INTRODUCTION

Higher Education plays an essential role in the social, cultural and citizenship education of its students and, therefore, universities have incorporated in their management actions, systematic monitoring, planning, evaluation, to meet social demands and to be accountable to regulatory agencies.

In this context, the National System of Higher Education Assessment (SINAES) was instituted, Law No. 10,861 of 2004, with the objective of ensuring a national process of assessment of higher education institutions, undergraduate courses and academic performance of his students.

Picawy (2007) emphasizes that the text of the SINAES Law states that the evaluation of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) will have as its primary objective the identification of the profile and meaning of action, specified in its different institutional dimensions and that the HEI must compulsorily prepare its Institutional Development Plan (IDP). For Dal Magro & Rausch (2012), the IDP is highly strategic, due to the information disclosed, the planned actions, which is why it is constantly being perfected and improved by higher education institutions.

Dal Magro & Rausch (2012) describe the different dimensions of the IDP: institutional profile; institutional management; student service policies; academic organization; infrastructure; financial and budgetary aspects; and institutional assessment and development. And punctually, in the dimension that refers to the assistance to students, the indicator, monitoring of graduates, is provided for.

It is important to add that in the strategies boosted by SINAES, specifically in the instrument of external institutional assessment, it is also foreseen, as well as in the IDP, the follow-up of the graduate. In this bias, it is necessary to use adequate mechanisms to know the opinion of graduates about the formation received, both curricular and ethical, to know the occupation rate among them, to establish a relationship between the occupation and the professional formation received. In addition, consider the opinion of employers to review education plans and programs, and whether there are updating and continuing education activities (INEP, 2004).

Thus, SINAES has a series of complementary instruments for evaluation. Thus, the integration of instruments allows for attributing some concepts, ordered on a scale with five levels, to each of the dimensions and to the set of these evaluated (INEP, 2015). In this sense, IDP and external institutional evaluation instrument are articulated, mechanisms foreseen for the evaluation of universities, from the perspective of the effective monitoring of graduates in HEIs.

However, the survey on the subject has a remarkably unprecedented character, as studies and research are scarce and systematic and comparative survey of graduates is little observed in Brazilian higher education institutions (Machado, 2010).

To examine a given context, the researcher needs to have a keen eye to scientifically validate their studies. Thus, from the information available in the 2018 Higher Education Census, data on students enrolled in the Southeast region, which has the largest academic contribution and has 3,755,153 students enrolled in on-site and distance undergraduate courses in public and private HEIs, numbers that collaborate to identify the typical student of undergraduate courses in the face-to-face modality, regarding their profile, this student attends a bachelor's degree, predominantly female and attends the night shift, as for the typical distance undergraduate student, attends a teaching degree course (INEP, 2019). The justification for the focus on federal universities in the Southeast is because this region has the largest number of students enrolled in higher education and universities can contribute, based on the constitution of their respective IDPs and planning of their institutional actions, with a representative perspective of the accompaniment of its alumni. It is necessary to justify the criteria that led to the selection of the Southeast region.

In 2018, more than one million and two hundred thousand students completed undergraduate higher education in Brazil (INEP, 2019), based on these data, the question is: what actions the federal universities in the Southeast region have planned to follow the professional and academic trajectory of thei graduates?

This contextualization and justification lead to the following research question: What propositions have federal universities in the Southeast included in their Institutional Development Plans for monitoring graduates?

The objective of the research is to identify the actions and goals foreseen in the IDPs of federal universities in the Southeast region for monitoring their graduates.

METHODOLOGY

This study aims to identify the actions and goals provided for in the IDPs of federal universities in the Southeast region for monitoring their graduates, as this is the region with the greatest academic contribution. And, to achieve the proposed objective, a qualitative approach was used, and a bibliographic and documentary research was carried out. The collected data were analyzed from the following categories of analysis: identification of federal universities in the Southeast region, verification of current IDPs, analysis of actions planned for monitoring graduates to prepare a framework with the main proposals for implementation.

Bibliographic researches are developed based mainly on scientific articles and books, so that when consulting the previously elaborated material, other results are produced based on the contributions of several authors (Gil, 2002).

It is observed that documentary research can be re-elaborated according to the object of the study and make use of elements that have not yet received an analytical treatment (Gil, 2002). We sought to use the aforementioned methodology, in this specific case, by proposing an analysis of observable aspects in the IDPs available on the websites of Brazilian federal universities of the Southeast region regarding actions to monitor graduates.

To achieve the proposed objective, the nineteen federal universities in the Southeast were initially identified:

UFABC - Federal University of ABC

UFES - Federal University of Espírito Santo

UFF - Fluminense Federal University

UFMG - Federal University of Minas Gerais

UFJF - Federal University of Juiz de Fora

UFLA - Federal University of Lavras

UFOP - Federal University of Ouro Preto

UFRJ - Federal University of Rio de Janeiro

UFRRJ – Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro

UFSCar - Federal University of São Carlos

UFSJ - Federal University of São João del-Rei

UFU - Federal University of Uberlândia

UFV - Federal University of Viçosa

UFVJM - Federal University of Vales do Jequitinhonha and Mucuri

UNIFAL - Federal University of Alfenas

UNIFEI - Federal University of Itajubá

UNIFESP - Federal University of São Paulo

UNIRIO - Rio de Janeiro State Federal Univeristy

UFTM - Federal University of Triângulo Mineiro

Later, still at this stage, the Institutional Development Plan of each university was also verified. In order to understand how the HEIs have planned to develop their actions related to the follow-up of graduates, an incursion into the current IDPs available on the websites of each of the Federal Universities surveyed was necessary. After a search for primary data on university portals, it was intended to recognize the actions and goals proposed to carry out the monitoring of graduates.

Subsequently, to systematize the information collected, it was necessary to draw up a table with the main data obtained from the universities' websites, presenting an overview of how these institutions present the information to the general public and plan to develop actions and goals for the topic.

THEORETICAL REFERENCE

Management, planning and institutional evaluation in brazilian federal universities

To provide greater administrative rationality to the application of public resources and better meet institutional objectives, the Brazilian State started to demand from its agencies the application of more qualified and democratic tools in administrative planning and management (Luz, 2016; Costa & Vidal, 2020). In this sense, the authors argue that the action and accountability of public managers is greater in the face of the challenge of carrying out a management that ensures organizational effectiveness and efficiency.

In this bias, exercising management requires the involvement of its representatives to build monitoring and evaluation mechanisms that promote learning, transparency and accountability and the alignment of implementation arrangements that involve sets of policies, programs, projects, and organizations (Brasil, 2009). Therefore, analyzing the educational environment presupposes investigating a complex reality that includes several instances, spaces, dimensions and interests in a given social context (Souza, 2017).

Picawy (2007) and Bizerril (2020) point out that a living university is one that pulsates in the constant search for new answers to increase the quality of academic performance in teaching, research, and extension. In view of its social function in pursuing the progressive strengthening of its commitments to regional and national society, both through the improvement of university planning and management mechanisms, as well as through the transfer of its provided services.

In the university context, there is a set of processes to be carried out satisfactorily, among a wide range of institutional aspects, exemplified by: administrative and personnel management, institutional strategic planning; financial sustainability; internal policies aimed at combating student evasion and adequacy of libraries, laboratories, and classrooms (Sobral & Ramos, 2012; Andriola, 2014).

Machado (2010) warns that the university must be aware that, in fulfilling its functions and functionalities and, in order to achieve better results and reach higher levels, it can insert assessment mechanisms that serve as a basis for planning for the coming years.

From the improvement of planning, management and evaluation actions, the relevant contribution of the Law of Guidelines and Bases of National Education (LDB), No. 9,394, of December 20, 1996, is inserted, which brought important changes to the structuring national education, emphasizing evaluation processes aimed at improving the quality of teaching and, as a resource for sector regulation, the accreditation of institutions and courses. In this context, the evaluation of higher education assumed a special place among educational policies, whether for the guidance of its broader guidelines or for the concrete actions of the competent agencies of the Ministry of Education (INEP, 2003).

The LDB consolidated, as an essential pillar of higher education, the need for evaluation processes, whether in terms of the orientation of political guidelines aimed at improving teaching, with a view to quality; or as to the definition of accrediting actions of the higher education system by the competent agencies to assess, for supervision and state control (Brasil, 2003).

The university's first responsibility is to build the quality of processes without losing sight of their essential purposes, that is, university autonomy in carrying out their procedures while preserving ethics, and scientific and social relevance (Dias Sobrinho, 2015; Batista & Kerbauy, 2018).

For Dias Sobrinho (2010), evaluation is the organization's main tool for implementing educational reforms. The author states that to impact society and produce the desired changes, assessment in higher education alters the configurations of curricula, teaching methodologies, formative concepts and practices, management, research policies and priorities, notions of relevance and social responsibility.

Finally, it has to do with the complex and desired transformations not only for higher education itself, but for society in general, in the world of knowledge and economy, both in the present and in the future (Dias Sobrinho, 2010; Batistti, Preto, Heinzle, 2017).

In summary, the elaboration, planning, and implementation of management models for dynamic, comprehensive, and multidimensional results represent a great challenge, characterized by the integration of agendas, the alignment of implementing structures and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, which strengthen social use and strategic awareness (Brasil, 2009).

Institutional Development Plan (IDP)

The Institutional Development Plan (IDP) is a formal document, established in accordance with the guidelines outlined by Law No. 10,861, of April 14, 2004, making its preparation mandatory for HEIs (Soares & Melo, 2017). The authors continue, stating that, in accordance with art. 16 of Decree No. 5.773, of May 9, 2006, the IDP is defined as a document that identifies the HEI, regarding its work philosophy, institutional mission, pedagogical guidelines that should guide its actions, its organizational structure, and the academic activities it develops and/or intends to develop.

In line with the provisions of the SINAES Law, Picawy (2007) emphasizes that the IDP brings the general characterization of the HEI in a descriptive, consistent character, naming the entire administrative, pedagogical and people constitution that determine the profile of the HEI, it also reaffirms that from IDP emanate the guidelines that guide institutional action. And for Mizael et al. (2013) and Dias, Sousa and Vieira (2018), it is not enough to simply allocate resources to administer a university, one must consider the complexity of managing this type of institution, which involves necessary participatory planning and body of qualified servers.

Soares and Melo (2017) state that the IDP has as its main objective, the design of new practices to improve its strategic management model and point to the different profiles of a macro-institutional nature, such as: the teaching, research and extension activities of each institution university.

Luz (2016), when researching the IDP of the Federal University of Santa Catarina, as this is the institution's planning instrument, identifies and highlights the following objectives:

Ensure the quality of teaching at all levels, seeking new levels of academic excellence: institutionalize innovative actions in pedagogical projects at all levels of education; establish a policy of reception, monitoring and pedagogical support for students (undergraduate and graduate); expand qualified access and the effectiveness of formative processes; promote interaction actions with graduates and establish an educational accessibility policy (Luz, 2016, p. 113, our translation).

Dal Magro & Rausch (2012) state that the Institutional Development Plan is a requirement for accreditation and re-accreditation of higher education institutions and may also be required under the supervision actions carried out by the Higher Education Secretariat (SeSU/MEC).

The Ministry of Education (MEC), through the Process Monitoring System of Higher Education Institutions (SAPIENS/MEC), published a document intended to serve as a reference for the construction of the IDP, answering doubts and questions from the HEIs (Dal Magro & Rausch, 2012). Thus, the preparation of the document must meet the following dimensions: institutional profile, institutional management, academic organization, infrastructure, financial and budgetary aspects, evaluation and monitoring of institutional development and annexes.

In this sense, Freire and Mendonça (2018) indicate the percentage of Federal Universities that reference in their Institutional Development Plans (IDP) the theme monitoring of graduates, from the 63 Federal Universities, 86% included the theme researched in different dimensions of the IDP, 11% do not refer and 3%, 2 universities, are in the process of preparing their first IDP. The authors conclude that all the HEIs surveyed make their IDPs available on their websites, an extremely important aspect, considering the recent advances in the implementation of a culture of transparency and access to information in public agencies, which gradually provide for the increase of the social control.

Table 1 provides an overview of the indicators of the Institutional Management Dimension of the IDP.

Table 1 describes the indicators of the Institutional Management dimension, one of the dimensions that should be structured in the preparation of the IDP and which has 12 indicators, as described in the table. It is noted in indicator 12, the forecast of follow-up of graduates.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Follow-up perspectives inserted in the IDPs

The information collected in the table with the main data obtained from the universities' websites is presented below, showing an overview of how these institutions present the information to the general public in their IDPs, and how they plan to develop actions and goals for the topic. Table 2 describes the actions proposed by the Federal Universities of the Southeast region to monitor their graduates:

Analyzing Table 2, it appears that 10 HEIs list at least more than one action aimed at monitoring, although the institutionalization of the policy is recent in the country, intentionality is observed as a constitutive element in the systematization of proposals in the Southeast region, to which they suggest specific steps to achieve objectives and goals according to the IDP schedule.

Occasionally, the following HEIs, UNIFEI, UFSJ and UNIFESP, insert the perspective of systematic monitoring of the professional insertion of graduates. Thus, the university/labor market integration is essential as a source of information for the HEI that formed them. For Andriola (2014), nothing is more important than investigating the social repercussions of the activities of a HEI, through the systematic monitoring of its graduates, seeking to know the attitudes, beliefs and culture about the academic community and society, identifying and evaluating the value added by the HEI.

UNIFEI, UFLA, UFSJ, UNIFESP indicate the relevance of updates, changes, implications of their curricula and pedagogical projects, through the capture of information. Often, because they do not receive this information, HEIs do not obtain the necessary feedback for evaluating the teaching offered, do not reflect their pedagogical practices and fail to make changes, adjustments to the content taught.

Another relevant follow-up action would be to hold an annual or biannual meeting of graduates combined with scientific events at the university to increase the interest of the external community, including former students, an action provided for in the planning of UFSJ and UNIRIO.

Specifically, the UFMG and UFOP universities refer to the need to carry out studies on graduates from undergraduate and postgraduate courses, taking advantage of opportunities, including, to obtain positive feedback from this, for example, using the results to improve academic actions. Machado (2010) states that the use of consultation mechanisms for graduates brings together aspects of external assessment, as post-graduate assessment allows for a critical look and internal assessment, as the academic community experiences the weaknesses and qualities of the courses daily. For UFLA, UFSJ, UFV, UFRRJ, it is necessary to build a database, since reliability in receiving data is essential to obtain information that will allow for future analyses.

UFSCAR, UFMG, UFV, UFRRJ and UNIFAL point to the improvement of monitoring mechanisms and instruments that contribute to institutional assessment, thus, they would be aligned with the National System for Higher Education Assessment (SINAES), which proposes a procedural, systematic and integrated institutional assessment by several complementary instruments. As for the procedures provided for in the SINAES Law, the processes must be legitimized through the democratic and conscious participation of all those involved, especially regarding the production of socially valid knowledge (Machado, 2010).

Some universities such as UFLA, UFABC, UNIRIO and UNIFESP highlight the importance of generating channels for permanent dialogue, there is an emphasis on demand, on the part of UFABC, by evidencing in its motto: “once a student at UFABC, forever a student at UFABC”; another HEI that demonstrates the culture of institutional return is UFMG, with its “Always UFMG Program”. It is necessary to establish a dialogue to know the opinion of employers and other sectors of organized civil society, about the adequacy and relevance of professional and citizen training of graduates (Andriola, 2014).

UFLA points to the need to investigate actions developed by other HEIs on the subject, an admissible initiative in the conception of similarities existing between the various higher education institutions. Although fundamental principles of the SINAES law, such as recognition of the diversity of the system and respect for the identity, mission and history of institutions, refer to the specificities of institutions, it is necessary to recognize actions and initiatives of other institutions that reflect the success, good practices and be considered as a reference.

Furthermore, some institutions may be developing specific actions in their courses, programs or faculties to get to know the opinion of their alumni that are not widely publicized or known by the entire academic community but that represent successful initiatives. Therefore, the UFJF intends to gather information from the various Academic Units.

In the Southeast region, the university that most detailed the actions it intends to develop, in the interstice of its current PDI, was the UFSJ, as it described other objectives not previously mentioned by other HEIs, such as: promoting updating of the academic community through participation in artistic events, cultural and sporting activities, offer a benefits policy, provide the graduates with space for socialization and dissemination of achievements, awards and artistic and literary production, provide the participation of graduates in extension activities, such as proponent of extension courses, speaker/lecturer at academic and scientific events, and as a collaborator in social responsibility activities.

Completing the information from the Southeast region, it was observed that UFRJ, UFTM, UFVJM and UFF do not reference or do not describe goals, objectives or indicators for monitoring.

Table 3 is presented below, with a summary of the main implementation and development actions provided for in the IDPs of federal universities in the Southeast region.

In Table 3, the main objectives in the plans to implement and develop are observed, we tried to insert in the table the corresponding actions in relation to the elaboration and continuity of the proposed actions, as important as implementing is to follow up and monitor, overcoming stages and applying new methodologies, seeking to adapt the monitoring to the characteristics of the target audience, which differs in each local context and which, over time, brings new perspectives and demands.

From the list of institutional proposals of the IDPs, whether through the formalization of a resolution or the creation of a portal or even in the scope of exposing different and innovative methodologies, there is a high effort to set the creation of a policy as a goal. The university must be attentive to, through its planning and management acts, achieve greater, better results, and allow research on graduates to serve as a basis for other planning (Machado, 2010).

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

This work sought to identify the actions and goals provided for in the IDPs of Brazilian federal universities in the Southeast region for monitoring their graduates. In addition, aspects of university management, planning and institutional assessment in the Brazilian context were verified, through the implementation of the SINAES Law, as institutions tend to incorporate the most important indicators, which bring immediate return on financing, and which are effectively more demanded by regulatory agencies. These are topics to be included in planning, programs and projects, so there are huge challenges to institutionalize the follow-up of graduates.

With the study, it was possible to verify the efforts of institutions to establish goals and objectives related to their IDPs, a positive aspect due to the relevance of the macro-document in planning, which aims to establish guidelines and priorities in the short, medium and long term.

Therefore, after analyzing the survey in these institutions, it is interesting to highlight that the majority included the theme in the IDP, there is clarity in the objectives of two main groups, especially in the actions to achieve goals: a group that aims to implement and another group that will use new practices for having already implemented and advanced to other stages, the present analysis highlights the details of some universities in their planning, as this knowledge is already applied and institutionalized.

Furthermore, based on this survey, some possible findings can be made, as essential tools for maintaining the bond are presented: the creation of a channel and a database that allows permanent communication and monitoring of the academic and professional performance of students.

Finally, the teaching, research and extension actions inserted in the various segments of the institution and dimensioned by axes in the IDPs, refer to the specificity of the choices with their clear objectives, goals and schedule and to the role of this document in the planning of universities, including the study of the professional and academic trajectory of graduates.

REFERENCES

Andriola, W. B. (2014). Estudo de egressos de cursos de graduação: subsídios para a autoavaliação e o planejamento institucionais. Educar em Revista, 54, 203-219.

Batista, Z. N., & Kerbauy, M. T. M. (2018). A gênese da extensão universitária brasileira no contexto de formação do ensino superior. Revista Ibero-Americana de Estudos em Educação, 13(3), 916-930.

Batistti, T. S., Preto, V. M., & Heinzle, M. R. S. (2017). Processos avaliativos na Educação Superior: os planos de ensino em análise. Revista Ibero-Americana de Estudos em Educação, 12(3), 1774-1791.

Bizerril, M. X. A. (2020). O processo de expansão e interiorização das universidades federais brasileiras e seus desdobramentos. Revista Tempos e Espaços em Educação, 13(32), p. 1-15.

Brasil (1996). Lei n.º 9.394, de 20 de dezembro de 1996. Estabelece a Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação Nacional. Brasília: Presidência da República, 1996. Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9394.htm

Brasil (2003). Ministério da Educação. SINAES. Bases para uma Nova proposta da Educação Superior. Brasília, 2003. Available at: http://portal.mec.gov.br/arquivos/pdf/sinaes.pdf

Brasil (2004). Lei n.º 10.861, de 14 de abril de 2004. Institui o Sistema Nacional de Avaliação da Educação Superior – SINAES e dá outras providências. Brasília: Presidência da República, 2004. Available: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2004/lei/l10.861.htm

Brasil (2006). Decreto n.º 5.773, de 9 de maio de 2006. Dispõe sobre o exercício das funções de regulação, supervisão e avaliação de instituições de educação superior e cursos superiores de graduação e sequenciais no sistema federal de ensino. Revogado pelo Decreto n.º 9.235, de 15 de dezembro de 2017. Brasília: Presidência da República, 2006. Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2006/decreto/d5773.htm

Brasil (2009). Ministério do Planejamento. Orçamento e Gestão. Produto 4: guia referencial para medição de desempenho e manual para construção de indicadores. Brasília: [s.n.], 2009. Available at: http://www.gespublica.gov.br/sites/default/files/documentos/guia_indicadores_jun2010.pdf

Dal Magro, C. B., & Rausch, R. B. (2012). Plano de desenvolvimento institucional de universidades federais brasileiras. 2012. Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa, 3(3). 427-454.

Costa, A. G., & Vidal, E. M. (2020). Concepções e implicações da accountability educacional no Brasil: o estado da questão (2006-2018). Revista Tempos e Espaços em Educação, 13(32), 1-23.

Dias, P. H. R. C., Sousa, J. C., & Vieira, C. C. F. (2017). Estratégia institucional: relação entre o PDI, PPI e planejamento estratégico no IFB. Revista on line de Política e Gestão Educacional, 21(2), 334-349.

Dias Sobrinho, J. (2010). Avaliação e transformações da educação superior brasileira (1995 - 2009): do provão ao SINAES. Revista Avaliação, 15(1), 195-224.

Dias Sobrinho, J. (2015). Universidade fraturada: reflexões sobre conhecimento e responsabilidade social. Avaliação, 20(3), 581-601.

Freire, L. F. S. & Mendonça, J. C. A. (2018). Plano de Desenvolvimento Institucional nas universidades federais: os rumos do acompanhamento de egressos. XLII Encontro da ANPAD – EnANPAD. 2018, Curitiba

GIL, A. C. (2002). Como elaborar projetos de pesquisa. São Paulo: Altas.

Inep (2003). Bases para uma nova proposta de avaliação da Educação Superior. Sistema Nacional de Avaliação da Educação Superior. Brasília: INEP. Available at: http://portal.mec.gov.br/arquivos/pdf/sinaes.pdf

Inep (2004). Plano Nacional de Educação: Política de Estado para a educação brasileira. Sistema Nacional de Avaliação da Educação Superior. Brasília: INEP. Available at: http://download.inep.gov.br/download/superior/sinaes/orientacoes_sinaes.pdf

Inep (2015). Política Institucional de integração e de avaliação do egresso na melhoria da IES. Sistema Nacional de Avaliação da Educação Superior. Brasília: INEP, 2015. Available at: http://portal.inep.gov.br/documents/186968/484109/SINAES+-+Sistema+Nacional+de+Avalia%C3%A7%C3%A3o+da+Educa%C3%A7%C3%A3o+Superior+Vol+3/4aa14291-0451-4017-b280-19f313eb4116?version=1.0

Inep (2019). Censo da Educação Superior 2018: notas estatísticas. Brasília: INEP.

LUZ, S. R. (2016). Plano de desenvolvimento institucional – PDI como ferramenta de gestão para os cursos de graduação da universidade federal de Santa Catarina. 2016. 168 f. Dissertação (Mestrado) – Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Santa Catarina, SC, Brasil.

Machado, G. R. (2010). Perfil do egresso da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. 2010. 338 f. Tese (Doutorado em Educação) – Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.

Mizael, G. A., Vilas Boas, A. A., Pereira, J. R., & Santos, T. S. (2013). Análise do Plano de Desenvolvimento Institucional das universidades; federais do Consórcio Sul-Sudeste de Minas Gerais. Revista de Administração Pública, 47(5), 1145-1164.

Picawy, M. M. (2007). PDI – Plano de Desenvolvimento Institucional, PPI – Projeto Pedagógico Institucional e PPC – Projeto Pedagógico de Curso, entre o dito e o feito, uma análise da implementação em três IES/RS/Brasil. Tese (Doutorado em Educação) – Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.

Soares, M. L.; Melo, P. A. (2017). Processo de formulação de estratégias: um estudo comparativo entre duas Universidades Públicas. Revista da UNIFEBE, 1(22), 1-20.

Sobral, M. N., & Ramos, N. (2012). Processo de Bolonha internacionalização do ensino superior. Revista Tempos e Espaços em Educação, 5(8), 1-12.

Souza, K. R. (2017). Direito à educação nos países membros do Mercosul: um estudo comparado. Tese (Doutorado em Educação Escolar) – Universidade Estadual Paulista, Araraquara, SP, Brasil.

Notas de autor

lausemarfreitas@gmail.com

Información adicional

How to cite: Freire, L. F. S., & Souza, K. R. (2021). Proposals for follow-up of graduates in the institutional development plans of federal universities. Revista Tempos e Espaços em Educação, 14(33), e16235. http://dx.doi.org/10.20952/revtee.v14i33.16235

Authors' Contributions: Freire, L. F. S.: conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the article, critical review of important intellectual content; Souza, K. R.: conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the article, critical review of important intellectual content. The authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.