Contributions to the improvement of ENADE indicators: a study with coordinators of undergraduate courses

Cordazzo, Evanilde Gollo; Zanin, Antonio; Santos, Edicreia Andrade dos

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Avaliação: Revista da Avaliação da Educação Superior (Campinas)

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Article • Avaliação (Campinas) 28 • 2023 • https://doi.org/10.1590/S1414-40772023000100008 copy

Contributions to the improvement of ENADE indicators: a study with coordinators of undergraduate courses

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

This study purpose to identify the perception of the coordinators of the undergraduate course regarding strategies to improve indicators at Enade. To this end, a survey was applied to 110 coordinators of undergraduate courses in higher education institutions (HEIs). The collected data were analyzed using the techniques of descriptive statistics and calculation of information entropy. As for the results, in relation to the level of importance attributed to the indicators, there was a relevant importance attributed by the respondents to the proposed indicators. All indicators were considered by most respondents to be very important, so that the averages presented were higher than four points. Regarding the level of execution, levels below the level of importance were observed, however, the averages obtained show satisfactory levels of execution. It is concluded that the proposed model of indicators was validated by the coordinators, serving as a basis for the management of the courses.

Keywords:
higher education institutions; undergraduate course coordinators; ENADE

Indicators	Items
Didactic-pedagogical (DPI)	DPI1. Discuss the CPP of the Course with the freshmen DPI2. Discuss CPP with students throughout the course DPI3. Discuss the CPP of the Course with the graduates DPI4. Keep the professional profile and skills of the graduate in the CPP up to date DPI5. Keep the course objectives consistent with the egress profile, curriculum structure and educational context DPI6. Compose the Curriculum Structure in an interdisciplinary way DPI7. Propose curricular contents that enable the development of the graduate's professional profile (updated contents, adequate bibliographies, etc.) DPI8. Provide opportunities for curricular internships (mandatory and non-mandatory) DPI9. Carry out complementary activities to the course DPI10. Institute student support policies DPI11. Insert students in research and extension projects DPI12. Integrate students with the practical areas of action (education network, health network, companies, etc.) DPI13. Carry out practical teaching activities DPI14. Elaborate the PPC according to the National Curricular Guidelines of the course DPI15. Use Enade reports (area, course and HEI summary report produced by INEP) to define improvement strategies DPI16. Use didactic methodologies in the development of classes that provide student leadership in the development of knowledge DPI17. Carry out activities aimed at the interdisciplinary articulation of the faculty
Evaluation (EI)	EI1. Structure the evaluation questions in the format of the Enade questions EI2. Promote interdisciplinary evaluations during the course EI3. Carry out evaluations in the form of an Enade simulation EI4. Encourage teachers to give feedback to students based on the assessments carried out
Methodologies adopted (IMA)	IMA1. Present the higher education evaluation model to HEI entrants IMA2. Make students aware of their responsibility for the grade obtained in Enade IMA3. Make contact with students who will participate in Enade IMA4. Conduct specific classes preparatory for Enade IMA5. Use active methodologies as a teaching-learning method
From faculty (FI)	FI1. Keep the Structuring Teaching Nucleus active FI2. Provide the course coordinator's work schedule compatible with the number of students FI3. Improve the qualification of the faculty (higher percentage of masters and doctors) FI4. Observe the teaching staff's work regime (greater number of teachers with full-time work) FI5. Prioritize the professional experience of the faculty FI6. Stimulate the performance of the course collegiate (with faculty and student representation)
Infrastructure (II)	II1. Provide classrooms suitable for the number of students per class II2. Provide adequate amount of equipment per class II3. Provide basic course bibliography II4. Provide complementary bibliographies II5. Provide own equipped laboratories

Age	n	%	Gender	n	%
Up to 25 years	1	0.91	Female	61	55.45
26 and 35 years old	21	19.09	Male	49	44.55
36 and 45 years old	31	28.18
46 and 55 years old	35	31.82
Over 55 years old	22	20.00

Management experience	n	%	Time of performance in management	n	%
No	45	40.91	Less than 2 years	9	8.26
Yes - administrative management	45	40.91	2 and 5 years old	27	24.77
Yes - academic management	20	18.18	5 and 10 years old	32	29.36
10 and 15 years old	19	17.43
More than 15 years	23	20.18

HEI time	n	%	Time spent in coordination	n	%
Less than 5 years	23	20.91	Less than 2 years	26	23.64
5 and 10 years old	34	30.91	2 and 4 years old	34	30.9
10 and 15 years old	18	16.36	4 and 6 years old	18	16.36
15 and 20 years old	20	18.18	6 and 8 years old	16	14.55
More than 20 years	15	13.64	More than 8 years	16	14.55

Weekly workload dedicated to HEI	n	%	Weekly workload dedicated to course coordination	n	%
Up to 20 hours	13	11.82	up to 8 hours	7	6.36
From 20 and 30 hours	5	4.55	From 8 am to 4 pm	27	24.55
30 and 40 hours	62	56.36	16 and 24 hours	47	42.73
More than 40 hours	30	27.27	More than 24 hours	29	26.36

Highest degree	n	%	Completion time	n	%
Specialization/MBA	8	7.28	Less than 1 year	4	3.64
Master's degree	73	66.36	From 1 to 2.5 years	29	26.36
PhD degree	29	26.36	From 2.5 to 5 years	32	29.09
From 5 to 7.5 years	8	7.27
More than 7.5 years	37	33.64

Area - Undergraduate	n	%	Area - Graduate	n	%
Exact and Earth Sciences	4	3.64	Exact and Earth Sciences	3	2.73
biological Sciences	3	2.73	biological Sciences	2	1.82
Engineering	11	10.00	Engineering	12	10.91
Health Sciences	21	19.09	Health Sciences	18	16.36
Agricultural Sciences	9	8.18	Agricultural Sciences	6	5.45
Social and Applied Sciences	33	30.00	Social and Applied Sciences	29	26.36
Human Sciences	24	21.82	Human Sciences	17	15.45
Linguistics, Letters and Arts	2	1.82	Linguistics, Letters and Arts	4	3.64
Others	2	1.82	Others	4	3.64
Not identified	1	0.91	Not identified	15	13.64

Participates in management training	n	%	Participation in management training	n	%
Yes	105	95.45	At least 1 training per year	47	42.73
No	5	4.55	From 2 to 5 trainings per year	49	44.54
More than 5 trainings per year	9	8.18
does not participate	5	4.55

	Importance			Execution
	Entropy e(di)	Weight	Média	Entropy e(di)	Weight	Média
DPI1	0.9925	0.1544	DPI1	0.9925	0.1544	DPI1
DPI2	0.9959	0.085	DPI2	0.9959	0.085	DPI2
DPI3	0.993	0.1443	DPI3	0.993	0.1443	DPI3
DPI4	0.9979	0.0424	DPI4	0.9979	0.0424	DPI4
DPI5	0.9986	0.0281	DPI5	0.9986	0.0281	DPI5
DPI6	0.9978	0.0462	DPI6	0.9978	0.0462	DPI6
DPI7	0.9989	0.0229	DPI7	0.9989	0.0229	DPI7
DPI8	0.9988	0.0255	DPI8	0.9988	0.0255	DPI8
DPI9	0.9984	0.0328	DPI9	0.9984	0.0328	DPI9
DPI10	0.9977	0.0479	DPI10	0.9977	0.0479	DPI10
DPI11	0.9984	0.0338	DPI11	0.9984	0.0338	DPI11
DPI12	0.9972	0.0578	DPI12	0.9972	0.0578	DPI12
DPI13	0.9982	0.0367	DPI13	0.9982	0.0367	DPI13
DPI14	0.9988	0.0243	DPI14	0.9988	0.0243	DPI14
DPI15	0.9974	0.053	DPI15	0.9974	0.053	DPI15
DPI16	0.9972	0.0572	DPI16	0.9972	0.0572	DPI16
DPI17	0.9948	0.1076	DPI17	0.9948	0.1076	DPI17
Total		1.0000	Total		1.0000	Total

	Importance			Execution
	Entropy e(di)	Weight	Média	Entropy e(di)	Weight	Média
EI1	0.9978	0.2038	EI1	0.9978	0.2038	EI1
EI2	0.9971	0.2632	EI2	0.9971	0.2632	EI2
EI3	0.9955	0.4163	EI3	0.9955	0.4163	EI3
EI4	0.9987	0.1168	EI4	0.9987	0.1168	EI4
Total		1,000	Total		1,000	Total

	Importance			Execution
	Entropy e(di)	Weight	Média	Entropy e(di)	Weight	Média
IMA1	0.9966	0.2475	IMA1	0.9966	0.2475	IMA1
IMA2	0.998	0.1494	IMA2	0.998	0.1494	IMA2
IMA3	0.9988	0.0898	IMA3	0.9988	0.0898	IMA3
IMA4	0.9953	0.3414	IMA4	0.9953	0.3414	IMA4
IMA5	0.9977	0.1719	IMA5	0.9977	0.1719	IMA5
Total		1	4.59	Total	1	4.59

	Importance			Execution
	Entropy e(di)	Weight	Média	Entropy e(di)	Weight	Média
FI1	0.9984	0.1419	FI1	0.9984	0.1419	FI1
FI2	0.9985	0.1397	FI2	0.9985	0.1397	FI2
FI3	0.9984	0.1422	FI3	0.9984	0.1422	FI3
FI4	0.9978	0.2027	FI4	0.9978	0.2027	FI4
FI5	0.9975	0.2266	FI5	0.9975	0.2266	FI5
FI6	0.9984	0.1468	FI6	0.9984	0.1468	FI6
Total		1	4.73	Total	1	4.73

	Importance			Execution
	Entropy e(di)	Weight	Média	Entropy e(di)	Weight	Média
DPI	0.9991	0.1464	DPI	0.9991	0.1464	DPI
EI	0.9985	0.2469	EI	0.9985	0.2469	EI
IMA	0.9986	0.2233	IMA	0.9986	0.2233	IMA
FI	0.9988	0.1917	FI	0.9988	0.1917	FI
II	0.9988	0.1918	II	0.9988	0.1918	II
Total		1	Total		1	Total

Publicação da Rede de Avaliação Institucional da Educação Superior (RAIES), da Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) e da Universidade de Sorocaba (UNISO). Rodovia Raposo Tavares, km. 92,5, CEP 18023-000 Sorocaba - São Paulo, Fone: (55 15) 2101-7016 , Fax : (55 15) 2101-7112 - Sorocaba - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revistaavaliacao@uniso.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[TFN9] Source: prepared based on the Assessment of Undergraduate Courses instrument (INEP, 2017INEP. Instrumento de Avaliação de Cursos de Graduação Presencial e a Distância: autorização. Brasília, 2017. Disponível em: http://download.inep.gov.br/educacao_superior/avaliacao_cursos_graduacao/instrumentos/2017/curso_autorizacao.pdf. Acesso em: 21 fev. 2020.
http://download.inep.gov.br/educacao_sup... ), Zanin (2014)ZANIN, A. Definição de painel de indicadores de desempenho para instituições comunitárias de ensino superior. 2014. Tese (Doutorado em Engenharia de Produção) -Universidade Federal do Rio Grande de Sul, Porto Alegre, 2014. and Molozzi (2015)MOLOZZI, G. A. Indicadores de desempenho para Instituições de Ensino Superior: uma proposta adaptada aos eixos do SINAES. 2015. Dissertação (Mestrado Profissional em Administração) - Universidade do Oeste de Santa Catarina, Chapecó, 2015..