comes to measuring or evaluating the teaching process learning is often used tests as measuring instruments.

The tests help us gather information about the object under analysis. This information must be processed, systate and interpreted to later issue a judgment on the object.

For a long time this judgment was based on criteria or norms. According to SOUZA (2012), the criteria tests are used to verify the performance of the individual in relation to a concrete objective that expresses a domain, by means of a previously established criterion, whereas, normative tests aim to compare Of the income of some students with others, identifying those who are more capable and those who are less capable.

However, the assessment does not end with the judgment issued, it is not enough to know that this student is in the best or worst position on the classificative scale, the judgment issued has to lead us to action, decision making.

For PERRENOUD (1999) and SAUL (1988)[2], the evaluation is conceived as a process/instrument for information collection, systematization and interpretation of information, judgment of value of the object evaluated and, finally, decision making.

But the decision cannot be just approval or failure. It is true that the educational system imposes this final judgment, but this can be avoided if the evaluation is systematic and continuous.

A discriminatory evaluation that translates every result in approval or rejection is excludent, authoritarian and undemocratic and, at the same time, seen by the professors who have traditionally been attributed the power to evaluate as an instrument for exercising Power. Hence, this perspective of dictatorial evaluation is currently the subject of many criticisms (SOUZA, 2012).

The evaluation should be an aid to know what objectives have been achieved, which are still lacking and which teachers ‘ interferences can help the student (LUCKESI, 2002).

“The evaluation of learning exceeds the stage of the measurement of the results (measure), the obtaining of the information (verification), the finding of correct answers and errors (testing) — to become a process of interpretation and decision-making against the set of Information obtained[3] “.

This leads us to the analysis of the function of evaluation in the teaching learning process.


From the various sources consulted, there is a relationship between the evaluation functions and the types of evaluation, which is why in the present work we discuss the two themes together.

TREVELIN & NEIVA (2011) says that the evaluation must fulfill three didactic-pedagogical functions that are: the diagnostic function, the formative function and the somative function.

These three evaluation functions relate to the types of evaluation referenced by several authors by the same names (ROSADO & SILVA, 2012, GARCIA, 2009, GRIZENDI et al, 2008): Diagnostic evaluation that has the diagnostic function, formative evaluation that Has the formative function and somative evaluation that has the somative function.


Applied at the beginning of the school period, it fulfills the diagnostic function, because we use it to identify the knowledge and/or previous skills of students who can help us predict the possible learning problems that these students May face, and find the starting point of the learning teaching process. The diagnostic evaluation can also play the motivating function depending on how the teacher and the student can make use of the results of the same (ROSADO & SILVA, 2012).

However, despite the importance that this modality of evaluation can have, it is little used in Mozambican universities, perhaps on the one hand by the unconsciousness of the professors, since the majority did not have a specific training for teaching in education Higher and others for lack of time since they teach several chairs in various academic courses in addition to providing teaching services in two or more universities.

Diagnostic evaluation should be the starting point of the teaching learning process, with a reflexive, participatory, democratic and individualized approach, where through interactive dialogue, both the student and the teacher, becomes aware of the The following ways and the effort to undertake to achieve the curricular objectives (HOFFMANN, 1994 apud BERBEL et. al., 2006).

A concrete example that illustrates the need to give importance to the diagnostic evaluation at our university, especially in the course of physical education and sports, is the origin of students admitted to the course.

Although normally all admitted students should undergo admission exams and could only be candidates for this exam, the student who had the discipline of biology in the preceding cycle, which is noted is that a significant number is admitted to the course By means of an institutional partnership or scholarship without them undergoing an admission examination, and there is no rigor in observing the requirements, with students who have completed the average level by the letters section or by professional technical education without A lot of relationship with the curricular chairs of the physical education course.

These students devoid of the theoretical basis for the course of physical education may be in the same room with those who completed the general high School by the section with biology conforming a very heterogeneous class which makes the diagnostic evaluation a Important instrument to be used by the teacher.

However, its use always has to be in line with the modern theories of the learning process where the student is the protagonist of the process, involving him in the evaluation and analysis of his initial knowledge and raising awareness of the challenges that will have to correspond to the curricular objectives.


The formative evaluation, fulfills the formative, control and regulatory function because during the course of the process and in a continuous manner, informs both the faculty and the student about the results that are being achieved in the course of the teaching process Learning. This evaluation ensures the feedback of the action of the interveners in the process (student-teacher) and based on it can know the difficulties, deficiencies and weaknesses that are taking the process and find joint mechanisms of how to overcome. (TREVELIN & NEIVA, 2011).

According to GRIZENDI et. Al., (2008), it is believed that formative evaluation, by allowing changes during the process, may be more coherent and be able to promote changes in the course of the teaching-learning process as it is possible, based on the results obtained, Make changes to the route for more or less.

In fact, the formative evaluation, fulfills the purpose of perfecting the teaching-learning process

As the name says, this modality is located at the center of the training action, by characterizing itself as informative (informs the actors of the educational process); Corrective (corrects the action, modifying it, when necessary); And, propositive (known the difficulties of the student and the conditions, works towards a promising utopia[4]).

As can be seen, by the authors ‘ considerations, the formative evaluation is undoubtedly one of the most important but the most important of all. It is in this evaluation that applies the words of GRIZENDI et. Al., (2008), when they affirm that “the greater objective of the act of evaluating should be the pursuit of continuous improvement of learning”. However, the same as diagnostic evaluation, formative evaluation is less used by higher education teachers not only in our country but also in other countries as shown by some studies from abroad (RIBEIRO & FILHO, 2011, GARCIA, 2009, SOUZA, 2012).

Why is formative evaluation less used or less diversified in our higher education? The main causes may be related to the factors mentioned in the diagnostic evaluation: the time and the traditional attitudes that still stick in the teachers ‘ minds.

The exiguity of professors for an expanding system, and the incessant search by the teacher to maintain a dignified social status against a relatively low monthly remuneration, makes many professors have work contracts with several institutions remaining Little time for a progressive and emancipating didactic-pedagogical approach to the teaching-learning process. Hence, for many higher education teachers in our country, every form of evaluation is reduced to one seminar, two written tests and one examination.

And in all these forms of evaluation, the role of the teacher is decision-making and often dictatorial. It is the teacher who establishes the forms of evaluation and evaluation criteria, without any consultation or space for negotiation with students. This attitude undoubtedly shocks completely with the modern theories of learning that put the student as the protagonist of his own learning.

Even worse, in the seminars the criteria are more subjective than objectives and at the end this subjectivity has to be translated into a note, leading to some students to revolt and demotivation because they feel injustice or because they notice some favoritism on the part of Teaching.

Even unformed, the student sees himself in front of a teacher who, by the powers conferred upon him, cannot defy him to not sentence him to disapproval.

In the face of a dictatorship of this nature in which the evaluation score is not negotiated or discussed among the interveners of the teaching process-student and student-student, the self-reflection of the process by the student only results in demotivation because he can Have arguments, but that these arguments are not valid for the teacher or there is no room to expose them.

The student’s non-involvement in assessing his/her own learning, especially for those who are graduating as future teachers, in addition to being a dictatorship, students are devoid of a space to learn to evaluate and in the future when Teachers can only reproduce the way they evaluate their undergraduate professors. This affects the competencies of the faculty member who according to PERRENOUD (2000), one of the competencies to teach is to manage the progression of learning by “observing and evaluating students in an educational situation, according to a formative approach”.

How can we use formative assessment to improve the teaching process and prepare higher education students as future teachers who will strive among other competencies in assessing their students?

PERRENOUD (2000), suggests that the specific competence to observe and evaluate students in learning situation, according to a formative approach, the teacher should stimulate self-assessment, mutual evaluation, metacognition, have a perception of the class for ( RE) guiding education.

The author cited above suggests two forms of evaluation, self-assessment and mutual evaluation, and a strategy that can reinforce self-assessment, metacognition. We can add to this list of forms of evaluation, the portfolio.

These are the forms of evaluation that we should introduce or potentiate in our higher education system because they constitute reflective, integrative and transformative evaluative forms.

But before we go to the details of what they are and how they can be applied in our context, we synthesically analyze the third type of evaluation, the summative.


According to KRAEMER (2005), a summative assessment, “corresponds to a final balance, to a whole view of all, on which, until then, only parcelary judgments had been made.”

It is carried out at the end of the process, and it serves to verify in what degree the proposed objectives were achieved, and therefore judges and classifies the student according to their use at the end of a unit, semester or course (SANTOS, 2005 quoted by GRIZENDI et al., 2008 ). As a final judgment, this evaluation does not give room for a reorganization of the process or reorient the student (RAPILAEL, 1994), but is the type of evaluation most adopted by higher education professors, given its practicality (GRIZENDI et al., 2008).

Despite many criticisms, the somative evaluation still constitutes the main instrument “to grant certification to students or to select and classify candidates in competitions or in large-scale examinations” (FELICE, 2011), that is why this evaluation is Also known by other authors as a certiactive evaluation (PERRENOUD, 1999 quoted by SANTOS & GOMES, 2006; BLOOM et al., 1971 cited by ROSADO & SILVA, 2010; FERNANDES, 2006).


The superiority of the formative evaluation on the somative or certiative evaluation, we can find in the studies done by OLIVA et al., (2011) in three university centers of teacher training in undergraduate courses where he applied evaluation systems Formative and summative courses throughout the academic course to see the effect of each type of evaluation in the students ‘ learning and the results showed that the students who chose the formative evaluation had better academic achievement than those who Exclusively chose Somative evaluation.

In the current learning theories, centered on meaningful learning, “to ensure the reflective learning of concrete content, those who learn need to explain, argue, ask, deliberate, discriminate, defend their own ideas and Beliefs and simultaneously learn to evaluate “(SILVA, 2002)

This is why I advocate the use of self-assessment and mutual evaluation among students in higher education in Mozambique.

These forms of evaluation are integrated into reflexive, constructivist, democratic and emancipating assessments.

They are reflexive because it involves the [5]student’s metacognition at the time when he makes the self-correction of what he did, and are constructivists because they transform the educational space into an “Environment of overcoming pedagogical challenges, which dynamizes and means Learning, which is now understood as the construction of knowledge and skills development “(SILVA, 2002). According to GREENE (1975) Apud SOUZA, (2012), self-reflection as part of self-assessment, contributes to the construction of meanings about oneself, the others and the world or even the reformulation of these meanings.

They are democratic because it involves all stakeholders in decision-making, both the teacher who creates the conditions for the evaluative procedures by showing the students that competencies are expected to acquire, what usefulness has such competences in Social historical context in which they are found and how they should be evidenced in the teaching process in which they themselves are protagonists. They are also democratic as a place of negotiation in the definition of their objectives, criteria, instruments and dynamics and for being the territory in which the students have the opportunity to apply their knowledge and to present their doubts, insecurities, Uncertainties (OLIVA et. Al., 2011), “The duty of the teacher to evaluate, corresponds to the student’s right to be informed and to participate in the decisions that affect him”.

They are emancipating, because it promotes a critical and self-critical attitude without simply alienating the dictatorial impositions of the teacher. It frees the student from the vision of evaluation as an instrument of teacher power. For AZEVEDO & SHIGUNOV (2000), “Emancipation can be understood as a continuous process of student liberation from the limiting conditions of their critical rational capacities and even their actions in the sociocultural context and the endowing capacity of Questioning and analyzing the conditions and complexity of different realities in a reasoned way allowing a constant self-assessment of objective and subjective involvement in the individual and situational plan. ” In fact, “no one emanciates, develops autonomy, develops creation if he does not have the opportunity to act autonomously, with creativity, in an emancipating way” (MIRALHA, 2008).


Self-assessment is a process whereby an individual, in addition to evaluating a production, an action, or a conduct of which he is the author, also assesses his abilities, his tastes, his performance, his skills and skills. It is a complex cognitive process, whereby an individual (apprentice or teacher) makes a judgment, with the goal of a better personal knowledge, aiming at the improvement of their actions and to their cognitive development (SILVA et. al., 2007).

How can we use student self-assessment in higher education?

The starting point is to know that self-assessment is an evaluation created and built by the student (SOUZA, 2012), so it has to be elaborated with the student’s own participation.

For example, in the diagnostic evaluation, on the first day of presentation of the teacher and the curricular plan of the chair, the teacher can put three questions to the students to put in writing and in a synthetic way their opinions:

  • What do you know about the chair?
  • What do you expect about the chair?
  • How will you assess the scope of such expectations?

After presenting the contents of the curricular plan of the Chair, students can return to answer in writing and in a synthetic way, two questions:

  • What concrete problems of the community where you live and your personal life, do you think the curriculum contents can help you solve?
  • How do you intend to apply the knowledge you can acquire in this chair in your life?

These last two questions may also be placed throughout the process and in a particularized way at the end of each didactic unit and in the perfect past, so the students ‘ responses should be archived so that the teacher can go to support Evaluating the whole process.

In the formative evaluation, when the teacher gives a test to the students, the correction should be made by the students themselves.

After the test, the student gets a copy of both the draft and the enunciate to go reflect on the test at home. At home, you can consult additional sources, manuals, grades of attended classes or discuss with colleagues in the class and correct the test in a reasoned manner. This means not only to write the answer of the question posed, but also to substantiate it, why the answer and what would have induced it to the error at the time that the test took place. This reflection can consolidate the student’s knowledge about the subject evaluated than simply the faculty to say how they should have responded. In addition to saying what would have led to the error, it can help the faculty to evaluate the qualities of the questions formulated in the tests.

Another way to promote reflexive evaluation in students is, for example, when the correction is made in the classroom, at the time of the test correction, each question be corrected by a student who has wrong the same, with regulatory questions from the teacher to Take the student to the correct answer. With the application of these questions to the student, the others who have missed the same question, are also looking for the answers which allows everyone who did not do well in that question are involved in self-reflection and redirection of their learning.

In group research, the teacher can ask each member of the group, attach a page or less, where he describes his participation in the group’s work and the level of participation in relation to the other members. This will encourage everyone’s participation in group work although they cannot completely eliminate those students who their names only appear at work not because they participated in the production of the same, but simply as members of that group.

In seminars, it is important that students evaluate their own performance both in relation to the group and in relation to the evaluation criteria of the matter previously established together. The student’s evaluation proposal has to be grounded and through regulatory questions made by the teacher can reach the final evaluation of the student’s performance at the seminar. Negotiation is very important in seminars because they have a subjective character and avoids conflict between professors and students as well as the motivation of the student with the process.

In the seminars, one can include mutual evaluation among students. When a group presents its work at the seminar, another group may be as an evaluator based on the previously established criteria and the group’s evaluation has to be equally substantiated.

The final evaluation in this case will be the result of the intervention of all or at least three parts: the group that presents, the group that evaluates and the moderation of the teacher.

The participation of students in the evaluation process can empower them for their future teaching work where the evaluation will be a constant part of the process.

At the end of the learning process, students will be asked to produce a report based on their portfolio, where they can highlight the essential points of learning the Chair as well as reflecting on the issues posed at the beginning of Process, that is, to evaluate how the chair fulfilled its expectations, which expectations were not fulfilled and how they think to supply the gaps that they think still persist.

In an assessment of this nature, the note is not the most important, but rather the learning. Remember that not always the note reflects the learned, learning induces the change of behavior, the way of seeing things, but what happens is that with the prevailing forms of evaluation in our universities, the student only studies for the note, forcing him to memorize and To seek fraudulent ways of obtaining such a note. He gets worried about the note and not with learning itself and after evaluation even if he has the highest score, after a few weeks or months has already forgotten everything.

Hence, reflexive forms of evaluation can promote the acquisition of solid knowledge that can be translated into useful skills and competencies in practical life.


The studies analyzed show the need to emerge from the “theory” of reflexive evaluation that has the student itself as the protagonist for a “practice” of reflexive evaluation that has the student as protagonist.

Many professors are aware of the importance of student-centered learning, but often practices contradict the theories and suggestions presented in this essay can help higher education professors to materialize certain theories of reflective evaluation that can also help the student to qualify for the future teaching function.

That the student is the protagonist of his own learning not only in the process of acquiring knowledge, skill and competencies, but also in evaluating such knowledge, skills and competencies through self-assessment and mutual evaluation.


AZEVEDO, Edson Souza de; SHIGUNOV, Viktor. Reflexões sobre as abordagens pedagógicas em Educação Física. Kinein, Florianópolis, v. 1, n. 1, set./dez. 2000.

BARBEL, Aparecida Navas, OLIVEIRA, Cláudia Chueire de, VASCONCELLOS, Maura Maria Morita. Práticas Avaliativas consideradas positivas por alunos do ensino superior: aspectos didáticos pedagógicos. Estudos em Avaliação Educacional, v. 17, n. 35, set./dez. 2006

FELICE, Maria Inés Vasconcelos. Qual o lugar da avaliação da aprendizagem na formação do Professor de línguas? Anais do SILEL. Volume 2, Número 2. Uberlândia: EDUFU, 2011.

FERNANDES, Domingos. Vinte anos de avaliação das aprendizagens: Uma síntese interpretativa de artigos publicados em Portugal. Revista portuguesa de pedagogia ano 40-3, 2006, 289-348

GARCIA, Joe. Avaliação e aprendizagem na educação superior. Est. Aval. Educ., São Paulo, v. 20, n. 43, maio/ago. 2009.

GRIZENDI, José Carlos Miranda, SILVA, Judilma Aline Oliveira e FERREIRA, Victor Cláudio Paradela. A contribuição da avaliação continuada para a melhoria do desempenho discente: relato de uma experiência. Juiz de Fora, n. 06, Ago./Set. 2008.

KRAEMER, Maria Elizabeth Pereira. A avaliação da aprendizagem como processo construtivo de um novo fazer. Contabilidade. 2005. Disponível em: http://www.gestiopolis.com/canales5/fin/avalica.htm

Metodologia do Ensino Superior. Universidade da Amazônia. Disponível em: http://arquivos.unama.br/nead/pos_graduacao/direito_processual/met_ens_sup/Aula10/conceito_principios.htm

MIRALHA, Jussara Oliveto. A prática pedagógica de professores do ensino fundamental na perspectiva de uma educação de qualidade para todos. Dissertação de Mestrado apresentada ao Programa de Pós-graduação em Educação da Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, UNESP/Campus de Presidente Prudente, como exigência parcial para obtenção do título de Mestre em Educação. 2008

OLIVA, F. J. Castejón, LÓPEZ-PASTOR, V. M., CLEMENTE, J.A. Julián et al. Formative evaluation and academic achievement in the initial formation of the Profesorado de Educación Física. Rev. Int. med. cienc. Act. Fís. Deporte-Vol. 11-Number 42-Junio 2011.

PERRENOUD, Philippe. 10 new skills to teach, Artmed. 2000. Available at: http://efpava.cursos.educacao.sp.gov.br/Resource/282801,55A,1E7/Assets/Portugues/pdf/por_m01t07.pdf. Accessed on day 26/04/2014

RAFHAEL, Hélia Sónia. Assessment, technical or political issue. UNESP PROGRAD Circuit, 1994. Available at: http://annachrist.wikispaces.com/file/view/Avalia%C3%A7%C3%A3o.rtf/33418129/Avalia%C3%A7%C3%A3o.rtf. Accessed on 26 & 04 & 2014

RIBEIRO, Luis Roberto de Camargo and FILHO, Edmundo Escrivão. Formative evaluation in higher education: a case study. Acta Scientiarum. Human and Social Sciences. Maringá, v. 33, N. 1, p. 45-54, 2011

ROSADO, António & SILVA, Catarina. Basic concepts of learning assessment. 2010 is available at: http://home.fmh.utl.pt/~arosado/ESTAGIO/conceitos.htm

SANTOS, Leonor and GOMES, Anabela. Appropriation of evaluation criteria: a study with students of the 7th year of schooling. Portuguese Journal of Pedagogy Year 40-3, 2006, 011-048

SILVA, Janssen Felipe da. Evaluation of teaching and learning in a regulatory formative perspective. 2002 available at: <Http://smeduquedecaxias.rj.gov.br/nead/biblioteca/forma%c3%a7%c3%a3o%20continuada/avalia%c3%a7%c3%a3o/janssen1.pdf>. Accessed on: 19 de Junio 2017

SOUZA, Ana Maria de Lima. Evaluation of learning in higher education: historical aspects. Revista Exitus • Volume 02 • N º 01 • Jan./Jun. 2012. Available at: http://www.ufopa.edu.br/revistaexitus/revistas/volume-ii/artigos/avaliacao-da-aprendizagem-no-ensino-superior-aspectos-historicos/view.

TREVELIN, Ana Teresa Colenci and NEIVA, Jaqueline Santos Feliciano da Silva. Learning and evaluation styles in higher education. In: VI post-graduation Workshop and research Center Paula Souza – ISSN: 2175-1897. 09 and 10 November 2011.

2. Cited by the Higher education Methodology Manual of the University of Amazonia available at http://arquivos.unama.br/nead/pos_graduacao/direito_processual/met_ens_sup/Aula10/conceito_principios.htm

3. Manual of methodology of higher education of the University of Amazonia

4. Higher education methodology of the University of Amazonia available at http://arquivos.unama.br/nead/pos_graduacao/direito_processual/met_ens_sup/Aula10/conceito_principios.htm

5. Internal mental process through which the student himself becomes aware of the different moments and aspects of his cognitive activity. A conscious critical look at what you do while you do it. (SANTOS, S/D)

[1] Master in sports Training of children and youth, director of the course of physical education and sports at Rovum University-Mozambique.

Submitted: May, 2019.

Approved: July, 2019.

5/5 - (3 votes)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

RC: 38113

Este Artigo ainda não possui registro DOI, sem ele não podemos calcular as Citações!

Solicitar Registro DOI
Pesquisar por categoria…
Este anúncio ajuda a manter a Educação gratuita
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Temos uma equipe de suporte avançado. Entre em contato conosco!
👋 Hello, Need help submitting a Scientific Article?