Methodology for Assessing and Predicting the Rate of
Development of Education in the Republic of Azerbaijan
SHAFA GULIYEVA, REYHAN AZIZOVA
Azerbaijan State University of Economics (UNEC), I building, Baku,
AZERBAIJAN
Abstract: - The article developed a methodology for assessing the rates of development of education and their
forecasting in the Republic of Azerbaijan, which allows considering factors with a heterogeneous metric. For
this, an index analysis of thirty-five indicators was carried out, divided into seven groups depending on the
level of education, an integral indicator characterizing their changes was calculated, and the pace of
development of the industry in the Republic of Azerbaijan was determined. Further, using the Excel program, a
forecast of changes in the number of students in the Republic of Azerbaijan until 2023 is presented according to
three scenarios: optimistic, probabilistic and pessimistic. Studies have shown that optimistic and pessimistic
scenarios are more likely to be realized.
Key-Words: - Forecasting, education, development, assessment methodology, integral indicator.
Received: August 25, 2021. Revised: June 9, 2022. Accepted: June 19, 2022. Published: July 8, 2022.
1 Introduction
The modern education system occupies an
important place in the socio-economic development
of any country and is viewed as a condition and
prerequisite for raising the material and cultural
level of its inhabitants. This industry is
characterized by a continuity of levels, which
makes it difficult to analyze a multicomponent
system and requires taking into account the
influence of many factors.
After gaining independence from the former Soviet
Union in 1991, the Republic of Azerbaijan gained
the opportunity to develop a national education
system and scientific and educational ties with
various states. In the country there is a growing
trend to increase import and export of educational
services [3], the role of education in human capital
development [4].
The purpose of the article is based on statistical
analysis with time-homogeneous metric to develop
a method to assess the rate of development of
education in the Republic of Azerbaijan and present
high-quality predictable result of changes in the
number of students to justify effective scenarios.
As research methods used: correlation and
regression analysis, index, calculation of the
integral indicator, forecasting.
Analyzing foreign publications over the past five
years, Hilty, L.[6], Lee, R. [8], Njos, R. [12], Yoon,
D. [16], the authors came to the conclusion that the
research technologies used in them are based only
on analysis, which does not allow forecasting. And
in the works of Dede, Y. [1], Gungor, A. [5],
Kurniadi, E. [7], Lennert, J. [9], Mehdi, F. [11],
Velozo de Castro, E. [15], despite the construction
of mathematical models, the approach for
accounting for indicators with different units of
measurement is not taken into account.
However, based on the technology of assessing the
impact of socio-economic factors on the
reproduction of human resources in agriculture
[13], [14], we managed to develop a methodology
for assessing the pace of education development in
the Republic of Azerbaijan.
2 Materials and Methods
At the initial stage, a sample of the most significant
thirty-five indicators was formed to assess the rate
of development of education in the Republic of
Azerbaijan (Table 1).
Table 1. Main indicators characterizing the rate of development of education in the Republic of Azerbaijan in
2011-2020 (for the beginning of the year).
Indicators
Years
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Preschool educational institutions
Shafa Guliyeva, Reyhan Azizova
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
962
Volume 18, 2022
Number of institutions (units)
1638
1666
1677
1680
1706
1722
1750
1785
1803
1840
Number of seats (thousand units)
128,6
127,2
128,9
121,3
129,9
130,2
134,8
140,6
143,3
146,2
Number of children (thousand
people)
112,9
113,5
111,1
107,7
116,0
117,2
118,7
124,2
126,9
128,8
Daytime general education institutions
Number of institutions (units)
4516
4508
4505
4475
4462
4452
4438
4439
4433
4431
Number of students (thousand
people)
1291,
3
1284,
9
1289,
3
1322,2
1353,3
1461,7
1520,2
1561,9
1616,1
1656,8
Number of teachers (key staff)
(thousand people)
163,3
163,4
163,0
160,7
158,1
156,9
155,8
154,8
153,0
153,2
The number of children attending
training groups in institutions
(thousand people)
10,5
11,1
12,2
12,4
13,3
12,1
82,2
94,5
98,1
108,3
Vocational educational institutions
Number of establishments (units)
109
108
108
112
113
113
112
111
111
110
Number of students (thousand
people)
27,3
29,0
30,7
29,2
25,4
24,5
23,8
24,0
23,9
23,2
Admission to institutions
(thousand people)
15,7
16,5
18,4
16,1
13,2
15,4
15,9
16,6
17,4
17,1
Graduates of institutions
(thousand people)
13,0
13,8
15,2
16,7
15,3
15,2
15,1
14,6
15,5
15,5
Number of teachers (thousand
people)
2,0
1,9
1,8
1,8
1,7
1,7
1,7
1,6
1,6
1,5
Secondary specialized educational institutions
Number of establishments (units)
59
59
58
61
61
55
55
56
59
61
Number of students (thousand
people)
54,5
56,0
63,3
60,5
56,4
51,7
47,4
51,7
56,0
60,0
Number of accepted students
(thousand people)
16,8
18,9
21,3
14,3
13,8
15,1
15,5
18,0
18,9
19,2
Number of graduates (thousand
people)
14,7
15,9
12,6
14,8
16,4
17,1
16,3
12,4
12,4
14,0
Number of teaching staff (key
staff) (thousand people)
6,6
6,3
6,1
6,0
6,1
6,1
5,7
5,7
6,1
6,1
Correspondence (evening) educational institutions
Number of institutions (units)
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
n / a
Number of students (thousand
people)
2,7
2,7
3,0
2,8
2,8
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
n / a
Number of teachers (without
deputy) (thousand people)
0,22
0,19
0,22
0,20
0,17
0,17
0,15
0,15
0,10
n / a
Higher education institutions
Number of establishments (units)
51
52
52
53
54
51
51
52
52
52
Number of students (thousand
people)
143,1
145,6
151,3
158,2
161,2
163,8
167,7
176,7
187,7
198,7
Number of accepted students
(thousand people)
31,2
33,3
35,4
35,8
33,6
36,1
38,5
42,1
44,3
45,0
Number of graduates (thousand
people)
30,8
35,1
33,8
32,8
33,7
37,0
37,5
37,1
37,6
40,8
Shafa Guliyeva, Reyhan Azizova
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
963
Volume 18, 2022
Of the total number of graduates
who received a bachelor's degree
(thousand people)
27,4
31,5
30,4
28,9
29,0
31,1
32,5
31,7
31,5
34,7
Of the total number of graduates
who received a master's degree
(thousand people)
3,4
3,6
3,4
3,9
4,7
5,8
5,0
5,4
6,1
6,1
Number of teaching staff (key
staff) (thousand people)
14,7
15,1
15,2
15,0
14,6
14,5
14,6
14,8
15,1
15,2
Doctorate
Number of institutions offering
doctoral studies (units)
103
103
106
116
111
110
117
119
119
117
The number of people trained in
the PhD program (people)
897
1601
2070
2400
2282
2182
2168
2064
2239
2512
Admission to study under the
PhD program (people)
677
814
625
629
558
420
455
665
633
552
Graduates of the PhD training
program (people)
396
232
131
277
636
543
529
605
421
356
Number of institutions where
doctors of sciences are trained
(units)
74
74
74
80
78
80
88
89
90
89
Number of people trained under
the doctoral training program
(people)
185
411
426
535
593
541
555
562
611
675
Admission to the Doctors of
Science Training Program
(people)
168
219
134
129
94
101
129
165
140
154
Graduates of the Doctorate of
Science Program (people)
10
44
7
50
66
79
69
87
118
84
Source: [14]
.
Analyzing the data in Table 1, we will exclude from
the list of indicators those that have an insignificant
effect on the overall rate of development of
education, since they remained almost unchanged
for 10 years. This is the number of educational and
educational institutions in all blocks, as well as
institutions in which training for doctoral programs
and the preparation of doctors of sciences is carried
out.
The remaining twenty-seven indicators will be
reduced to an index value (in% to the previous
year) for the possibility of taking them into account
when calculating integral indicators (Table 2). The
index analysis method makes it possible to
aggregate a wide range of quantitative indicators for
assessing the rate of development of education,
which have different units of measurement and are
not comparable without standardization of values.
Based on table 1, table 2 is formed, reflecting the
index values of indicators characterizing the pace of
development of education in the Republic of
Azerbaijan in 2011-2020.
Table 2. Dynamics of changes in indicators characterizing the pace of development of education in the
Republic of Azerbaijan in 2011-2020, in % to the previous year.
Indicators
Years
Medium
pace
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Preschool educational institutions (indices of change)
Number of seats
103,6
98,9
101,3
94,1
107,1
100,3
103,5
104,3
102,0
102,0
101,7
Number of children
104,6
100,6
97,9
96,9
107,8
101,0
101,2
104,7
102,1
101,5
101,8
Daytime general education institutions (indexes of change)
Number of students
97,5
99,5
100,3
102,6
102,4
108,0
104,0
102,7
103,5
102,5
102,3
Number of teachers
94,7
100,0
99,8
98,6
98,4
99,2
99,3
99,4
98,8
100,1
98,8
Shafa Guliyeva, Reyhan Azizova
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
964
Volume 18, 2022
(key staff)
Number of children
attending training
groups
105,6
105,9
109,1
102,1
107,0
91,0
679,5
115,0
103,7
110,4
162,9
Vocational education institutions (indices of change)
Number of students
106,9
106,1
105,8
95,3
86,9
96,3
97,3
100,9
99,8
96,8
99,2
Admission to
establishments
116,6
104,9
111,4
87,3
82,3
116,1
103,3
104,8
104,7
98,5
103,0
Graduates of institutions
104,2
106,0
110,6
109,6
91,7
99,3
99,4
96,6
106,0
100,1
102,4
Number of teachers
98,6
95,2
95,7
100,6
93,3
99,3
103,6
94,5
99,8
93,5
97,4
Secondary specialized educational institutions (indices of change)
Number of students
101,9
102,8
113,1
95,6
93,3
91,6
91,7
109,2
108,2
107,1
101,4
Number of accepted
students
106,0
110,4
114,5
67,4
96,6
109,3
102,2
116,1
105,3
101,6
102,9
Number of graduates
100,8
108,2
79,3
117,3
111,3
104,0
95,4
75,8
100,5
112,9
100,5
The number of teaching
staff
93,2
94,3
97,4
98,6
101,6
99,5
93,1
101,5
105,6
100,9
98,6
Correspondence (evening) educational institutions (indices of change) *
Number of students
92,4
100,1
108,9
92,5
100,2
91,8
77,1
75,4
69,8
n / a
89,8
Number of teachers
(without deputy)
123,6
87,0
119,3
87,4
88,7
96,0
92,8
94,8
69,2
n / a
95,4
Higher education institutions (indices of change)
Number of students
102,1
101,7
103,9
104,6
101,9
101,6
102,4
105,4
106,2
105,9
103,6
Number of accepted
students
104,4
106,8
106,1
101,2
94,0
107,4
106,7
109,2
105,3
101,5
104,3
Number of graduates
99,2
114,0
96,1
97,2
102,7
109,6
101,5
99,0
101,2
108,7
102,9
Graduates who have
received a bachelor's
degree out of the total
97,0
114,9
96,3
95,2
100,2
107,4
104,3
97,6
99,2
110,3
102,3
Graduates who have
received a master's
degree out of the total
121,3
106,7
94,2
115,3
120,7
123,2
86,5
107,6
112,7
100,2
108,8
Number of faculty
members (key staff)
98,2
102,9
101,0
98,7
96,9
99,7
100,5
101,4
101,9
101,1
100,2
Doctorate (indices of change)
The number of people
trained in the PhD
program
114,1
178,5
129,3
115,9
95,1
95,6
99,4
95,2
108,5
112,2
114,4
Admission to the PhD
program
1327,5
120,2
76,8
100,6
88,7
75,3
108,3
146,2
95,2
87,2
222,6
PhD program graduates
87,0
58,6
56,5
211,5
229,6
85,4
97,4
114,4
69,6
84,6
109,4
The number of people
trained under the
doctoral training
program
203,3
222,2
103,6
125,6
110,8
91,2
102,6
101,3
108,7
110,5
128,0
Admission to the
Doctors of Science
Training Program
1292,3
130,4
61,2
96,3
72,9
107,4
127,7
127,9
84,8
110,0
221,1
Graduates of the
Doctors of Science
Program
76,9
440,0
15,9
714,3
132,0
119,7
87,3
126,1
135,6
71,2
191,9
Source: Compiled by the authors.
* For 2011-2019.
Shafa Guliyeva, Reyhan Azizova
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
965
Volume 18, 2022
Based on the information in Table 2, formula 1 is
being developed, which calculates an integral
indicator characterizing the pace of development of
preschool educational institutions in the Republic of
Azerbaijan in 2011-2020󰇛󰇜 in %:
 
(1)
 - index of change in the number of
places in preschool educational institutions, %;
 - index of change in the number of
children in preschool educational institutions, %.
Analysis , indicates that for 2011-2020 the
average value of the indices of change in the
number of places and children in preschool
educational institutions was almost identical - 101.7
and 101.8%, that is, both had the same effect on the
integral indicator.
Further, based on the data in Table 2, formula 2 is
developed, which calculates an integral indicator
characterizing the pace of development of daytime
general education institutions in the Republic of
Azerbaijan in 2011-2020󰇛󰇜 in %:
 
 (2)
 - index of change in the number of
pupils of daytime general education institutions, %;
 - index of change in the number of teachers
of daytime general education institutions, %;
 - index of change in the number of children
attending training groups in daytime educational
institutions, %.
, demonstrates that for the analyzed period,
the average value of the indices of change in the
number of teachers and children attending training
groups in daytime general education institutions
ranged from the minimum - 98.8% to the maximum
- 162.9%, respectively. Consequently, the last index
had the most significant influence on the integral
indicator.
Then, based on the materials of Table 2, formula 3
is developed, which calculates an integral indicator
characterizing the pace of development of
vocational and technical educational institutions in
the Republic of Azerbaijan in 2011-2020󰇛󰇜
in %:
 
 (3)
 - index of change in the number of
students of vocational and technical educational
institutions, %;
 - index of change in admission to vocational
and technical educational institutions, %;
 - index of change in the number of graduates
of vocational and technical educational institutions,
%;
 - index of change in the number of teachers
in vocational and technical educational, %.
Analysis of indices of change in indicators,
indicates that for 2011-2020 the average value of
two of them tended to decrease (the number of
students - 99.2% and the number of teachers -
97.4%), and the other two tended to increase
(admission to institutions - 103.0% and graduates of
institutions - 102.4%). In sum, they give an average
growth of the integral indicator by 2.4%.
Based on table 2, formula 4 is being developed,
which calculates an integral indicator characterizing
the pace of development of secondary specialized
educational institutions in the Republic of
Azerbaijan in 2011-2020󰇛󰇜 in %:
 
 (4)
 - index of change in the number of
students of secondary specialized educational
institutions, %;
 - index of change of students admitted to
secondary specialized educational institutions, %;
 - index of change in the number of graduates
of secondary specialized educational institutions,
%;
 - index of change in the number of teaching
staff of secondary specialized educational
institutions, %.
 demonstrates that for the analyzed period, the
average value of the indices of change in the
number of students, admitted students and
graduates of secondary specialized educational
institutions had a positive trend (all values are
above 100.0%). This does not only apply to the
index of change in the number of teaching staff,
which dropped to 98.6%.
Further, based on the data in Table 2, formula 5 is
developed, which calculates an integral indicator
characterizing the pace of development of
correspondence (evening) educational institutions in
the Republic of Azerbaijan in 2011-2019󰇛󰇜 in
%:
Shafa Guliyeva, Reyhan Azizova
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
966
Volume 18, 2022
 
(5)
 - index of change in the number of
students in correspondence (evening) educational
institutions, %;
 - index of change in the number of
teachers in correspondence (evening) educational
institutions, %.
Analysis , indicates that for 2011-2020 the
average value of both indices tended to decrease.
The index of change in the number of students of
correspondence (evening) educational institutions
decreased to 89.8% (the lowest value among all
twenty-eight indicators taken into account when
calculating the rate of development of education),
and teachers - to 95.4%.
Then, based on the materials of Table 2, formula 6
is developed, which calculates an integral indicator
characterizing the pace of development of higher
educational institutions in the Republic of
Azerbaijan in 2011-2020 󰇛󰇜 in %:
 
 (6)
 - index of change in the number of
students of higher educational institutions, %;
 - index of change in the number of accepted
students of higher educational institutions, %;
 - index of change in the number of graduates
of higher educational institutions, %;
 - change index of graduates who received a
bachelor's degree in higher education, %;
 - change index of graduates who received a
master's degree in higher educational institutions,
%;
 - index of change in the number of teaching
staff of higher educational institutions, %.
, demonstrates that during the analyzed period,
all average values of the indices had a positive trend
and ranged from 100.2% (index of change in the
number of teaching staff) to 108.8% (index of
change in the number of graduates who received a
master's degree). The average rate for all six
indicators is 103.7%.
Based on the information in Table 2, formula 7 is
being developed, which calculates an integral
indicator characterizing the pace of development of
doctoral studies in the Republic of Azerbaijan in
2011-2020󰇛󰇜 in %:
 
 (7)
 - index of change in the number of
people who completed PhD training, %;
 - the index of change in admission to study
under the PhD program, %;
 - index of change in the number of graduates
of the PhD training program, %;
 - index of change in the number of people
trained under the doctoral training program, %;
 - index of change in admission to the
doctoral training program, %;
 - index of change of graduates of the doctoral
training program, %.
Analysis  demonstrates that for 2011-2020 the
average value of all indices tended to grow, and for
three of them almost doubled. These are the indices
of change: admission to the PhD program - 222.6%;
admission to the doctoral training program -
221.1%; graduates of the doctoral training program
- 191.9%. All this testifies to the growing interest in
research activities in the Republic of Azerbaijan.
Further, the values of formulas 1-7 are substituted
into formula 8 to calculate the integral indicator
characterizing the pace of development of education
in the Republic of Azerbaijan in 2011-2020󰇛),
in %:
 
(8)
- an integral indicator characterizing the
pace of development of preschool educational
institutions, %;
- integral indicator characterizing the pace
of development of daytime general education
institutions, %;
 - integral indicator characterizing the rate
of development of vocational and technical
educational institutions, %;
- integral indicator characterizing the rate
of development of secondary specialized
educational institutions, %;
- an integral indicator characterizing the
pace of development of correspondence (evening)
educational institutions, %;
 - an integral indicator characterizing the
pace of development of higher educational
institutions, %;
- an integral indicator characterizing the
pace of development of doctoral studies, %.
The values of the integral indicator
characterizing the pace of education in the Republic
of Azerbaijan in 2011-2020󰇛), are entered in
Shafa Guliyeva, Reyhan Azizova
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
967
Volume 18, 2022
table 3.
Table 3. Integral indicator characterizing the rate of development of education in the Republic of Azerbaijan in
2011-2020, in %.
Indicators
Years
Medium
pace
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020

104,1
99,7
99,6
95,5
107,4
100,6
102,4
104,5
102,0
101,8
101,8

99,2
101,8
103,0
101,1
102,5
99,1
191,5
105,5
102,0
104,3
111,0

106,4
102,9
105,7
97,9
88,5
102,5
100,9
99,1
102,5
97,2
100,4

100,4
103,7
100
92,9
100,5
100,9
95,5
99,4
104,9
105,5
100,4

106,8
93,3
114
90
94,3
93,9
84,6
84,5
69,5
n / a
92,3

103,4
107,7
99,5
101,8
102,4
107,9
100,1
103,3
104,3
104,6
103,5

117,7
108,2
62,0
113,4
112,8
139,0
103,1
117,3
144,2
138,8
115,7

105,4
102,5
97,7
98,9
101,2
106,3
111,2
101,9
104,2
108,7
103,8
Source: Compiled by the authors.
Analysis of the integral indicator characterizing the
pace of education development, indicates that
for 2011-2020 it ranged from 97.7% in 2013
(minimum) up to 111.2% in 2017 (maximum). For
eight years out of ten, the indicator was positive. Its
average value for 2011-2020 was 103.8%. The most
positive influence on it is demonstrated by the
integral indicators characterizing the pace of
development of doctoral studies󰇛󰇜 – 115.7%
and day general education institutions (󰇜 –
111.0%. The maximum negative impact in 2011-
2019 was exerted󰇛󰇜- an indicator
characterizing the pace of development of
correspondence (evening) educational institutions
(92.3%).
3 Results
At the next stage, in order to further detail the
problem under study, we propose to use forecasting
tools. To do this, using Excel, we built twenty-
seven graphs (for nine indicators in three forecast
options: optimistic, probabilistic and pessimistic).
Table 4 shows equations for eight indicators of
changes in the number of students in the Republic
of Azerbaijan, demonstrating the maximum
reliability of forecasts for 2021–2023.
Table 4. Forecast of changes in the number of students in the Republic of Azerbaijan until 2023, thousand
people
Forecast option
Equation
Year
2023 to
2020,%
2020
2021
2022
2023
Number of children in preschool educational institutions
Optimistic
y = 115,86x2 + 583,25x + 109859
128,8
131,2
133,1
134,6
104,5
Probabilistic
y = 65,235x2 + 1017x + 109210
126,5
130,1
132,0
102,5
Pessimistic
y = 54,777x2 + 1119,1x + 109034
125,8
129,8
131,2
101,9
Number of students in daytime general education institutions
Optimistic
y = 1637,9x2 + 26803x + 1E+06
1656,8
1710,8
1785,2
1831,4
110,5
Probabilistic
y = 851,47x2 + 34588x + 1E+06
1691,6
1738,1
1784,6
107,7
Pessimistic
y = 42667x + 1E+06
1644,7
1691,3
1739,0
105,0
The number of children attending training groups in educational institutions
Optimistic
y = 582,54x2 + 5271,1x - 7149,8
108,3
123,0
136,6
150,2
138,6
Probabilistic
y = 372,15x2 + 7162x - 10143
106,9
125,3
137,7
127,2
Pessimistic
y = 93,531x2 + 9683,2x - 14150
90,5
105,4
124,1
114,5
Number of students in vocational education institutions
Optimistic
y = 30342e-0,028x
23,2
22,8
22,3
21,4
90,5
Probabilistic
y = 30566e-0,03x
22,0
21,3
20,5
88,5
Pessimistic
y = -47,639x2 - 289,5x + 29421
19,5
19,0
18,6
77,6
Shafa Guliyeva, Reyhan Azizova
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
968
Volume 18, 2022
Number of students in correspondence (evening) educational institutions
Optimistic
y = -4,294x2 - 135,94x + 3182,8
1,262
1,282
1,051
0,855
67,7
Probabilistic
y = -8,3447x2 - 98,241x + 3120,9
1,047
0,832
0,617
48,9
Pessimistic
y = -11,137x2 - 73,332x + 3081,9
0,845
0,653
0,471
37,3
Number of students of higher educational institutions
Optimistic
y = 191,67x2 + 3478,1x + 138731
198,7
202,5
208,4
213,3
107,2
Probabilistic
y = 136866e0,0332x
197,2
202,9
208,7
105,0
Pessimistic
y = 138284e0,0308x
192,4
196,9
203,5
102,2
Number of people who completed PhD training
Optimistic
y = 626,8ln(x) + 1131,2
2,512
2,726
2,809
2,891
115,1
Probabilistic
y = 611,12ln(x) + 1146,6
2,647
2,757
2,867
114,2
Pessimistic
y = 572,74ln(x) + 1185,6
2,531
2,654
2,729
108,6
Number of people trained under the doctoral training program
Optimistic
y = 218,93ln(x) + 197,9
0,675
0,768
0,810
0,838
124,1
Probabilistic
y = 206,28ln(x) + 210,62
0,726
0,765
0,804
119,2
Pessimistic
y = 192,92ln(x) + 224,17
0,684
0,729
0,758
112,3
Source:- Compiled by the authors.
Based on the three forecast options (Table 4), it can
be seen that the indicators of the number of children
attending training groups in general educational
institutions and the number of people trained under
the doctoral program are expected to have a
maximum growth (138.6% and 124.1%,
respectively, with optimistic forecasts). In general,
according to all indicators of Table 4, there is an
increase, except for the number of students in
vocational schools (a decrease to 77.6%) and the
number of students in correspondence (evening)
educational institutions (up to 37.3%) with a
pessimistic forecast.
4 Discussion
In Figures 1–2, predictive graphs are built for
indicators of the number of students in day-time
general education institutions and students of higher
educational institutions (having the greatest value of
the approximation coefficient R2), as having the
highest probability of their implementation in the
Republic of Azerbaijan until 2023 with an
optimistic forecast. So, for the first indicator R2 has
a value of 0.9829. Consequently, it is more likely,
about 98%, to be realized. And for the second R2
has a maximum value of 0.9862, that is, it will be
realized with a 99% probability.
Fig. 1: Optimistic forecast of the number of daytime students educational institutions of the Republic of
Azerbaijan until 2023, people
Source: Compiled by the authors.
y = 1637,9x2+26803x + 1E+06
R² = 0,9829
0,0
200 000,0
400 000,0
600 000,0
800 000,0
1 000 000,0
1 200 000,0
1 400 000,0
1 600 000,0
1 800 000,0
2 000 000,0
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Row1
Polynomial
(Row1)
Shafa Guliyeva, Reyhan Azizova
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
969
Volume 18, 2022
Fig. 2: Optimistic forecast of the number of students higher educational institutions of the Republic of
Azerbaijan until 2023, people
Source: Compiled by the authors.
Derivation of the twenty-seven charts involved in
writing the article is not possible due to the limited
scope of its volume. However, it should be noted
that when constructing twenty-four of them, the
approximation coefficient R2 turned out to be in the
range from 0.8153 (pessimistic forecast of the
number of people trained in the PhD program) to
0.9862 (optimistic forecast of the number of
students in higher educational institutions). R2 is an
indicator of the quality of forecasts: the closer its
value is to one, the higher the probability of
execution. Moreover, for one half of the forecast
options, the approximation coefficient ranges from
0.8153 to 0.8922, and for the other from 0.9112 to
0.9862. This means that the reliability of the
calculations performed in twenty-four graphs
ranges from 82 to 99%.
5 Conclusions
Thus, the developed methodology is a working tool
for determining the rate of development of
education in the Republic of Azerbaijan. It is a
versatile and accurate forecasting tool for the next
period and has great potential for further research.
With its help, it is possible to assess not only the
impact of certain indicators on the development of
education, but also in other sectors and spheres of
activity, as well as to assess the impact of any
groups of factors in order to ensure sustainable
development of the country and its regions.
References:
[1] The State Statistical Committee of the
Republic of Azerbaijan.
https://www.stat.gov.az/source/education/?lan
g=en
[2] Dede, Y., Akçakın, V. & Kaya, G.
Mathematical, mathematics educational, and
educational values in mathematical modeling
tasks, Ecnu review of education, Vol. 4, No. 2,
2021, pp. 241-260.
[3] Gulaliev, M., Manafova E. The main
properties of international educational
services in Azerbaijan, Economics of
Education, No. 4, 2013, pp.111–115.
[4] Gulaliyev, M. G., Muradov, R. S., Hajiyeva,
L. A., Muradova, H. R., Aghayeva, K. A.,
Aliyev, E. S. Study of human capital
development, economic indicators and
environmental quality, Ekoloji, Vol. 28, No.
107, 2019, pp.495-503.
[5] Gungor, A., Akyuz, A.O., Şirin, C., Tuncer,
A.D., Zaman, M., Gungor, C. Importance of
mathematical modeling in innovation,
Mathematical Modeling, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2019,
pp.32-34.
https://stumejournals.com/journals/mm/2019/
1/32
[6] Hilty, L., Aebischer, B. ICT innovations for
sustainability. Heidelberg, New York,
Dordrecht, London: Springer, 2015, 470 p.
[7] Kurniadi, E., Sari, N., Darmawijoyo, D.
Cognitive processes of using representational
form in mathematical modeling based on
gender differences, Jurnal elemen, 2021, Vol.
7, No. 2, pp. 463–474.
[8] Lee, R., Lee, J. H., Garrett, T. C. Synergy
effects of innovation on firm performance,
Journal of Business Research, 2019, 99,
pp.507-515.
[9] Lennert, J. Complex spatial modelling
possibilities of the socio-economic changes of
Hungary – potential approaches and methods,
Mathematical Modeling, 2018, Vol. 2, No. 4,
y = 191,67x2+3478,1x + 138731
R² = 0,9862
0,0
50 000,0
100 000,0
150 000,0
200 000,0
250 000,0
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Row1
Polynomial
(Row1)
Shafa Guliyeva, Reyhan Azizova
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
970
Volume 18, 2022
pp.160-162.
[10] Materials of the State Committee on Statistics
of the Republic of Azerbaijan (n.d.).
https://www.azstat.org/portal
[11] Mehdi, F. Z. Mathematical models for
research innovation, Хуманитарни
Балкански изследвания, 2021, Vol. 5, No.
12, pp.51-55.
https://doi.org/10.34671/SCH.HBR.2021.050
2.0012
[12] Njos, R., Jakobsen, S. E. Cluster policy and
regional development: Scale, scope and
renewal, Regional Studies, Regional Science,
2016, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.146– 169.
[13] Orlov, V. N., Ivanova, T. V., Arkhipova, V.
A., Ivanitskaya, I. P. Assessment of the
influence of social factors on reproduction of
personnel potential in agriculture of Russia,
PbWOSCE-2018: Business technologies for
sustainable urban development. E3S Web
Conf., 2019, Vol.110
[14] Orlov, V. N., Ivanova, T. V., Brechagova, S.
A., Rumbayeva, N. N. Mathematical
modeling of economic factors impact:
reproduction of personnel potential in
agriculture sector of Russia. IOP Conf. Series:
Earth and Environmental Science 433 012012
IOP Publishing, 2020, January.
[15] Velozo de Castro, E. M., Dias Veronez, M. R.
Procedures manifested by students in
mathematical modeling activities:
understandings in the light of content analysis,
Revista brasileira de ensino de ciência e
tecnologia, 2020, Vol. 13, No.2, pp.287-319.
https://doi.org/10.3895/rbect.v13n2.9538
[16] Yoon, D. The regional-innovation cluster
policy for R&D efficiency and the creative
economy: With focus on daedeok innopolis,
Journal of Science and Technology Policy
Management, 2017, Vol. 8, No.2, pp.206–
226.
Contribution of Individual Authors to the
Creation of a Scientific Article (Ghostwriting
Policy)
Shafa Guliyeva: methodology, validation,
resources,
Reyhan Azizova: writing, and original draft
preparation
Sources of Funding for Research Presented in a
Scientific Article or Scientific Article Itself
This research received no external funding.
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en
_US
Shafa Guliyeva, Reyhan Azizova
E-ISSN: 2224-3496
971
Volume 18, 2022