Implementing and sustaining systemic educational change – a three year study of the challenges and key issues

Group Submission Type: Paper Session

Proposal

Ten years ago, a post-soviet state set out to transform its education system aiming to better past attempts, raise standards and internationalise the curriculum, pedagogy, assessment and other related practices. A development of human capital justification was used. A diagnostic report provided an analysis of the problems that the Kazakhstan system of education needed to address (NUGSE, 2014): issues of equality and inclusion; teacher development; change and development; as well as major issues related to secondary and pre-school education. This panel brings together a team who have researched this process. The research has addressed the process of reform from various angles: the views of key actors as the process has rolled out; the perceptions of teachers and head teachers; and the reported impact on teaching and learning. The important study is of in-vivo, large-scale and multifaceted educational reform contributing to understanding the implementation of systemic reform, elements within the process and motivations for key actors. The panel draws on theories of reform and implementation, the importance of teachers’ professional development, theories related to multilingual education and what constitutes an effective teaching and learning system as well as critiques of implementation studies in Asia.

The first session of the panel introduces the model of reform used, as well as exploring the cultural context of the education system. The research explores the implementation at three levels: national, regional and local, which includes the school level. The emphasis in the research is on data collected from the local actors: the rationale being that change can only be effective if it is ‘in the hands (and minds, and hearts) of people who have a deep knowledge of the dynamics of how the factors in question operate to get particular results’ (Fullan, 2006, p3). This section analyses some of the challenges, possibilities and tensions particular to the Asian and post-Soviet context. Two groups are focused upon in particular – the teachers and their perceptions and the key policy actors.

The second part of the presentation focuses on how a trilingual education policy is being introduced and implemented in Kazakhstan (Strategy 2050, 2018). This initiative forms part of a national drive to improve the country’s human capital through a ‘Trinity of languages’ with Kazakh as the national language; Russian for interethnic communication and English as language of integration in to the global economy. More specifically, in 2019 schools across the country are expected to teach History of Kazakh and Geography in the Kazakh language, World Literature in Russian, and four science subjects (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Computer Science) in English. Understanding the relationship between language-in-education policy and practice is key since policies about the medium or media of instruction, i.e. the languages of teaching and learning, are a central part of nation-building worldwide nowadays (Tollefson, 2013), but these policies are only as successful as the teachers who are prepared to implement them (Goodman & Karabassova, 2018).

The third discussion element of the panel relates to coherence within parts of the system (Darling Hammond, 2010). Darling Hammond states that an effective teaching and learning system relies on four essential interconnected parts: a high-quality curriculum; appropriate materials and conditions; good assessment tools; and, well-prepared teachers. Exploring each of the proposed essential elements to an effective system in turn provides insight not only as to how change in schools occurs across each of these aspects of reform but also if gaps in the system or dysfunction between parts of the system exist. Therefore, the final part of the research evidence presented provides an overview of teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the aims, goals and content of the curriculum, resources provided to support the new curriculum, the introduction of a new model of assessment and the new pedagogies required to deliver the new curriculum and assessment practices. Coupled to this representation of an effective system, ‘curriculum coherence’ used by Oates (2010) is also used as a useful lens to organise and analyse the research findings.

The methodology was a mixed methods approach comprising focus groups, interviews and surveys. Findings presented here are from three years of data collection. Starting in April 2016, 14 interviews and seven focus groups with a total 35 participants were conducted in six schools that were piloting the new curriculum (State Mandatory Standard for Primary Education) to represent southern, western and central regions of Kazakhstan and an equal number of rural and urban locations. The six schools formed a subset of the 30 schools in total throughout Kazakhstan that were piloting the new curriculum. A survey, which generated qualitative and quantitative data through a mix of open and closed questions, was distributed to 67 Grade 1 (implementing the new curriculum) and 253 teachers of other grades (using the old curriculum) in the six pilot schools visited. It was further administered to 253 Grade 1 teachers (only) in early May 2016 in the remaining 24 schools in Kazakhstan that were piloting the new curriculum. In 2017, the team revisited the same six schools around Kazakhstan to meet with a total of 68 participants by means of seven interviews and 17 focus groups. A survey was also distributed in September 2017 during visits to the same six schools to those teaching Grades 1 to 4. This generated 87 responses. Data collection in 2018 took on a broader basis by not only continuing to explore the situation in schools (12 schools in three regions to provide 61 interviews/focus groups with principals/teachers) but to expand this to involve 17 student focus groups (92 Grade 7 participants). The survey received 309 responses from teachers (of any grade) in the 12 schools plus 111 additional responses from teachers in various pilot schools. Additional to 2018, key national and regional figures were interviewed (16 participants).

Sub Unit

• SIG: Eurasia

Chair

• Katerina Bodovski, Penn State University

Individual Presentations

• Under the Implementation: The Tensions, Possibilities and Dynamics of Reform - Colleen McLaughlin, Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, UK; Janet Helmer, Nazarbayev University; Nazipa Ayubayeva, Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools; Olena Fim'yar, University of Cambridge; Xeniya Tursunbayeva, Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools; Kairat Kurakbayev, Nazarbayev University Graduate School of Education

• The Changing Role of Language in Kazakhstani Secondary Education - Bridget A. Goodman, Nazarbayev University Graduate School of Education; Moldir Makenova, Master's student at Graduate School of Education, Nazarbayev University; Laura Karabassova, Nazarbayev University Graduate School of Education; Laila Saparbekkhyzy Abdimanapova, Nazarbayev University

• Seismic Shifts in Teaching and Assessment Practices in Kazakhstan - Liz Winter, University of Cambridge Faculty of Education; Natallia Yakavets, University of Cambridge Faculty of Education; Zhadyra Makhmetova, Nazarbayev University; Kathy Malone, Nazarbayev University; Zhanyl Zhontayeva, Nazarbayev University; Zarina Khamidulina, Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools

• Exploring National Educators’ Understanding and Use of International Large Scale Assessments in Kazakhstan - Duishonkul Shamatov, Nazarbayev University; Jason Sparks, NU

Discussant

• Maria Teresa Tatto, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University