Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A system dynamics model for long-term planning of the undergraduate education in Brazil

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Higher education in Brazil has experienced a rapid expansion since the 1990s as a consequence of the government’s pliability in launching new programs and educational institutions. This expansion was mainly driven by the private sector. Despite this expansion, Brazil has not yet achieved the enrollment goal expected in the National Education Plan launched in 2010. Moreover, the demand for undergraduate programs, is presenting signs of reduction, characterizing a system with fast initial growth followed by stagnation. This paper presents the construction and application of a system dynamics model for analyzing long-term policies concerning undergraduate programs in Brazil at an aggregate level. The main objective of the model is to conduct scenario analysis given by the different behavior of several aspects related to the system, such as government regulation, demand, places, and the balance between public and private sectors. A scenario analysis was conducted, considering different policies regarding the nature of education and economic development. The results are highly promising, demonstrating the potential of this approach for both understanding the dynamic behavior of higher education, improving policies, and developing effective strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barlas, Y., Diker, V. G. (2000). A dynamic simulation game (UNIGAME) for strategic university management. Simulation Gaming, 31, 331–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, G., Cooper, M., Kennedy, M., & Warwick, J. (2000). The development of the holon planning and costing framework for higher education management. In Proceedings of the 18th system dynamics conference, Bergen, Norway.

  • Carvalho, M. A. (2001). A system dynamics analysis of the higher level educational system in Brazil. M.Sc. Dissertation, State University of New York at Albany: Albany, NY.

  • Dahlan, S. F. M., & Yahaya, N. A. (2010). A system dynamics model for determining educational capacity of higher education institutions. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on computational intelligence, modelling and simulation, Bali, Indonesia.

  • Dalvi, C., Coutinho, L., Davel, R., & Braga, R. (2005). Sectorial analysis of private higher education in Brazil: Trends and perspectives 2005–2010. Hoper Editora: Foz do Iguaçu, Brasil. In Portuguese.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elimam, A. A. (1991). A decision support system for university admission policies. European Journal of Operational Research, 50, 140–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enserink, B. (2000). Building scenarios for the University. International Transactions in Operational Research, 7, 569–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frances, C. (2000). Using system dynamics as a tool for decision making in higher education management- U.S. experience. In Kennedy M. (Ed.), Using system dynamics as a tool for decision making in higher education management. South Bank University Technical Report SBU-CISM-12-00, London, UK.

  • Frances, C., Van Alstyne, M., Ashton, A., & Hochstettler, T. (1994). Using system dynamics technology to improve planning higher education: Results in Arizona and Houston, Texas. In Proceedings of the 13th international system dynamics conference, Stirling, Scotland.

  • Franz, L. S. (1981). An adaptive decision support system for academic resource planning. Decision Sciences, 12, 276–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, P. L. (1998). System dynamics and university management. System Dynamics Review, 14, 69–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, P. L., & Carss, B. W. (1989). Strategies for institutional resource allocation: Insights from a dynamic model. Higher Education Policy, 2, 31–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartono, R. D., Cahyo, F. T. (2012). The Dynamics of an undergraduate study program: ‘limits to growth’. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on management of innovation and technology, Singapore, Singapore.

  • IBGE National Institute of Geography and Statistics. (2008). Síntese de indicadores sociais: Uma Análise das Condições de Vida da População Brasileira. IBGE: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. In Portuguese.

  • INEP, National Institute of Educational Research. (2010). Census of higher education 2009: Technical summary. http://download.inep.gov.br/download/superior/censo/2009/resumo_tecnico2009.pdf. Accessed on 27 July 2011. In Portuguese.

  • INEP, National Institute of Educational Research. (2013). Census of higher education 2011: Technical summary. http://download.inep.gov.br/educacao_superior/censo_superior/resumo_tecnico/resumo_tecnico_censo_educacao_superior_2011.pdf. Accessed 03 April 2013. In Portuguese.

  • Johnstone, D. G. (2004). The economics and politics of cost sharing in higher education: comparative perspectives. Economics of Education Review, 23, 403–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassicieh, S. K., & Nowak, J. W. (1986). Decision support systems in academic planning: Important considerations and issues. Information Processing and Management, 22, 395–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, M. (1998a). A pilot system dynamics model to capture and monitor quality issues in higher education institutions experiences gained. In Proceedings of the 16th system dynamics conference, Quebec City, Canada.

  • Kennedy, M. (1998b). Some issues in system dynamics model building to support quality monitoring in higher education. In Proceedings of the 16th system dynamics conference, Quebec City, Canada.

  • Kennedy, M. (2000). Towards a taxonomy of system dynamics models of higher education. In Proceedings of the 18th system dynamics conference, Bergen, Norway.

  • Kennedy, M., & Clare, C. (1999). Some issues in building system dynamics model for improving the resource management process in higher education. In Proceedings of the 17th international system dynamics conference, Wellington, New Zealand.

  • Levy, D. C. (2013). The decline of private higher education. Higher Education Policy, 26, 25–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCowan, T. (2007). Expansion without equity: An analysis of current policy on access to higher education in Brazil. Higher Education, 53, 579–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mizrahi, S., & Mehrez, A. (2002). Managing quality in higher education systems via minimal quality requirements: Signaling and control. Economics of Education Review, 21, 53–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mok, J. K.-H. (2002). From nationalization to marketization. Governance, 15, 137–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murthy, S., Gujrati, R. & Iyer, S. (2010). Using system dynamics to model and analyze a distance education program. In Proceedings of the international conference on information and communication technologies and development, London, United Kingdom.

  • Niculescu, M. (2006). Strategic positioning in Romanian higher education. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19, 725–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oyo, B., Williams, D., & Barendsen, E. (2008). A system dynamics tool for higher education funding and quality policy analysis. In Proceedings of the 2008 international conference of the system dynamics society, Athens, Greece.

  • Pohlmann, C. R. (2009). Proposal of a method to support the development of the strategic positioning of graduate programs based on system dynamics. M.Sc. Dissertation, Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos: São Leopoldo, Brazil. In Portuguese.

  • Porto, C, & Régnier, K. (2003). Higher education in the world and Brazil: determinants, trends and scenarios for the horizon 2003–2025. Technical report. http://www.macroplan.com.br. Accessed 28 January 2010.

  • Restad, H. (2010). Implementation of international strategies in higher education: A system dynamics approach. M.Sc. Dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology: Trondheim, Norway.

  • Richardson, G. P., & Pugh, A. L., I. I. I. (1981). Introduction to system dynamics modeling with DYNAMO. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Productivity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozada, M. G., & Menendez, A. (2002). Public university in Argentina: Subsidizing the rich? Economics of Education Review, 21, 341–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saeed, K. (1996). The dynamics of collegial systems in the developing countries. Higher Education Policy, 9, 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, S. C. (2005). System dynamics in distance education and a call to develop a standard model. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 6, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoham, S., & Perry, M. (2009). Knowledge management as a mechanism for technological and organizational change management in Israeli universities. Higher Education, 57, 227–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, L. M. (2010). A system dynamics model for higher education analysis. M.Sc. Dissertation. Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul: Porto Alegre, Brazil. In Portuguese.

  • Turban, E., Fisher, J. C., & Altman, S. (1988). Decision support systems in academic administration. Journal of Educational Administration, 26, 97–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vieira, L. R. (2003). Higher education expansion in Brazil: A preliminary approach of the public policies and perspectives for the undergraduate education. AvaliaçãoRevista da Rede de Avaliação Institucional da Educação Superior, 8, 81–97. In Portuguese.

  • Vinnik, S., & Scholl, M. H. (2005). Efficient decision support for academic resources and capacity management. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3416, 235–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to the anonymous referees for very useful comments and criticism. This work was partially supported by CNPq, grant 300810/2009-1.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denis Borenstein.

Appendix: Mathematical representation of stock and flow diagrams

Appendix: Mathematical representation of stock and flow diagrams

There is more than one way to represent stock and flow diagrams. We adopted the notation used by Sterman (2000) in his classic book. Figure 17 presents a very simple stock and flow diagram to illustrate the related concepts. Stocks can change their state only through their flows, which, in turn, could have influences from other stocks or auxiliary variables. Some variables that represent information or status, or are external influences, are better modeled using auxiliary variables.

Fig. 17
figure 17

Stock and flow diagram using iThink© notation. Source: Sterman (2000)

The simulation of the system behavior is made possible by the equations that characterize the behavior of flows and stocks in the system over time. Stocks are modeled with integral equations, as in Eq. (1), representing the accumulation from time t 0 to moment t. Inflows(t) and Outflows(t) represent the values of an input stream and an output stream at any time t.

$$Stock(t) = \int\limits_{{t_{0} }}^{t} {[Inflows(t) - Outflows(t)]ds + Stock(t_{0} )}$$
(1)

Equivalently, the rate of change of any stock is the Inflow minus the Outflow defined by the differential Eq. (2) as follows:

$$d(Stock)/dt = Inflow(t) - Outflow(t)$$
(2)

In system dynamics, we transform the differential equations represented in (2) into the following difference equation:

$$Stock(t + 1) = Stock(t) + \varDelta t* \, [Outflow(t){-}Inflow(t)]$$

Using SD nomenclature, we can describe the system presented in Fig. 4 by the four level equations and the six rate equations presented below. Since the preliminary CLD in Fig. 2 was not implemented (rather, we implemented the CLD in Fig. 3), we use f(.) to represent how involved variables are related. In several cases, this function is a probabilistic one defined by using historic data.

Level equation 1:

$$\begin{gathered} {\text{Number\_of\_Students(t)}} = {\text{Number\_of\_Students(t}} - {\text{dt)}} + ( {\text{Demand\_Rate}} - {\text{Graduates)}}*{\text{dt}} \hfill \\ {\text{INIT Number\_of\_Students}} = {\text{Initial value of number of Students}} \hfill \\ \end{gathered}$$

INFLOWS:

$${\text{Demand}}\_{\text{Rate}} = f({\text{Places\_Capacity,}}\;{\text{Tuition\_Fee\_perception,}}\;{\text{Socioeconomics\_Status}})$$

OUTFLOWS:

$${\text{Graduates}} = {\text{f}}({\text{Graduation rate}})$$

Level equation 2:

$$\begin{gathered} {\text{Places\_Capacity(t)}} = {\text{Places\_Capacity}}({\text{t}} - {\text{dt}}) + ({\text{Opening\_Places}} - {\text{Closing\_Places}})*{\text{dt}} \hfill \\ {\text{INIT Places\_Capacity}} = {\text{Initial value of places capacity}} \hfill \\ \end{gathered}$$

INFLOWS:

$${\text{Opening}}\_{\text{Places}} = {\text{f}}({\text{Number}}\_{\text{of}}\_{\text{Students, Places}}\_{\text{Capacity}})$$

OUTFLOWS:

$${\text{Closing}}\_{\text{Places}} = {\text{f}}({\text{Number\_of Students, Places\_Capacity}})$$

Level equation 3:

$$\begin{gathered} {\text{Tuition}}\_{\text{Fee}}\_{\text{Perception(t)}} = {\text{Tuition\_Fee\_Perception(t}} - {\text{dt)}} + ({\text{Change\_in\_Tuition\_Fee\_Perception}})*{\text{dt}} \hfill \\ {\text{INIT Tuition\_Fee\_perception}} = {\text{Initial value of Tuition\_Fee\_Perception}} \hfill \\ \end{gathered}$$

INFLOWS:

$${\text{Change\_in\_Tuition\_Fee\_Perception}} = {\text{f}}({\text{Number\_of\_Students,}}\;{\text{Delay\_of\_Perception}})$$

Level equation 4:

$${\text{Young\_Population(t)}} = {\text{Young}}\_{\text{Population (t}} - {\text{dt)}} + ({\text{Birth}}\_{\text{Rate}} - {\text{Demand}}\_{\text{Rate}})*{\text{dt}}$$
$${\text{INIT}}\;{\text{Young\_Population = Initial value of young population}}$$

INFLOWS:

$${\text{Birth}}\_{\text{Rate}} = {\text{f}}({\text{birth}}\;{\text{rate}})$$

OUTFLOWS:

$$\begin{gathered} {\text{Demand}}\_{\text{Rate}} = f({\text{Places}}\_{\text{Capacity, Tuition}}\_{\text{Fee}}\_{\text{Perception}},{\text{ Socioeconomics}}\_{\text{Status}}) \hfill \\ {\text{Socioeconomics}}\_{\text{Status}} = {\text{f}}({\text{Socioeconomics}}\_{\text{Status}}) \hfill \\ \end{gathered}$$

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Strauss, L.M., Borenstein, D. A system dynamics model for long-term planning of the undergraduate education in Brazil. High Educ 69, 375–397 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9781-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9781-6

Keywords

Navigation