Brazil
Avaliação: Revista da Avaliação da Educação Superior (Campinas)
Table of contents previous current next
Table of contents
Article • Avaliação (Campinas) 31 • 2026 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-57652026v31id29708713 linkcopy

Open-access USE OF THE UNDERGRADUATE COURSE EVALUATION INSTRUMENT (IACG) IN THE SIMULATION OF EXTERNAL EVALUATION FOR THE AUTHORIZATION OF ONCAMPUS AND DISTANCE UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS

Uso del Instrumento de Evaluación de Cursos de Grado (IACG) en la simulación de la evaluación externa para la autorización de cursos de grado presenciales y a distancia

Abstract

This study is situated within the context of external evaluation, one of the pillars of the National System for the Evaluation of Higher Education (SINAES). During her postdoctoral studies in the Graduate Program in Education and New Technologies, the researcher analyzed how a Higher Education Institution (HEI) used the Undergraduate Course Evaluation Instrument (IACG), published in 2017 by the National Institute of Educational Studies and Research Anísio Teixeira (INEP), to simulate the authorization of a distance learning undergraduate course and a face-to-face bachelor's degree course. The research adopted a triangulation methodology, combining document analysis of official databases from the Ministry of Education (MEC) and a literature review integrated with the perspectives of researchers in the field. The results demonstrate that the prior use of the IACG in simulating external evaluation contributes to identifying evidence required by the attributes associated with the indicators of the instrument's three dimensions, in addition to improving the understanding of legislation and the regulatory framework. In conclusion, the objective was fully achieved: the simulation proved to be a strategic practice, capable of strengthening academic management, highlighting the quality of the courses, and promoting alignment with the expectations of the evaluation committee and INEP.

Keywords:
external evaluation; simulation; undergraduate programs.

Resumo

Este estudo insere-se no contexto da avaliação externa, um dos pilares do Sistema Nacional de Avaliação da Educação Superior (Sinaes). Durante o estágio pósdoutoral no Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação e Novas Tecnologias, a pesquisadora analisou como uma Instituição de Ensino Superior (IES) utilizou o Instrumento de Avaliação de Cursos de Graduação (IACG), publicado em 2017 pelo Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira (INEP), para simular a autorização de dois cursos de graduação: um de licenciatura, na modalidade a distância, e outro de bacharelado, na modalidade presencial. A pesquisa adotou a triangulação metodológica, combinando a análise documental de bases oficiais do Ministério da Educação (MEC) e a revisão bibliográfica, articulada às perspectivas de pesquisadores da área. Os resultados demonstram que o uso prévio do IACG na simulação da avaliação externa contribui para a identificação das evidências requeridas pelos atributos associados aos indicadores das três dimensões do instrumento, além de aprimorar a compreensão da legislação e do marco regulatório. Conclui-se que o objetivo foi plenamente alcançado: a simulação demonstrou ser uma prática estratégica, capaz de fortalecer a gestão acadêmica, evidenciar a qualidade da oferta dos cursos de graduação avaliados e promover o alinhamento às expectativas da IES, da comissão avaliadora e do INEP.

Palavras-chave:
avaliação externa; simulação; cursos de graduação.

Resumen

Este estudio se sitúa en el contexto de la evaluación externa, uno de los pilares del Sistema Nacional de Evaluación de la Educación Superior (Sinaes). Durante sus estudios posdoctorales en el Programa de Posgrado en Educación y Nuevas Tecnologías, la investigadora analizó cómo una institución de educación superior (IES) utilizó el Instrumento de Evaluación de Cursos de Pregrado (IACG), publicado en 2017 por el Instituto Nacional de Estudios e Investigaciones Educativas Anísio Teixeira (INEP), para simular la autorización de un curso de pregrado a distancia y un curso de licenciatura presencial. La investigación adoptó una metodología de triangulación, combinando el análisis documental de bases de datos oficiales del Ministerio de Educación (MEC) y una revisión bibliográfica integrada con las perspectivas de investigadores en el campo. Los resultados demuestran que el uso previo del IACG en la simulación de la evaluación externa contribuye a identificar la evidencia requerida por los atributos asociados a los indicadores de las tres dimensiones del instrumento, además de mejorar la comprensión de la legislación y el marco regulatorio. En conclusión, el objetivo se logró plenamente: la simulación demostró ser una práctica estratégica, capaz de fortalecer la gestión académica, resaltar la calidad de los cursos y promover la alineación con las expectativas del comité de evaluación y del INEP.

Palabras clave:
evaluación externa; simulación; cursos de grado.

1 INTRODUCTION

The Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil, promulgated on October 5, 1988, represented a milestone of significant advancements, especially in the area of education. Among the fundamental principles highlighted in Chapter III, Section I, Article 206, item VII, is the "guarantee of quality standards". This principle ensures that undergraduate courses offered by Brazilian Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) maintain high standards of academic excellence, in line with the requirements of the Ministry of Education (MEC).

In this context, on-site external evaluation, provided for in Law No. 10,861 of April 14, 2004, which instituted the National System for Standardization and Evaluation of Higher Education (SINAES), has consolidated itself as one of the pillars of this process. Among the main legal developments, Decree No. 9,235 of 2017 stands out, which resulted in the implementation of the External Institutional Evaluation Instrument (IAIE) and the Undergraduate Course Evaluation Instrument (IACG), both under the responsibility of the National Institute of Educational Studies and Research Anísio Teixeira (INEP).

The consolidation of these instruments represented a relevant advancement by seeking to reconcile technical rigor and flexibility in the inspection and innovation of both institutions and the offering of higher education courses. To meet the authorization processes for undergraduate courses, INEP began to structure, in a reliable manner, analysis criteria distributed across three dimensions and respective indicators, ensuring that the evaluated attributes contribute to state decision-making and reinforce the centrality of the instrument in public policies. At the same time, the foreseen mechanisms strengthened academic control and expanded the adaptability of external evaluation processes, encompassing both on-campus and distance learning courses.

By establishing clear guidelines for bodies and secretariats linked to MEC, INEP, through the authorization IACG, also fulfills the function of informing society and fostering the improvement of undergraduate courses, reaffirming the centrality of higher education. External evaluation for program authorization enables a direct assessment of the conditions under which programs are offered, covering dimensions such as didactic-pedagogical organization, faculty, infrastructure, and academic outcomes. Thus, it fulfills a dual function: ensuring state regulation and stimulating the continuous improvement of higher education institutions.

More recently, Decree No. 12,456 of May 19, 2025, defined guidelines for the provision of distance education by HEIs. On the same date, MEC Ordinance No. 378 regulated the on-campus, blended (semipresencial), and distance formats for undergraduate higher education courses in the federal education system. Although this new regulatory scenario seeks to ensure high standards and quality control mechanisms, this research adopted as a reference the legal framework in force since 2017, established by MEC, and the IACG developed by INEP. This instrument, used in the authorization processes of on-campus and distance learning courses, has become a fundamental resource for evaluating how HEIs have structured their undergraduate courses, demonstrating adherence to normative parameters and improving their internal evaluation processes in alignment with regulatory requirements.

The relevance of this study stems from the need to understand how the IACG can be used not only as an external evaluation tool, but also as a resource for academic planning and management. The expansion of distance education and the persistence of the on-campus modality make it urgent to reflect on the effectiveness of regulatory mechanisms in guaranteeing the quality of higher education. By simulating course authorization processes, the instrument allows for the identification of vulnerabilities, anticipation of regulatory demands, and strengthening of institutional practices aimed at quality.

During her postdoctoral studies in the Graduate Program in Education and New Technologies, the researcher proposed to analyze the use of the IACG, published in 2017 by INEP, by an HEI in simulating external evaluation for the authorization of two undergraduate courses: a distance learning licentiate degree, identified as (P); and an oncampus bachelor's degree, designated as (EF).

The research addresses a problem that encompasses theoretical and practical aspects. Despite the existence of official evaluation instruments, uncertainties remain regarding the effective contribution of IACG/2017 to the internal processes of HEIs. The central question guiding this investigation is: when used previously in course authorization simulations, is the IACG capable of consistently guiding the drafting of documents and the gathering of evidence required in the analysis criteria of the attributes associated with each indicator of the instrument's three dimensions?

Triangulation is adopted as the methodological proposal, according to Mattar and Ramos (2021), combining multiple sources of evidence and articulating the bibliographic and documentary research described by Gil (2008, 2010), with an emphasis on exploring official MEC databases since 2017 regarding laws, decrees, ordinance, and technical reports of external evaluation published by INEP. Complementarily, the bibliographic research brings together contributions from Schwartzman (2026), Fernandes and Gomes (2026), Bandeira et al. (2021), Santos and Gesser (2020), Dias Sobrinho (2016, 2010, 2008, 2003), Medeiros, Moser, and Santos (2014), Freitas Filho (2008), among others, whose diversity of perspectives makes it possible to articulate theoretical and practical dimensions related to external evaluation aimed at the authorization and regulation of undergraduate courses.

The text is organized into sections that present, in addition to the introduction, the theoretical framework grounded in the contributions of researchers in the field, addressing: (i) external evaluation as one of the pillars of SINAES, including simulation as an external evaluation mechanism; (ii) the External Evaluation Instrument (IACG/2017), covering preliminary analysis, the structure of dimensions, and the e-MEC system, up to the publication of the evaluation report by INEP; (iii) the use of the IACG in the simulation of undergraduate courses (P) and (EF) by HEIs, as well as the reports published by INEP. Next, the analytical synthesis, final considerations, and references are presented. From this point onward, bodies, instruments, institutions, and courses will be mentioned initially by their full names, followed by their acronyms in parentheses, and subsequently by their acronyms alone, according to the adopted standardization.

It is expected that this research will help guide HEIs in understanding legislation and the IACG, highlight its anticipated use in authorization simulations of on-campus and distance learning courses, and, as an institutional practice, reveal the potential of the instrument as a strategic resource capable of expanding administrative capacity and ultimately consolidating the quality of higher education in the country.

2 EXTERNAL EVALUATION: ONE OF THE PILLARS OF SINAES

Under the terms of Law No. 10,861 of April 14, 2004, Article 4 establishes that SINAES is responsible for the "evaluation of undergraduate courses with the objective of identifying the teaching conditions offered to students, especially those related to the profile of the faculty, physical facilities, and didactical-pedagogical organization" (Brazil, 2004a, p. 2). In the same article, paragraph 1 determines that "the evaluation of undergraduate courses shall make use of diversified procedures and instruments, among which, obligatorily, external evaluation by committees of specialists from the respective areas of knowledge" (Brazil, 2004b, p. 2).

With the publication of Decree No. 9,235/2017, it was reinforced that, to fulfill its objectives and meet its purposes, "on-site external evaluation carried out by INEP" (BRAZIL, 2017, p. 45) constitutes one of the pillars of the evaluation process. Chapter IV, Section I, Article 79 establishes that "evaluation within the scope of SINAES shall take place under the terms of Law No. 10,861, of April 14, 2004, and specific legislation" (Brazil, 2017, p. 46).

On-site external evaluation, considered one of the pillars of SINAES, plays a strategic role in guaranteeing the quality of higher education in Brazil. This process, in addition to favoring institutional improvement, provides subsidies for regulation and supervision carried out by MEC. The generated reports allow for the review of internal processes, the improvement of infrastructure, and the strengthening of academic management, promoting transparency and continuous improvement.

In this sense, SINAES is not limited to being a regulatory instrument, but is configured as an ally in educational development. Through technical visits and rigorous analyses, the evaluation process allows for an in-depth view of academic and institutional reality, directly impacting the credibility of courses and institutions, as well as driving improvements in teaching and management methods, strengthening a more solid and transparent system for society. In this direction, Dias Sobrinho (2008, p. 59) states that "SINAES represented an attempt to overcome purely classificatory logic, seeking formative and institutional evaluation”.

In alignment with the guidelines, the General Coordination of Undergraduate Course Evaluation (CGACGIES) and the Directorate of Higher Education Evaluation (DAES) were designated to "conceive, plan, coordinate, and operationalize the evaluation process" (INEP, 2017, p. 3), as stipulated in Technical Note No. 16/2017/CGACGIES/DAES, dated December 15, 2017 (item 2.2), published by INEP, with the objective of clarifying the need for a structured logic in the reconfiguration of instruments.

Since the second half of 2017, MEC has been improving the regulation of distance education. Decree No. 9,235 brought greater flexibility to its expansion, respecting on-site activities and directly influencing the demand for on-site and virtual external evaluation conducted by INEP. The adaptation of evaluation instruments represented a significant advance in quality control mechanisms, seeking to balance innovation and inspection.

The structural transformations that impacted the offering of undergraduate courses, especially in the distance learning modality, evidenced the need for a new regulatory framework. Decree No. 9,057, of May 25, 2017, and MEC Ordinance No. 528, of June 6, 2024, established deadlines for the dissemination of quality benchmarks. However, successive extensions occurred: MEC Ordinance No. 195, of March 7, 2025, extended the deadline to April 10, 2025; subsequently, MEC Ordinance No. 247, of April 8, 2025, extended it until May 9, 2025; and then, MEC Ordinance No. 371, of May 8, 2025, determined a new extension until June 9, 2025.

The publication of Decree No. 12,456, of May 19, 2025, ended this cycle of extensions. The text, published in the Official Gazette of the Union (05/20/2025, Edition: 93, Section: 1, Page: 1), defined guidelines for the provision of distance education by higher education institutions. On the same day, MEC Ordinance No. 378 (Edition: 93, Section: 1, Page: 103) regulated the on-campus, blended, and distance offering formats for undergraduate higher education courses in the federal education system.

Although the new regulatory scenario published in 2025 seeks to ensure high standards and quality control mechanisms, this research adopted as a reference the legal framework in force since 2017, established by MEC, and the IACG, prepared by INEP. This instrument, used in the authorization processes of on-campus and distance learning undergraduate courses, has become a fundamental resource for analysis. The evaluation of this model made it possible to verify how HEIs have used the IACG to structure their courses, demonstrate adherence to normative parameters, and improve internal evaluation processes, in line with regulatory requirements.

Considering the set of external evaluation instruments prepared by INEP since 2008, this research focuses its analyses specifically on the use of the IACG, in force since 2017, regulated by Ministerial MEC Ordinance No. 1,383, of October 31, 2017, published in the Official Gazette of the Union on November 1, 2017, as an essential tool for the authorization of undergraduate courses in Brazil.

2.1 Simulation as an external assessment mechanism

The idea of simulation, derived from the Latin simulatĭo (action of simulating), dates back to Antiquity, albeit in rudimentary forms. Even during that period, resources such as maps, models, and graphic representations were used to guide the planning of battles, constructions, and agricultural activities, constituting the first records of simulative practices.

In the 17th century, the development of mathematical models made it possible to predict natural phenomena and understand physical regularities, inaugurating a new stage in the history of simulation. However, it was in the 20th century that a decisive advance occurred: computational technologies, driven primarily during World War II (1939- 1945), brought about the creation of digital simulations applied to military strategies, ballistic calculations, and subsequently to various scientific and industrial areas.

In contemporary science, simulation has become fundamental for modeling complex phenomena, often difficult or impossible to observe directly. Its evolution is directly linked to technological progress: the more sophisticated the tools, the more realistic and precise the simulated models are. In technical and scientific contexts, simulation involves reproducing the characteristics of a real system through simplified or virtual models, allowing the analysis of behaviors, testing of hypotheses, and prediction of results without the need for direct experiments, which can be costly or risky

According to Medeiros et al. (2015), "the concept of simulation is closely linked to the notion of model". In short, simulation is an essential tool to analyze, predict, and experiment under controlled conditions, whether for educational, scientific, industrial, or strategic planning purposes.

In the field of higher education, INEP provides HEIs with instruments that allow for the anticipation of scenarios and the adjustment of practices before official evaluation. As Freitas Filho (2008) points out, the use of models breaks with the traditional view that simulation should be applied only as a last resort, evidencing its relevance as a preventive practice. In the same direction, Medeiros et al. (2015, p. 463) emphasize that "simulation is a construct of great utility and essential," as it contributes to minimizing failures, reducing costs, and optimizing academic and administrative management. Thus, applied to the context of external evaluation, simulation consolidates itself as a fundamental strategy to strengthen institutional quality and ensure greater adherence to regulatory requirements.

Freitas Filho (2008, p. 31) further observes that "in many situations the use of simulation aims to identify differences between various alternatives or compare an existing system with alternatives.” His concern focuses on models that present similarity with real-world systems, so that an analytical model - which requires specialized treatment knowledge - can be replaced by a simple, effective, and accessible simulation model. In this context, the research recognizes the use of IACG/2017 as a strategic mechanism for the simulation of regulatory external evaluation processes aimed at the authorization of undergraduate courses.

3 UNDERGRADUATE COURSE EVALUATION INSTRUMENT (IACG) OF 2017

In the context of the Ministry of Education (MEC), INEP plays a central role in the production of educational evidence. Created in 1937, initially under the name National Institute of Pedagogy, it was transformed into a federal autarchy linked to MEC in 1997.

Its operations are organized into three major areas: educational evaluations and exams, statistical research and indicators, and knowledge management and studies. In addition to these functions, INEP plays a strategic role in the formulation and application of external evaluation instruments, serving as a reference for the definition of public policies. The regulatory process is instructed by the Secretariat of Regulation of Higher Education (SERES), which operationalizes the application of specific evaluation instruments.

Under the leadership of SINAES, external evaluation instruments follow guidelines established by Decree No. 9,235/2017, whose Article 34 provides that each evaluation instrument "aggregates the conditions pertinent to the modalities and academic-administrative organizations, guiding, from the dimensions defined in Law No. 10,861/2004, the activity of the evaluating committee" (Brazil, 2017, p. 12).

The external evaluation process, established in Law No. 10,861/2004, Article 3, paragraph 2, and Article 4, employs "diversified procedures and instruments" (Brazil, 2004, p. 3), prepared and implemented by INEP. Among them, the IACG published in 2017 stands out, made available in the electronic e-MEC system accessible to HEIs and specialists registered in the Evaluator Bank of the National System for the Evaluation of Higher Education (BASis).

Evaluators - experienced professors and researchers - are designated by e-MEC to monitor and verify, on-site, either on-campus or virtually, the entry and permanence acts of undergraduate courses, both in person and at a distance. In this monitoring, Dias Sobrinho (2010, p. 211) states that evaluators consider aspects such as “infrastructure, didactic-pedagogical organization, faculty, the link between the Institutional Development Plan (PDI) and the Program Pedagogical Project (PPC), social engagement, and alignment with National Curriculum Guidelines.”

From this perspective, Dias Sobrinho (2003a, p. 33) highlights that “undergraduate programs must, in a continuous and integrated manner, understand which values predominate in their teaching, research, and extension activities, as well as in their administrative practices”. The author adds that the “engagement of scientific, pedagogical, political, and administrative sectors is indispensable for monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of programs and actions” (Dias Sobrinho, 2003b, p. 34).

Over the past two decades, such mechanisms have become fundamental for defining and implementing public policies aimed at improving higher education. However, Dias Sobrinho (2008, p. 67) emphasizes that "mechanisms and norms to evaluate and control, with greater rigor, the quality of systems, institutions, and higher education programs" are necessary. In his analysis, the legal rules and mechanisms of external evaluation involve the entire restructuring process of the academicadministrative organization, generating "democratic principles and multiple perspectives, fundamental for the construction of socially accepted understandings" (Dias Sobrinho, 2003, p. 124).

In line with the legislation, Santos and Gesser (2020, p. 273) state that "every undergraduate course evaluation instrument, by subsidizing authorization acts, needs to be in line with legal and normative requirements". In this scenario, an increase in supervisory action over the results of higher education is observed. Schwartzman (2026a, p. 19) points out that, since the 19th century, "national legislation governing higher education operated under rigorous government supervision". However, the author adds that:

As the private sector expanded and distanced itself from the national model established by the 1968 university reform, authorization and supervision procedures became increasingly complex, aggravated by pressure from the private sector to get rid of government requirements and inspections (Schwartzman, 2026b, p. 19).

In Dias Sobrinho's analysis (2008, p. 80), "evaluation has become more rigid in demanding results, that is, the products that institutions must demonstrate objectively". The author also points out that external evaluation uses instruments as "a tool capable of producing changes in curricula, teaching methodologies, concepts and practices of formation, management, power structures, institutional models, configurations of the educational system" (Dias Sobrinho, 2010, p. 195). This transparency is essential for future decision-making and for the quality of regulatory processes.

Fernandes and Gomes (2026, p. 4) highlight that, in addition to the indicators structuring the instrument, the "three evaluations: institutional, course, and student learning" must be taken as a structuring axis during external evaluation. According to Dias Sobrinho (2016, p. 27), "institutional evaluation must be understood as a collective process of critical reflection on the university, its functions, and social responsibilities". In this context, Bandeira et al. (2021, p. 403) recall that evaluation instruments "aggregate information from institutions, courses, and analysis criteria that must be examined by the committee of specialists before the on-site visit, designated by INEP and at the verification act". Santos and Gesser (2020, p. 276) complement that "the line of relevance goes from criteria to indicators," reinforcing the importance of the specific indicators of each dimension, which guide the analysis of the attributes of the evaluated course. Thus, in the external evaluation process for undergraduate course authorization, transparency and reliability are essential to consolidate the idea that a "culture of evaluation needs to be built collectively, involving all actors in the academic community" (Dias Sobrinho, 2016, p. 41).

Fernandes and Gomes (2026, p. 5) highlight the need to "identify the teaching conditions offered to students, prioritizing three dimensions: didactical-pedagogical organization; faculty and tutoring; infrastructure." Accordingly, Santos and Gesser (2020, p. 276) state that external evaluation "demands the construction of what has been designated as the referent of external evaluation, that is, a set of criteria specifying a system of expectations. Each criterion defines what one judges can legitimately be expected from the evaluated object," as defined in the IACG (2017).

The research focuses its analyses specifically on the IACG, in force since the 2017 publication. This instrument was used as a strategic tool by a Higher Education Institution (HEI), identified as (F), to simulate the external evaluation for the authorization of two undergraduate courses: a distance learning licentiate degree, designated as (P); and an oncampus bachelor's degree, designated as (EF).

The 2017 IACG was structured into three dimensions: Didactical-Pedagogical Organization (weight 40, with 24 indicators), Faculty and Tutoring Staff (weight 20, with 15 indicators), and Infrastructure (weight 40, with 16 indicators). Each indicator is accompanied by detailed justifications, ensuring a descriptive and transparent evaluation, classified on a five-level scale. This methodology allows for a meticulous analysis of the course and provides essential information for regulatory decisions.

thumbnail of Chart 1
Chart 1
Authorization IACG applied to on-campus and distance learning modalities

The chart above demonstrates that each dimension is composed of indicators that receive concepts varying across five levels. This methodology enables a detailed analysis of the course and provides essential information for regulatory bodies to make decisions, starting with preliminary analysis. Understanding the application of the IACG by institutions is essential because it makes it possible to simulate authorization acts before INEP's official designation. This process ensures that courses meet the standards required by MEC, promoting greater security and quality in approval.

3.1 Preliminary Analysis

Preliminary analysis plays a strategic role in external evaluation because it allows contextualizing both the course and the evaluated institution. Its main objective is to subsidize the Secretariat of Regulation of Higher Education (SERES) in regulatory matters and offer the evaluation committee prior knowledge about the course. To this end, documents such as the Institutional Development Plan (PDI), the Course Pedagogical Project (PPC), and the Electronic Form (EF) are examined. If doubts arise, they must be clarified on-site by the evaluators.

Technical Note No. 16/2017/CGACGIES/DAES determines, in item 4, that the preliminary analysis section must be filled out before the on-site evaluation. The e-MEC system prevents the registration of concepts and justifications if the fields are not completed. This step seeks to synthesize the "mission, objectives, history, characteristics, and priorities of the institution or course" (INEP, 2017, item 4.3), bringing together essential elements for future regulatory decisions. However, it does not include the drafting of justifications that support the attribution of concepts to indicators.

3.2 Structure of Dimensions

In the structure of the 2017 IACG, each indicator was organized with a "set of attributes that characterize the quality of the analysis object, associated with a concept" (NT No. 16/2017, item 4.2), based on the parameters of the three dimensions.

In dimension 1, didactical-pedagogical organization, the analysis focuses on the PDI and PPC, both available in the eMEC system. The objective is to ensure coherence between theory and practice, contemplating the graduate's profile, competences, and skills foreseen in the National Curricular Guidelines (DCNs). Furthermore, the articulation between disciplines and the planning of activities that promote the student's integral development is evaluated.

In dimension 2, faculty and tutoring staff, aspects such as academic qualification, continuing education, teaching experience, and professional performance are examined. The adequacy between the number of faculty members, tutors, and students is considered fundamental to ensure effective pedagogical support. This dimension also includes the analysis of the Faculty Qualification Index (IQCD).

The IQCD formula was corrected by Technical Note No. 2/2018/CGACGIES/DAES to adapt item 4.9 of NT No. 16 (Brazil, 2017c), which deals with the review of the formula: (5D + 3M + 2E + G) \div (D + M + E + G). Although not an evaluative indicator, the IQCD provides relevant information on faculty qualification and must appear in regulatory documents for future decision-making.

In dimension 3, infrastructure evaluation covers aspects related to accessibility, material resources, and academic technology. For distance learning courses, the criteria established in Normative MEC Ordinance No. 20/2017 are applied, requiring a grade equal to or greater than three in indicators such as curricular structure, methodology, virtual learning environment, and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). This dimension ensures that courses have adequate conditions for the implementation of the Pedagogical Course Project (PPC).

The integration of the three dimensions strengthens the culture of quality and institutional development. During on-site verification, the IACG ensures that infrastructure meets minimum requirements, stimulating innovation, professional qualification, and the modernization of facilities. External evaluation must be understood as an opportunity to strengthen academic management, and not merely as a bureaucratic process. Technical Note No. 16/2017, item 2.7, reinforces the need to reformulate points such as the contextualization of instruments, adequacy of scale, and criteria for disclosing concepts.

The assigned concepts follow a five-level scale, adjusted to the complexity of the attributes and the observed reality. In cases where a given aspect does not apply to the evaluated course (Not Applicable - NSA), this particularity must be considered.

In addition, each assigned concept must be justified in the evaluation committee's report, serving as a basis for regulatory decisions. In addition to the aforementioned aspects, external evaluation allows institutions to review their pedagogical and organizational strategies aimed at course quality, ensuring that regulatory changes are effectively incorporated into institutional guidelines.

Another relevant point is the importance of transparency in evaluations conducted by INEP. Access to detailed information on the criteria adopted and results obtained contributes to the credibility of the process and to strengthening the relationship between educational institutions and regulatory bodies. The construction of a solid academic environment depends on rigorous evaluations that prioritize educational development, ensuring that the training offered meets established standards and society's expectations.

In this regulatory authorization process, the evaluation committee designated by INEP performs an external evaluation and drafts a detailed report, assigning concepts on five levels, with the fifth level corresponding to maximum excellence. This evaluation cycle results in the Final Course Concept (CC), consolidating the perception of quality. By defining clear and transparent criteria, the authorization IACG strengthens the educational structure, ensuring that undergraduate courses are increasingly innovative and aligned with academic and professional expectations, reinforcing MEC's commitment to higher education in Brazil.

Despite the reflections of Fernandes and Gomes (2026), Bandeira et al. (2021), Santos and Gesser (2020), Dias Sobrinho (2016, 2010, 2008, 2003), Medeiros, Moser, and Santos (2014), Freitas Filho (2008), and Schwartzman (2026, p. 19), who points out that "Sinaes created in 2004, fails to fully fulfill this role and, to date, the Brazilian government has been unable to propose a new regulatory framework," INEP has been promoting public consultations. Through Official Letter No. 1810169/2025/CGAV/DAES-INEP, Higher Education Institutions were invited to submit suggestions for the review and modernization not only of the IACG - used in authorization, recognition, and renewal of recognition processes for undergraduate courses - but also of the IAIE applied in accreditation and reaccreditation processes.

Continuing this, Official Letter No. 1996849/2026/CIGA/CGAV/DAES-INEP called upon HEIs to contribute to modernization, technical and democratic improvement of the proposal, and the refinement of evaluative instruments. The objective of these initiatives is to technically improve the instruments, adapt them to different institutional realities, and strengthen the evaluation of Brazilian higher education.

3.3 IACG/2017: from the e-MEC system to the publication of INEP's evaluation report

The research was carried out in a private, for-profit HEI located in a municipality in the interior of the Northeast region. The institution, identified as (F), has administrative, economic, and financial autonomy and, since its accreditation, has committed to offering two undergraduate courses: one in distance learning, at the licentiate degree level (P), and another on-campus, at the bachelor's degree level (EF). To guarantee the authorization of operation for these courses, it followed the steps of the evaluation flow established in Article 3 of MEC Normative Ordinance No. 840/2018.

In the second half of 2021, the institution filed the external evaluation process for the authorization of course (P) in the electronic e-MEC system, and in the first half of 2024, the process for course (EF), both with the objective of obtaining MEC authorization. The e-MEC is the digital platform that concentrates all higher education regulation processes in Brazil, including institutional accreditation and reaccreditation, course authorization, renewal, and recognition, as well as changes in existing procedures. By allowing queries by CPF or CNPJ, it ensures transparency, fights fraud, and guarantees public access to information.

During the opening of the processes, the system made available the Electronic Form (EF), with a 30-day deadline for completion. This document required detailed data on faculty, workload, curricular matrix, number of vacancies, and Cine Brazil classification, as well as information on the course profile, access mode, evaluation system, curricular internship, conclusion work, and service policy for students with special needs.

Following this step, the institution paid the evaluation fee, as determined by Law No. 10,870/2004. The processes were forwarded for analysis by SERES/MEC, through the Directorate of Higher Education Regulation (DIREG) and the General Coordination of Distance Higher Education Regulation (COREAD). The opinion was registered in the Remedial Dispatch (Despacho Senador), a document that indicated regulatory issues to be verified by the evaluation committee during the on-site visit.

The e-MEC system issued a "partially satisfactory" opinion for course (P) in 2022, requesting clarifications on specific points raised by SERES/MEC. According to INEP MEC Ordinance No. 265/2022, these issues were verified by evaluators during the virtual visit. Course (EF) received a satisfactory opinion in 2024, indicating that all regulatory requirements were met. Eight months later, the system notified the institution, through the Institutional Representative (PI), about the release of the Electronic Evaluation Form, an indispensable step for the on-site visit, without the possibility of extension, in accordance with MEC Normative Ordinance No. 840/2018.

In the first half of 2023, course (P) met the 15-day deadline to complete the EF, synthesizing information on institutional mission, objectives, characteristics, and priorities. Course (EF) went through the same stage in the second half of 2024. Based on the attributes that make up the analysis criteria, the indicators were justified and received concepts in compliance with Law No. 10,861/2004, which establishes that "the evaluation of undergraduate courses will result in the attribution of concepts, ordered in a five-level scale, to each of the dimensions and to the set of evaluated dimensions" (Brazil, 2004, p. 3).

The authorization IACG published in 2017 was applied in external evaluations carried out within the scope of SINAES. The assigned concepts ranged from 1 to 5, based on the analysis criteria of the attributes composing the indicators of the three dimensions, verified on-site through the triangulation of documentary, testimonial, physical, and analytical sources. After the processing and analysis of the Institutional Development Plan (PDI), the Course Pedagogical Project (PPC), the initial course registration, and information entered in the electronic forms, documentation drafting began with the participation of coordinators, the course collegiate, the Structuring Teaching Nucleus (NDE), the multidisciplinary team, and the Own Evaluation Commission (CPA), constituted by the Superior Council (CONSUP).

To ensure the organization and analysis of these documents, the electronic eMEC system instructed institution (F) to make them available in Google Drive folders, following guidelines from the General Coordination of On-site Evaluation (CGAV), the Directorate of Higher Education Evaluation (DAES), and INEP.

Sharing was performed with INEP's institutional account, guaranteeing restricted access to evaluating committees and regulatory instances. Only files posted up to the last day of the visit were considered valid. This measure also ensured the protection of sensitive personal data, in accordance with item II of Article 11 of Law No. 13,709/2018, dispensing with consent because it is a legal requirement linked to the execution of public policies.

According to the e-MEC schedule, two evaluation committees were designated, each composed of two higher education professors with strictu sensu titration, trained by INEP and registered in BASis. These committees were responsible for the external evaluations of courses (P) and (EF). Although conducted virtually, the evaluations included previously scheduled meetings, ensuring the accurate recording of on-site observations, faithfully reflecting the analyzed aspects.

The external visit for the authorization of course (P) took place over two days, in the second half of 2023, via Microsoft Teams. Meanwhile, the evaluation of course (EF) was conducted in the first month of 2025, also over two days, through a virtual room. To enable the process, INEP sent an Official Circular to committee members, reinforcing compliance with legal references established in MEC Ordinance No. 840/2018, MEC Ordinance No. 77/2023, and Normative Instruction No. 4/2018.

The Official Circular designated a responsible evaluator in each committee as the focal point of interlocution between evaluators and the Institutional Representative (PI). This evaluator organized the visit schedule and coordinated the sharing of institutional documents in Google Drive. The agenda was sent by email and approved within the deadline limit of 10 days before the visit.

After concluding procedures, the e-MEC system made available the preliminary analysis form, filled out by evaluators based on documents sent previously by institution (F). The Institutional Development Plan (PDI), Course Pedagogical Project (PPC), Own Evaluation Commission (CPA) project, SERES Remedial Dispatch, and protocol and evaluation Electronic Forms (EF) were examined.

Missing information was adjusted through source triangulation, respecting the schedule of external evaluations. The process included virtual and on-site checks, with the aid of geolocation to identify the institution's physical infrastructure and spaces designated for course operations.

With the start of virtual external evaluations, e-MEC released the electronic form for the committee to justify the indicators of the three dimensions of the authorization IACG, according to analysis criteria of the strategic attributes of the course and concrete source triangulation identified on-site. This procedure ensured consistency, credibility, and transparency of the evaluation conducted by INEP.

3.4 HEI: use of authorization IACG in the simulation of undergraduate course (P)

The simulation of the external evaluation for the authorization act of undergraduate course (P) was carried out by institution (F), following the guidelines of the ACG prepared by INEP in 2017 and CNE/CP Resolution No. 1 of May 15, 2006, which defines the National Curricular Guidelines for the course. The process was conducted in compliance with current legislation and the regulatory framework established by MEC.

To ensure compliance with guidelines, the institution organized folders in Google Drive according to the three dimensions of the IACG. This procedure facilitated meetings with interlocutors from various segments, allowing the elaboration and implementation of action and contingency plans, besides the formulation of institutional policies and regulations. The entire process was aligned with local and regional characteristics, incorporating academic and professional practices aimed at meeting labor market demands.

In the distance learning modality, the simulation included the preparation of a study report based on quantitative and qualitative data. This report assisted in the selection of professors and tutors, proving their adequacy to physical and technological infrastructure conditions. The procedure also guided team selection, ensuring selected members possessed necessary competencies to foster critical thinking in the area. The simulation resulted in the following concepts assigned to the evaluated dimensions:

Thumbnail
Table 1
Concept assigned to the three dimensions based on the simulation of course “P”

In the simulation, institution (F) ensured compliance with the decision-making standard established in Normative MEC Ordinance No. 20/2017, item IV, achieving concept 5 in indicators of curricular structure, curricular content, methodology, Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). However, six indicators of dimension 1 - didactical-pedagogical organization - evidenced vulnerabilities in adopting innovative practices in the distance modality, pointing to the need for investments to improve activity quality and transform challenges into opportunities.

This finding reinforces the analysis by Santos and Gesser (2020, p. 276), stating that "the line of relevance went from criteria to indicators, which reinforced the importance of indicators of each dimension, which guided the analysis of attributes" in each indicator of the IACG, allowing classification in a five-level concept scale. The relevance of indicators, therefore, evidences that point vulnerabilities can compromise the global performance of the course, even when there are significant advances in other dimensions.

In this context, the simulation revealed a regulatory trend of prioritizing certain aspects over others, impacting perception regarding interaction among interlocutors. In addition, criticisms were directed at excessive bureaucracy in evaluating each attribute, which reduced time dedicated to in-depth IACG analysis and collaboration among teams responsible for preparing documents and evidence.

3.4.1 Reflections on the simulation)

Institution (F) simulated undergraduate course (P) based on IACG/2017 and current legislation, structuring the process across three evaluation dimensions: didactical-pedagogical organization, faculty and tutoring staff, and infrastructure. Documents were organized into digital folders, strategic meetings were held with various stakeholders, and a report containing quantitative and qualitative data was produced, providing an integrated view of institutional performance.

Evidence triangulation - documentary, testimonial, and physical - guaranteed greater consistency, while compliance with Normative MEC Ordinance No. 20/2017 ensured maximum concept in indicators related to curriculum, methodology, the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), and ICTs. This methodology allowed anticipating vulnerabilities, such as the need for more innovative practices in distance learning - but also facilitated the implementation of strategic adjustments, thereby strengthening the culture of self-assessment and continuous improvement.

Another significant aspect was collective engagement: the participation of administrators, faculty, and technical staff enhanced the simulation's legitimacy and reinforced the formative nature of the assessment. The experience helped consolidate internal academic governance processes, fostering critical reflection on how well institutional policies align with the contemporary demands of higher education.

The simulation, therefore, functioned as a robust regulatory exercise, preparing course (P) for official evaluation and strengthening its academic and institutional structure. Despite limitations, it contributed significantly to course improvement, reinforcing the importance of external evaluation as an instrument of quality and credibility in higher education. Furthermore, it demonstrated that simulation practices can be adopted as a recurring management strategy, enabling the institution to maintain a constant state of readiness and alignment with the excellence standards required by the regulatory system.

3.5 INEP: report of the external evaluation for authorization of undergraduate course (P)

According to the schedule established in the e-MEC electronic system, institution (F) was notified about the designation of an evaluation committee composed of two higher education professors with strictu sensu titration, trained by INEP and registered in BASis. Following SINAES guidelines, which seek continuous improvement of higher education quality and institutional effectiveness, external evaluation was conducted by INEP. Although performed virtually, it was ensured that previously scheduled meetings faithfully reflected analyzed aspects, ensuring accurate recording of on-site observations.

The evaluation committee designated by INEP comprised two specialists responsible for monitoring, in the second half of 2023, the external evaluation of the licentiate undergraduate course in distance learning, identified in this research as course (P). The external visit for course authorization occurred over two days, via Microsoft Teams, allowing the committee to analyze documents made available by HEI (F) in Google Drive, besides searching for additional evidence.

To make the process viable, INEP forwarded Official Circular CGAV/DAES/INEP to committee members, reinforcing compliance with legal references established in MEC Ordinance No. 840/2018, MEC Ordinance No. 77/2023, and Normative Instruction No. 4/2018. The circular designated a responsible evaluator in each committee as the focal point of interlocution between evaluators and the Institutional Representative (PI) of institution (F). This evaluator organized the visit schedule and coordinated the sharing of institutional documents in Google Drive. The agenda was sent by email and approved within the deadline limit of ten days before the visit.

The report prepared by the evaluating committee considered, in the set of three evaluated dimensions, compliance with Technical Note No. 2/2018 CGACGIES/DAES, item 2.5. Out of 55 indicators composing the instrument's three dimensions, 9 were classified as "Not Applicable" (NSA), 6 received concept 4, and 40 received concept 5. Furthermore, the committee considered that institution (F) met the decision-making standard of Normative MEC Ordinance No. 20/2017, chapter III, item IV, presenting evidence to reach concept 5 in indicators 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.16, and 1.17:

Thumbnail
Table 2
Final concept assigned by the evaluation committee designated by INEP

Concepts assigned to each dimension were based on information obtained from meetings, interviews, and direct observation of infrastructure, physical facilities, technological resources, and academic activities. This process, supported by source triangulation, allowed identifying course (P) strengths and vulnerabilities, besides confirming the truthfulness of provided documents.

The report recorded that the virtual on-site visit occurred as planned in the agenda. Institution (F) organized and made documents available in Google Drive folders to fill out the evaluation Electronic Form (EF). In addition, meetings were promoted with different groups, including faculty, tutors, CPA, NDE, multidisciplinary team, and managers. The document highlighted that, even remotely, it was possible to inspect facilities and infrastructure without technical impediments. Through virtual room transmission using a camera, real conditions of spaces described in institutional documents were observed.

In conclusion, the committee stated that points from the Remedial Dispatch were properly verified and that the visit, despite being remote, occurred satisfactorily. Care related to geolocation was taken, and all doubts were clarified. As a result, course (P) received a continuous final concept of 4.8 and a final concept range of 5.

3.6 HEI: use of authorization IACG in the simulation of undergraduate course (EF)

Institution (F) submitted undergraduate course (EF) to an external evaluation simulation for authorization, based on the 2017 IACG structure. The process also considered guidelines established by CNE/CP Resolution No. 6 of December 18, 2018, and Normative MEC Ordinance No. 20/2017 Item III, which determines compliance with the decision-making standard. Thus, it was ensured that attributes were evidenced based on criteria and indicators of the instrument.

The simulation, structured across the three IACG dimensions, led to document organization in Google Drive, facilitating strategic meetings with interlocutors from various segments. These encounters were essential to elaborate action and contingency plans, formulate institutional policies and regulations, and align actions with local and regional characteristics. Furthermore, they allowed incorporating new academic and professional practices aimed at meeting labor market demands.

Evidence generation enabled drafting a structured report combining quantitative and qualitative data for faculty and tutor selection, proving adequacy to physical, technological, and accessibility infrastructure conditions. This survey highlighted positive points and challenges related to didactical-pedagogical organization and faculty/tutoring dimensions.

However, when analyzing Dimension 3 - Infrastructure, the committee identified the absence of didactic laboratories specifically meeting indicators 3.8 (basic training laboratories) and 3.9 (specific training laboratories). The absence of these spaces directly impacted INEP's evaluation. Faced with this scenario, the institution needed to reevaluate strategies to overcome this limitation and ensure training quality.

Thumbnail
Table 3
Concept assigned to the three dimensions based on the simulation of course “EF”

Simulation analysis was enriched by triangulating documentary, testimonial, and physical evidence, guaranteeing greater consistency and reliability of results. Documentary evidence, organized into regulations, reports, and institutional records, was confronted with statements obtained in meetings with professors, tutors, managers, CPA, and NDE members, ensuring coherence between formal records and practical academic life. Simultaneously, physical evidence observed via virtual inspections guided by geolocation confirmed or refuted information previously presented in documents and testimonies. This triangulation process allowed identifying convergences and divergences among different evidence types, strengthening finding validity and offering a broader, critical view of course (EF) institutional conditions.

Faced with identified challenges, the simulation indicated the need to expand physical and technological infrastructure, ensuring an adequate academic environment. Investing in basic training laboratories was pointed out as a decisive factor for management to understand that, during INEP's external evaluation, achieving maximum concept (5) would not be possible.

Besides structural issues, the importance of improving faculty and tutor selection stood out, strengthening academic qualification and boosting scientific production in the area. Another relevant point was course organization and functioning, highlighting the need to implement innovative actions within the context of course (EF). Simulation results demonstrated that, adopting these measures, it is expected that by INEP committee designation, the course will potentiate indicators and ensure alignment with quality standards.

3.7 INEP: report of the external evaluation for authorization of undergraduate course (EF)

To follow the virtualized on-site external evaluation, institution (F) received the evaluation committee at the end of the first month of 2025, according to the schedule established between the HEI and committee. Activities began with a meeting among leaders, PI, and course (EF) coordinator. During the period foreseen in the agenda, meetings occurred with interlocutors from different academic segments, resulting in the collection of testimonial sources, analysis of documents made available in Google Drive folders, and infrastructure visits, yielding:

Thumbnail
Table 4
Final concept assigned by the evaluation committee designated by INEP

Concept assignment to evaluated dimensions was based on information obtained in meetings, interviews, and direct observation of infrastructure, physical installations, technological resources, and academic activities. This process, supported by source triangulation, allowed identifying course (EF) vulnerabilities and potential, besides confirming the truthfulness of provided documents. Institution (F) imposed no restrictions on interaction among coordinators, professors, and administrative staff, favoring a more formative and less bureaucratic evaluation.

In compliance with item III of the aforementioned ordinance, the report published in e-MEC (2025) highlighted institution (F)'s effort to present evidence aiming at concept 5 in indicators 1.4 and 1.5. However, observing Technical Note No. 2/2018 CGACGIES/DAES, concepts were defined based on provisions in item 2.5. Out of 54 indicators composing the instrument's three dimensions, 11 were classified as "Not Applicable" (NSA).

The search for additional on-site evidence guided by geolocation allowed information triangulation by the committee, substantiating report drafting and justifying attribute concepts for each indicator during evaluation Electronic Form (EF) completion in e-MEC. This system is structured according to the authorization IACG, evidencing alignment with Normative MEC Ordinance No. 20/2017, chapter III, which establishes the "decision-making standard for authorization requests".

The committee highlighted as positive collaboration among coordination, faculty, and institutional management, evidencing joint effort toward continuous improvement of the pedagogical project and curricular structure. This synergy strengthened course identity and demonstrated institutional concern with educational quality and compliance with normative guidelines. In-depth analysis allowed mapping challenges and recognizing good practices adopted.

Among criticisms, the absence of basic and specific training laboratories was emphasized, as well as lack of clarity regarding total workload in clock-hours, negatively impacting indicators 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6. Despite limitations, anticipated planning via simulation contributed to course structuring and improvement. As a result, the report assigned course continuous final concept 3.77 and range final concept 4.

4 METHODOLOGY

The term methodology originates in Greek and derives from méthodos (meta = beyond, forward; hodos = path, course), combined with the suffix-logia, meaning study or science. Etymologically, it refers to the study of the path to be followed. In the academic field, this notion takes on a technical character: methodology corresponds to the set of procedures and foundations that guide scientific investigation.

Thus, rather than merely outlining a path, the methodology organizes and systematizes the means by which objectives are achieved, ensuring rigor, coherence, and validity in the process. In this context, the study is grounded in methodological triangulation, combining documentary and bibliographic research.

The documentary analysis draws on official data from the Ministry of Education (MEC) dating back to 2017, encompassing laws, decrees, ordinances, and external evaluation technical reports published by INEP. This procedure makes it possible to “examine a topic from different perspectives, enabling new interpretations” (Gil, 2008, p. 45).

Documentary research proves pertinent as it “utilizes primary sources, data, and information that have not yet been treated scientifically or analytically” (Gil, 2010, p. 31). These sources constitute strategic mechanisms capable of providing substantiation through documentary, physical, and testimonial evidence, serving as “almost always a preliminary and indispensable step for obtaining explanations” (Gil, 2008, p. 43).

Complementarily, bibliographic research draws upon “material already produced, consisting basically of books and scientific articles found in libraries” (Gil, 2008, p. 55), enabling “coverage of a much wider range of phenomena than could be investigated directly” (Gil, 2010, p. 44). Although both share methodological foundations, they differ in the type of source: documentary research gathers scattered, unprocessed data, whereas bibliographic research relies on materials that have already been systematized.

Thus, the balance between documentary and bibliographic research supports triangulation as a methodological tool that strengthens the credibility of findings by integrating different types of evidence into a single study. This process combines - according to Mattar and Ramos (2021, p. 132) - “multiple sources” derived from data collection regarding the object of investigation, allowing distinct dimensions of the issue to be analyzed in a complementary manner. This approach enhances research consistency and reinforces the validity of the results. Mattar and Ramos (2021, p. 137) corroborate this perspective by highlighting that “the integration of different sources contributes to the validation of information and to more in-depth analyses”.

The adopted methodology, therefore, ensures interpretive robustness and transparency, allowing for - as Mattar and Ramos (2021, p. 23) state - “clarity regarding the research objectives: that is, who or what is to be analyzed, when and where the analysis will take place, how the process will be conducted, and why it should be carried out”.

In this study, these procedures were applied to the analysis of the IACG - published in 2017 by INEP - within the context of a simulated external evaluation for the authorization of two undergraduate degree programs: one a teaching degree (licentiate) offered via distance learning, and the other a bachelor’s degree offered in an in-person format. This application made it possible to identify advances, challenges, and contradictions within the regulatory landscape.

5 ANALYTICAL SYNTHESIS

The experience of Higher Education Institution (F) demonstrates that conducting preliminary mock external evaluations for the authorization of two undergraduate programs - one a distance-learning teacher training program (identified as P) and the other an in-person bachelor's degree program (designated as EF) - constituted a structured process rather than merely a preparatory exercise.

This process generated concrete documentary, physical, and testimonial evidence, including reports, regulations, institutional policies, pedagogical plans, registration records, sensitive information regarding faculty and tutors, teaching methodologies, and infrastructure data. Such evidence directly influenced the official evaluation performance, substantiating the results obtained in the mock evaluations and providing a comprehensive view of the evaluation workflow - from registration in the e-MEC system to the issuance of the official report by the evaluation committees appointed by INEP.

The results confirmed the method's effectiveness and its positive impact on improving institutional processes. For the (P) program, the simulation conducted by HEI (F) indicated a high level of compliance with the attributes highlighted in each IACG indicator, projecting scores between 4 and 5 across all dimensions.

The official INEP report closely mirrored these projections, assigning continuous final concepts of 4.73 for Dimension 1, 4.93 for Dimension 2, and 5 for Dimension 3, resulting in a final continuous concept of 4.8 and a final concept range of 5. This proximity demonstrates that the prior use of the IACG as a simulation tool allowed the institution to accurately map its strengths, adjust its documentation, and meet the high standards required by Normative MEC Ordinance No. 20/2017.

In contrast, the simulation for the (EF) program, conducted by HEI (F), revealed structural weaknesses - particularly regarding infrastructure, such as the absence of essential teaching laboratories. This factor affected the projected scores, resulting in a final score of 4. The official INEP report confirmed these cautious projections, recording final concepts of 4.06 for Dimension 1, 4.07 for Dimension 2, and 3.20 for Dimension 3, culminating in a continuous final concept of 3.77 and a final concept range of 4:

Table 5 summarizes the ratings assigned to the evaluated dimensions, highlighting the close alignment between the results simulated by the institution (F) and the official results identified in reports prepared by the evaluation committees appointed by INEP. The final continuous rating was calculated by summing the ratings assigned to each dimension and dividing the total by three. A final course rating is determined when the result yields an indicator of five-tenths or higher. Both the simulation reports and those from the external evaluation conducted by INEP provided valuable insights for managers, administrators, and institutional liaisons, fostering greater transparency and efficiency in the regulatory process.

Thumbnail
Table 5
Concepts assigned based on the simulation and INEP reports

The practice of preliminary simulations has consolidated itself as a strategic differentiator for the institution (F), which seeks excellence in offering undergraduate courses. By anticipating challenges and designing the necessary adjustments, it ensured greater precision in academic planning and greater compliance with INEP guidelines.

This process contributed not only to obtaining high grades in the official assessment, but also to strengthening the continuous qualification of the courses offered. With a broader understanding of the evaluation criteria, those involved began to act more assertively, meeting regulatory requirements and institutional expectations.

In the official external evaluation conducted by INEP, the results confirmed the relevance of the simulation by highlighting strengths and weaknesses. The analytical model shows that the relationship simulation → evidence → evaluative performance constitutes a logical chain that strengthens the institutional culture of quality, promotes regulatory security and contributes to the continuous improvement of the offer of undergraduate courses by HEIs. In this way, simulation is configured as a strategic mechanism to support external regulatory assessment processes.

The relevance of the IACG - published by INEP in 2017 - is further confirmed as both a regulatory instrument and an academic management tool, enabling institutions to anticipate weaknesses, consolidate strengths, and implement strategic adjustments aligned with INEP’s requirements. Thus, simulation within the context of external assessment plays a pivotal role in the continuous improvement of the undergraduate program authorization process, strengthening the relationship between institutions and regulatory bodies.

The analysis demonstrates that the systematic adoption of simulations should be viewed not merely as a technical or preparatory resource, but as an institutional strategy for academic governance. By transforming assessment into a continuous process of organizational learning, the Higher Education Institution (HEI) not only anticipated regulatory requirements but also consolidated management practices that directly impact the quality of the education provided.

In critical terms, it is observed that the success of the simulations depends on the institution’s ability to treat the identified weaknesses as opportunities for improvement, rather than as mere obstacles. In this sense, the process proves to be doubly effective: it ensures greater predictability in official results and, at the same time, fosters a culture of quality that transcends the evaluation moment, becoming an integral part of the institution’s academic identity.

6 FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

The postdoctoral research conducted within the Graduate Program in Education and New Technologies enabled the researcher to analyze in depth the use of the IACG (Authorization Instrument) - published by INEP in 2017 - in the simulation of two undergraduate programs at the institution (F): a distance-learning teaching degree (P) and an in-person bachelor's degree (EF). The proposed objective was fully achieved.

The central research question - determining whether the IACG, when used proactively by the Higher Education Institution (HEI) in simulations, consistently guides document preparation and evidence gathering - was answered through a dialogue with the literature and consolidated in an analytical synthesis. This synthesis highlighted the relationship of simulation → evidence → evaluative performance as a logical chain that strengthens institutional culture, promotes regulatory assurance, and contributes to the quality of undergraduate programs.

The results demonstrated that prior simulation is not merely bureaucratic preparation, but a strategic practice capable of anticipating challenges, structuring evidence-based solutions, and consolidating high quality standards. In addition to meeting MEC’s regulatory requirements, the simulation strengthened academic management, made it more efficient and innovative, expanded institutional credibility, and reaffirmed the commitment to excellence.

More than a technical exercise, the simulation allowed for a detailed understanding of the IACG/2017 and the strategic organization of evidence. Methodological triangulation provided accuracy to the process and ensured respect for the specificities of each indicator across the three evaluative dimensions. The use of the IACG to map concrete sources proved aligned with MEC’s Electronic Form (FE), ensuring greater predictability and assertiveness in regulatory processes.

It is concluded that the early use of the IACG in simulations constitutes an innovative and strategic practice, capable of strengthening academic management, expanding regulatory transparency, and consolidating the quality of higher education in Brazil. For future research, it is recommended to deepen the study of the impact of simulation on the formation of an institutional culture of external evaluation and to investigate the new regulatory framework of 2025, as well as the IAIE and IACG instruments planned for 2026, in order to further consolidate regulatory processes and the formulation of public policies.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To the National Institute for Educational Studies and Research Anísio Teixeira (INEP), for making available the Undergraduate Course Evaluation Instrument (IACG), published in 2017 and used by the Higher Education Institution (HEI), identified as (F), in the simulation of the external evaluation for the authorization of two undergraduate courses: one licentiate program in distance-learning modality, identified as (P); and one bachelor’s program in on-campus modality, referred to as (EF). The contribution of this instrument was fundamental to the accomplishment of this research.

To the Postdoctoral Internship of the Graduate Program in Education and New Technologies at the International University Center UNINTER, for encouraging research and providing an academic environment conducive to the development of this study.

DECLARATION OF AI USAGE

No Artificial Intelligence tools were used.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The entire dataset supporting the results of this study is available within the article itself.

REFERENCES

Editor de Seção:

Rafael Ângelo Bunhi Pinto | Editora de Layout: Silmara Pereira da Silva Martins

DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest related to the article “Use of the Undergraduate Course Evaluation Instrument (IACG) in the simulation of external evaluation for the authorization of on-campus and distance-learning undergraduate courses.".

Translated by:

Ivani Bourscheid Maciel E-mail: bourscheid32@gamil.com Ivani bourscheid@hotmail.com

Publication Dates

  • Publication in this collection
    09 Oct 2026
  • Date of issue
    2026

History

  • Received
    20 May 2025
  • Accepted
    08 July 2026
  • Reviewed
    23 July 2026
Creative Common - by 4.0
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
location_on
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
rss_feed Stay informed of issues for this journal through your RSS reader
Report error