Learning outcomes and educational quality assessment for

industrial engineering undergraduate programs in Brazil

Felipe Guilherme Melo
Universidade Federal da Bahia/ Graduate Program in Industrial Engineering, Salvador, Brazil
felipeguilherme1@gmail.com

Ricardo Kalid
Universidade Federal do Sul da Bahia/ Graduate Program in Industrial Engineering, Salvador, Brazil
ricardo.kalid@gmail.com

Marcelo Embiruçu
Universidade Federal da Bahia / Graduate Program in Industrial Engineering, Salvador, Brazil
embirucu@ufba.br

Abstract: The relevance of higher education in the economic and social

development of all countries is unquestionable, therefore quality management in
higher education institutions has been the subject of many scientific studies
worldwide. This study was based on statistical analyses of the 2014 Brazilian
exam of student performance (ENADE) database from 11024 Industrial
Engineering (IE) students in 347 undergraduate programs, and 278 higher
education institutions in Brazil, aiming to identify strategies that foster the
excellence of these programs. We identified a set of five educational strategies
found in the best IE undergraduate programs in Brazil. Among those strategies,
the opportunity to participate in study abroad programs and internship
experiences inside and/ or outside the country are the main factors that
differentiate the best programs. In addition, considering the results from ENADE
2014, our analysis indicates that the quality of Brazilian IE undergraduate
programs has not been proportional to their quantitative growth.

Introduction
The internationalization of companies has driven the globalization of engineers’ professional
performance. Prados, Peterson, and Lattuca (2005) emphasize that to work in international
projects and within multinational teams, engineering students must have access to high
quality education.
Several researchers have been studying the quality of higher education (Dias, Marchelli, &
Horiguela, 2006; Cunha, 2014; Diedericks, Klerk, & Bevan-Dye, 2015; Teeroovengadum,
Kamalanabhan, & Seebaluck, 2016; Zabadi, 2013). Concerns about higher education quality
in Brazil began to be discussed in 1990 (Pinto, Mello, & Melo, 2016). In 1995, the Brazilian
Ministry of Education (MEC, Ministério da Educação) started the Brazilian System of Higher
Education Evaluation (SINAES, Sistema Nacional de Avaliação da Educação Superior),
which aims to guarantee the quality of Brazilian higher education through indicators that
evaluate Higher Education Institutions (HEI), undergraduate programs, and students learning
outcomes.
Among the undergraduate engineering programs in Brazil, IE programs are the second most
abundant. Between 2000 and 2017, these programs reached a growth rate of 1150%,
increasing from 72 to 900 programs in March 2017. Regarding quality, SINAES data on
student learning outcomes has shown that 81.8% of these programs have poor educational
quality or have never completed the evaluation process. The quality management of
undergraduate programs works as an evaluation and accreditation system that guarantees
quality professional education to the students.

1
This study aims to: (1) outline the quality of the Industrial Engineering (IE) undergraduate
programs in Brazil; and (2) identify educational strategies adopted by the best IE
undergraduate programs in Brazil in order to contribute to the excellence of these programs.
In this context, the questions of this study further investigate the quality of IE undergraduate
programs, and, consequently, contribute to the professional education of future Brazilian
industrial engineers.

Theoretical Framework
Educational Quality Management in HEI in Brazil
The relevance of higher education in the economic and social development of all countries is
undeniable. Therefore, quality management in higher education institutions has been the
subject of many scientific studies worldwide. Đonlagić and Fazlić (2015) point out that in the
current knowledge based economy, higher education is a key factor to reach social, political,
and economic development.
Matos, Cirino, Brown, and Leite (2013) emphasize that the Brazilian higher education system
has undergone changes and adaptations that involve the formulation of new legislation, new
evaluative practices, and new formats of programs curricula, aiming, among others, to meet
the new requirements of the marketplace. Quality management in the Brazilian higher
education system has been discussed, evaluated, and improved by MEC and by the
Brazilian Institute for Educational and Pedagogical Research (INEP, Instituto Nacional de
Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira), which is the national institution
responsible for developing and applying the Brazilian Exam of Student Performance
(ENADE, Exame Nacional de Desempenho de Estudantes) (Ribeiro & Belhot, 2002).
The first steps to evaluate the quality of Brazilian HEI started in the 1990’s through a gradual
process of developing a higher education evaluation system (Pinto, Mello, & Melo, 2016). In
contrast to the United States and European countries, Pedrosa, Amaral, and Knobel (2013)
claim that Brazil was one of the first countries to develop a system that evaluates HEI in a
comprehensive way, which encompasses an evaluation of students learning outcomes, for
both public and private HEI. The process of creating the Brazilian higher education
evaluation system began in 1995 with the Federal Law 9.131/1995 (Brasil, 1995), which
established the National Exam of Programs (ENC, Exame Nacional dos Cursos, also known
in Brazil as "Provão"). In 2003, this exam was applied to more than 470 thousand
undergraduate students of 6.5 thousand programs distributed in 26 fields of study. This was
the last time ENC was applied (INEP, 2003).
In 2004, SINAES was established by the Federal Law 10.861/2004 (Brasil, 2004). This
national system aims to ensure the national process of evaluating HEI, undergraduate
programs and the academic performance of their students (Brasil, 2004, p. 1). Likewise,
Pinto, Mello, and Melo (2016) emphasize that SINAES represents an evaluation of education
policy, focused on the effective construction of participation, ethics and quality in higher
education, regarding the differences among HEI and regional identities (p. 92).
Pedrosa, Amaral, and Knobel (2013) point out that one of the major differences between
SINAES and ENC is the establishment of a test to evaluate student learning outcomes
(ENADE). Since then, SINAES has worked as a measure for undergraduate programs
accreditation in public and private HEI. The elements evaluated by SINAES are represented
by three main indicators: (1) ENADE, an evaluation that focuses on student learning
outcomes; (2) a general index for the programs (IGC, Índice Geral de Cursos), which
evaluates the HEI; and (3) a preliminary score for the programs (CPC, Conceito Preliminar
de Curso), which evaluates the structure of the program curriculum. These indicators are
evaluated on a discrete scale from 1 to 5, where 5 is the best score (MEC, 2007). SINAES
evaluates the undergraduate programs triennially. Consequently, IE programs were
evaluated in 2005, 2008, 2011, and 2014. The next evaluation will take place in 2017.

2
Focusing on assessing student learning outcomes, ENADE is more than just a quantitative
indicator, it is a tool to assess the skills and abilities of undergraduates over a three-year
cycle (Verhine, Dantas, & Soares, 2006). According to Tagg (2010), the evaluation of student
learning outcomes is a key factor to improve quality management in HEI. In addition, it
should be noted that ENADE is one of the most important indicators of SINAES, as it
supports CPC and IGC scores (Griboski, 2012; Sousa, Seiffert, & Fernandes, 2016). ENADE
has become a required curriculum component, which is now registered in each student’s
transcript. INEP (2014, p. 5) defines the main goal of ENADE as:
To assess students’ performance regarding to the content provided in the curriculum
guidelines of the undergraduate programs, their abilities to meet the arising demands of the
evolution of knowledge, and their competency to understand subjects outside the specific
scope of their profession, including other areas of knowledge and contemporary Brazilian
and global issues.
Industrial Engineering Programs in Brazil: an Overview
The pillars of the IE were built during the Industrial Revolution. According to Cunha (2002),
since the Industrial Revolution the models of the organizations have changed with the
formulation of new techniques and operational methods. In this context, IE programs were
maturing throughout the 20th century with the aim of developing methods and techniques
that would allow for the optimization of production processes. Therefore, the organizations
were able to follow the technological and market evolution characterized by the Industrial
Revolution (INEP, 2010). In this way, the industrial engineers’ areas of expertise have
expanded over time and required increasing levels of skill and ability. Bittencourt, Viali, and
Beltrame (2010) state that the competency of the 21st century industrial engineer is in line
with the primary needs of these organizations, which depend on technical, scientific, and
management knowledge.
The first Brazilian IE undergraduate program started in 1958 at São Paulo University (USP
Universidade de São Paulo) (Fleury, 2008). Regarding the quantitative growth of these
programs, currently MEC recognizes 900 programs in its database, according to E-MEC
system on Mach 7, 2017. Figure 1 shows the quantitative evolution of the Brazilian IE
undergraduate programs. Between 2000 and 2017, the number of program grew from 72 to
900, which represents a growth rate of 1150%.

Figure 1: Quantitative growth of the Brazilian IE undergraduate programs (1990-2017).

Considering the increase in the number of Brazilian IE undergraduate programs, Faé and
Ribeiro (2005) highlight that the industrial engineer has become a crucial profession for the

3
most diverse branches of industry, commerce, and services, due to competitiveness and
integration between global markets, which resulted in a need for high quality products and
increasingly efficient organizations.
Regarding the regulations of Brazilian IE undergraduate programs, in 2002 the Brazilian
education council (CNE, Conselho Nacional de Educação) established the Resolution
CNE/CES 11/2002 (Brasil, 2002), which defines national curriculum guidelines for
engineering programs. For IE programs in particular, the Brazilian IE association (ABEPRO,
Associação Brasileira de Engenharia de Produção) published the "Industrial Engineering:
major and curriculum guidelines", which established basic guidelines for the pedagogical
practices of Brazilian IE undergraduate programs (ABEPRO, 1998).
According to INEP (2010, p. 47), until 2002 IE undergraduate programs were evaluated
based on the parameters established for mechanical engineering undergraduate programs.
After 2002, INEP launched a new manual to evaluate undergraduate programs, which
initiated the first SINAES proposals that are the basis of ENADE, considered one of the main
Brazilian educational quality indicators. Table 1 presents a summary of the ENADE scores
obtained by the IE undergraduate programs. The programs with the indication "-" have no
score or have yet to be evaluated by SINAES.
Table 1: Summary of the results from ENADE 2014 to IE undergraduate programs
Quality scale ENADE Scores Number of programs % of programs % total
- - 538 59.8 59.8
1 52 5.8
Poor 22.0
2 146 16.2
Fair 3 102 11.3 11.3
4 39 4.3
Good 6.9
5 23 2.6
Total 900 100.0 100.0
In contrast to the quantitative growth rate, Table 1 reveals that IE high quality education in
Brazil is restricted to only 6.9% of the existing undergraduate programs. Meanwhile, 81.8%
had a poor quality score or were not yet evaluated by SINAES, and therefore only 18.2% of
the programs were certified as good or satisfactory.
Research Methods
This study was based on the statistical analyzes of the 2014 ENADE database (INEP, 2017).
We analyzed the answers of the students’ surveys applied by INEP to evaluate the students’
perception on the conditions of the educational process within IE undergraduate programs in
Brazil. This survey was distributed 15 days before the exam that evaluates the students
learning outcomes, and it includes 42 items to assess the didactic and pedagogical
structures of the programs, the infrastructure and physical facilities, and the opportunities
offered by the programs in order to expand academic and professional training. These items
are evaluated on a 6-point Likert scale of agreement.
Here, the students’ responses were divided into three categories (quality scale) based on the
ENADE score of their respective undergraduate program. The first category has the
students’ responses from programs with ENADE 2014 scores 1 or 2, which represents
programs with poor educational quality. The second category represents programs with fair
educational quality and has the students’ responses from programs with ENADE 2014 score
3. Finally, the third category represents programs that has a good educational quality and
has the student’s responses from programs with ENADE 2014 scores 4 or 5. Table 2 shows
the distribution of the students’ responses based on these three groups of ENADE scores.

4
 Table 2: Summary of the number of students and number of IE undergraduate
programs grouped by its ENADE score
ENADE Number of IE
Quality scale Number of students
Scores programs
N % N %
Poor 1 or 2 6495 58.9 190 54.8
Fair 3 3108 28.1 98 28.2
Good 4 or 5 1421 13.0 59 17.0
Total 11024 100.0 347 100.0
In Table 2 we notice that most of the students who answered the survey were within IE
undergraduate programs with ENADE score 1 or 2. A total of 11024 surveys were analyzed,
which represents 63.7% of the IE students who were chosen to take the exam in 2014,
distributed among 347 IE undergraduate programs and 278 HEI. The 36.3% of the students
left out of this study (6282 students) either missed the exam (2225 students, 12.8%) or did
not answer the student survey (4058 students, 23.5%).
Descriptive statistics and graphics (histograms and box plots) were generated and tests of
normality (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test) were conducted on all data sets to determine whether
parametric or non-parametric statistical analyses were appropriate. Considering that the data
were not strictly normally distributed, we used nonparametric tests for the evaluation of the
results. Comparisons of the 42 survey items were done by Kruskal-Wallis test with post-hoc
Dunn’s multiple comparison tests between all pairs among the three groups. The significance
level was set at α=0.05 in all tests. All statistical analyses were performed using the software
R version 3.3.3.
Results and Discussions
The results from Kruskal-Wallis test showed that only 39 survey items had statistically
significant differences by comparing the three groups. We verified that 4 items showed a
correlation between higher responses (on a Likert scale) and “good” programs, 1 item
showed a relationship between higher responses and “fair” and “good” quality IE
undergraduate programs, 26 survey items exclusively corresponded to programs with “poor”
quality, and 8 items exclusively corresponded to programs with “fair” quality.
The following two sub-sections present and discuss the educational strategies we found to
be associated exclusively with “good” quality IE programs and that associated with both “fair”
and “good” quality IE programs. In order to focus on the primary goal of this paper, the other
34 items of the survey will not be analyzed further.
Evaluation 1: Items related to “good” quality programs
This section aims to analyze the items related only to the best IE undergraduate programs in
Brazil (ENADE scores greater than 3). Table 3 presents the four items that showed an
exclusive correlation with the educational structures of the best IE undergraduate programs
in Brazil.

5
 Table 3: Items related to the best IE undergraduate programs in Brazil
Average of the student’s responses Kruskal-
Poor Fair Good Wallis
Evaluated items
chi-
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
squared*
The program offered opportunities
i53 for students to conduct exchanges 3.894 (1.952) 4.493 (1.635) 5.030 (1.305) 463.326
and/or internships abroad.
The program provided opportunities
i52 for students to conduct exchanges 4.220 (1.806) 4.609 (1.547) 4.750 (1.447) 126.060
and/or internships within Brazil.
The program provided opportunities
for students to participate in
i43 4.783 (1.421) 4.933 (1.271) 5.055 (1.174) 35.316
programs, projects, or activities
related to the community.
The program provided
undergraduate research
i44 opportunities or projects and 4.723 (1.469) 4.858 (1.326) 4.984 (1.206) 25.912
activities that stimulated academic
research.
Notes: SD = Standard Deviation. *All p-values were < 0.05 and Dunn’s test p-values were < 0.008.

The four items shown in Table 3 are related to the opportunities offered by the programs in
order to expand academic and professional training. Table 3 indicates that the main factors
that differentiate the best programs are the opportunities for participation in study abroad
programs and internships inside and outside the country. These factors are related to
opportunities outside the programs and to whether the HEI provides students with new
learning experiences. In 2014, as stated by Pozzo and Nihei (2016), the Brazilian
government encouraged academic mobility through international programs such as the
Brazilian Scientific Mobility Program (Programa Ciência sem Fronteiras) and the
establishment of universities with an integration profile. Currently, there is also a program
named Paulo Freire’s Mobility Program (Programa Paulo Freire de Mobilidade Acadêmica).
These programs aim to train students to work in different countries, promote local
development, and learn from cultural, scientific, professional, and educational exchange
experiences. These authors add that these opportunities act as a catalyst for international
cooperation and professional training, which has potential benefits for the economic and
social aspects of all countries involved, and aims to improve the quality of HEI and to identify
and strengthen common international interests (Pozzo & Nihei, 2016, p. 55).
In addition, opportunities to participate in academic programs, projects and research were
indicated by the students’ responses as important factors for educational quality. These
opportunities are directly related to the students’ performance in activities and academic
research that employ the content of the programs’ curriculum and motivate academic
research. Massi and Queiroz (2010, p. 174) consider undergraduate research as a process
in which essential knowledge is provided to introduce students to techniques and traditions of
science. Furthermore, they emphasize the value of participating in extracurricular
opportunities to encourage personal development, creating an alternative perspective of
science, and cultivating professional socialization.
Evaluation 2: Items related to both “fair” and “good” quality programs
Comparing the survey answers from “fair” and “good” programs, we found only one item with
correlated responses (Table 4). We believe that this item may be part of a process of
transition and educational reorganization by the “fair” quality programs aiming to achieve a
better educational performance, although each program has its own characteristics and
peculiarities. Furthermore, due to the comparative nature of these results, adopting the best
programs strategies does not necessarily imply in obtaining a higher ENADE score.

6
 Table 4: Item related to both “fair” and “good” quality IE undergraduate programs
Average of the student’s responses Kruskal-
Poor Fair Good Wallis
Evaluated items
chi-
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
squared*
The program offered support for
i45 students to participate in internal 4.859 (1.354) 4.980 (1.217) 4.928 (1.198) 8.077
and/or external scientific events.
Notes: SD = Standard Deviation. *p-value = 0.0017. Dunn’s test p-value = 0.029.

The item displayed in Table 4 is related to the scientific opportunities to expand academic
and professional training that are offered by the programs. Marchiori, Adami, Ferreira, and
Cristofoli (2006, p. 8) emphasize that the main functions of scientific events are to: create
opportunities to exchange experiences among researchers; update on recent progress of the
study areas; systematize the latest advances in the field; disseminate new knowledge; and
outline guidelines and goals for future ventures in a particular study area. In summary,
attending scientific events can contribute to the quality of undergraduate programs because it
allows knowledge exchange and comparisons about what has been approached by
researchers from different HEI.
Conclusions
This study identified a set of five educational strategies found in the best Industrial
Engineering (IE) undergraduate program in Brazil (Table 5). All these strategies are related
to the opportunities offered by the programs in order to expand academic and professional
training. Specifically, we verified that the opportunities to participate in exchange programs
both inside and outside the country, the students’ involvement in programs and activities
related to academic development, and the participation in scientific events are factors that
positively influence the student learning outcomes and the quality of IE undergraduate
programs.
Table 5: Didactic and pedagogical structures found in the best IE undergraduate
program in Brazil
Strategies
The program offered opportunities for students to conduct exchanges and/or internships
1
abroad.
The program provided opportunities for students to conduct exchanges and/or internships
2
within Brazil.
The program provided opportunities for students to participate in programs, projects, or
3
activities related to the community.
The program provided undergraduate research opportunities or projects and activities that
4
stimulated academic research.
The program offered support for students to participate in internal and/or external scientific
5
events.
We point out that no strategy in Table 5 is related to the didactic and pedagogical structures
of the programs or the infrastructure and physical facilities offered by them. In addition, we
note that the best IE undergraduate programs have mostly offered opportunities to expand
academic and professional training of its students.
The quality management in Brazilian IE undergraduate programs is a current concern due to
the rapid increase in the quantity of programs and the large number of programs that have
never been evaluated by SINAES (Sistema Nacional de Avaliação da Educação Superior,
Brazilian system of higher education evaluation) or have a very low ENADE (Exame
Nacional de Desempenho de Estudantes, Brazilian exam of student performance) score. The
data indicate that the quality of Brazilian IE undergraduate programs has not been
maintained in light of its quantitative growth. Therefore, the question of quality of these
programs is undeniably prudent.

7
We reiterate that each program has its own characteristics and peculiarities. Consequently,
adopting all these strategies does not necessarily imply the acquisition of a higher ENADE
score by the program. We also note that the educational structure of the program is just one
of the items evaluated by INEP to compute CPC score. The coordinators of the IE
undergraduate programs in Brazil are invited and encouraged to rethink the educational
structure of their programs and implement actions related to the five strategies identified in
this study. In doing so, this study points to the likely improvement of student learning
outcomes and consequently the potential for a higher CPC score during the next program
evaluation process, in 2017.
References
ABEPRO (Brazilian Association of Production Engineering). (1998). Engenharia de Produção: grande
área e diretrizes curriculares. Accessed at
http://www.abepro.org.br/arquivos/websites/1/DiretrCurr19981.pdf on 25 Jan 2017.
Bittencourt, H. R., Viali, L., & Beltrame, E. (2010). A engenharia de Produção no Brasil: Uma
Panorama dos cursos de Graduação e Pós-graduação. Revista de Ensino de Engenharia, 29(1),
11-19.
Brasil. (2002). Resolução CNE/CES nº 11, de 11 de março de 2002. Brasília, DF: Diário Oficial [da]
República Federativa do Brasil.
Brasil. (2004). Lei nº 10.861, de 14 de abril de 2004. Brasília, DF: Diário Oficial [da] República
Federativa do Brasil.
Brasil. (1995) Lei nº 9.131, de 24 de novembro de 1995. Brasília, DF: Diário Oficial [da] República
Federativa do Brasil.
Cunha, G. (2002). Um panorama atual da Engenharia de Produção. Brazilian Association of
Production Engineering (ABEPRO). Accessed at www.abepro.org.br on 20 may 2016.
Cunha, M. I. (2014). A qualidade e ensino de graduação e o complexo exercício de propor
indicadores: é possível obter avanços? Avaliação, 19(2), 453-462.
Dias, C. L., Marchelli, P. S., Horiguela, & M. L. M. (2006). Policies for the assessment of higher
education in Brazil: a critical review. Educação e Pesquisa, 32, 1-29.
Diedericks, R., Klerk, N., & Bevan-Dye, A. L. (2015). Students’ Perceptions of Service Quality at a
South African Traditional University and a University of Technology. J Soc Sci, 43(2), 161-171.
Đonlagić, S, & Fazlić, S. (2015). Quality assessment in higher education using the SERVQUAL model.
Management, 20(1), 39-57.
Faé, C. S., & Ribeiro, J. L. D. (2005). Um Retrato da Engenharia de Produção no Brasil. Revista
Gestão Industrial (Online), 1, 315-324.
Griboski, C. M. (2012). O ENADE como indutor da qualidade da educação superior. Est. Aval. Educ.,
23(53), 178-195.
Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Pereira (INEP). (2017). Indicadores de
qualidade: ENADE 2014 [Data file]. Retrieved from http://portal.inep.gov.br/web/guest/conceito-
enade.
Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Pereira (INEP); Conselho Federal de
Engenharia, Arquitetura e Agronomia (CONFEA). (2010). Trajetória e estado da arte da formação
em engenharia, arquitetura e agronomia - Volume VII: Engenharia de Produção. Brasília, DF:
INEP.
Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Pereira (INEP). (2014). Manual
ENADE 2014. Accessed at
http://download.inep.gov.br/educacao_superior/enade/manuais/manual_enade_2014.pdf on 26
jan. 2017.
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Educacional Anísio Teixeira - INEP. (2003). NC - Provão: Exame será
aplicado no dia 8 de junho para mais de 470 mil inscritos. Retrieved from
http://provabrasil.inep.gov.br/artigo/-/asset_publisher/B4AQV9zFY7Bv/content/enc-provao-exame-
sera-aplicado-no-dia-8-de-junho-para-mais-de-470-mil-inscritos/21206 on 04 mar. 2017.
Marchiori, P. Z.; Adami, A.; Ferreira, S. M. P.; Cristofoli, F. (2006). Fatores motivacionais da
comunidade científica para publicação e divulgação de sua produção em revistas científicas. In:
Seminário Nacional de Bibliotecas Universitárias, 2006, Salvador – BA.
Massi, L. & Queiroz, S. L. (2010). Estudos Sobre Iniciação Científica No Brasil: Uma Revisão.
Cadernos de Pesquisa, 40(139), 173-197.
Matos, D. A. S., Cirino, S. D., Brown, G. T. L., & Leite, W. L. (2013). Avaliação no ensino superior:
concepções múltiplas de estudantes brasileiros. Estudos em Avaliação Educacional (Online), 24,
172-193.
8
Ministério da Educação (MEC). (2007). Portaria normativa nº 40, de 12 de dezembro de 2007.
Brasília, DF: Diário Oficial [da] República Federativa do Brasil.
Pedrosa, R. H.L., Amaral, E., & Knobel, M. (2013). Assessing higher education learning outcomes in
Brazil. Higher Education Management and Policy, 24(2), 55-71.
Pinto, R. S., Mello, S. P. T., & Melo, P. A. (2016). Meta-avaliação: uma década do Processo de
Avaliação Institucional do SINAES. Avaliação, 21(1), 89-107.
Pozzo, E. D.; Nihei, O. K. (2016). A Internacionalização da Educação Superior e a UNILA sob a Ótica
da Integração. Pleiade, 10(20), 52-60.
Prados, J. W., Peterson, G. D., & Lattuca, L. R. (2005). Quality Assurance of Engineering Education
through Accreditation: The Impact of Engineering Criteria 2000 and Its Global Influence. Journal of
Engineering Education, 94(1), 165-184.
Ribeiro, L. R. C., & Belhot, R. V. (2002). A gestão da qualidade e o ensino de engenharia. Revista de
Ensino de Engenharia, 21(2), 17-25.
Sousa, J. V., Seiffert, O. M. L. B., Fernandes, I. R. (2016). Acesso e expansão de cursos de
graduação de alta qualidade no Brasil: outros indicadores de qualidade para a educação superior.
Educação em Revista, 32(4), 19-47.
Tagg, J. (2010). The learning-paradigm campus: From single- to double-loop learning. New Directions
for Teaching and Learning, 123, 51-61.
Teeroovengadum, V., Kamalanabhan, T.J., & Seebaluck, A. K. (2016). Measuring service quality in
higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 24(2), 244-258.
Verhine, R. E., Dantas, L. V., & Soares, J. F. (2006). Do provão ao ENADE: uma análise comparativa
dos exames nacionais utilizados no ensino superior brasileiro. Ensaio: Avaliação e Políticas
Públicas em Educação, 14, 291-309.
Zabadi, A. M. A. (2013). Implementing Total Quality Management (TQM) on the Higher Education
Institutions – A Conceptual Model. Journal of Finance & Economics, 1(1), 42-60, 2013.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível
Superior) and CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico) for
their financial support.

Copyright statement
Copyright © 2017 Felipe Guilherme Melo, Ricardo Kalid, and Marcelo Embiruçu: The authors assign to the REES organisers
and educational non-profit institutions a non-exclusive licence to use this document for personal use and in courses of
instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The authors also grant a non-
exclusive license to REES to publish this document in full on the World Wide Web (prime sites and mirrors), on portable media
and in printed form within the REES 2017 conference proceedings. Any other usage is prohibited without the express
permission of the authors.