NUGSE Research in Education 1.1 (1)

Quality of Education in
Kazakhstani Universities:
Real or Not Real?
LYUDMILA KOVALEVA
Volume 1, Issue 1
June 2016
Academic Mobility and the
Labor Market
ZHANNA JUMABAYEVA
The Role of Language
Policies in Developing
Plurilingual Identities
RIZAGUL SYZDYKBAYEVA

Editorial Team
Philip Montgomery, Chief Editor, Faculty
Lyazat Gapbassova, Co-Managing Editor, PhD Student
Altyn Baigazina, Co-Managing Editor, MSc Student
Aliya Mustafina, Co-Managing Editor, MSc Alumna
Editorial Board
Tsediso Makoelle, PhD, Faculty Ziyat Abdykaimov, MSc Student
Kamila Kozhabayeva, MA Student Aisara Yessenova, MA Student
Sholpan Tazabek, PhD Student Aisulu Sanat, MSc Alumna
Anna CohenMiller, PhD, Faculty
Peer Reviewers
Dr. Daniel Torrano Gaziza Aliyeva Dr. Jason Sparks
Xeniya Belova Ziyat Abdykaimov Dr. Denise Egéa
Dr. Bridget Goodman Dr. Rita Kasa Aisara Yessenova
Dr. Nettie Boivin Zukhra Utesheva Dr. Ali Ait Si Mhamed
Dr. Kairat Kurakbayev Aisulu Sanat Mariya Abdrakhmanova
Kamila Kozhabayeva Zhansaya Tatyyeva Madina Tynybayeva
Sholpan Tazabek Saniya Ussenova Gulbanu Ibragimkyzy
Dr. Sulushash Kerimkulova Laila Abdimanapova Mariyam Kamedenova
Kuralay Bozymbekova Akmaral Karabay Aliya Bekisheva
Dr. Robyn Bantel Akerke Kaiyrkhanova Zhanna Jumabayeva
Dana Abdrasheva
Special Thanks
Nurbolat Khamitov, Logo Design
Dr. Robyn Bantel, Proofreading
Dr. Aida Sagintayeva, NUGSE Dean
Cover Image: Stamen Design, under CC BY 3.0. Data by OpenStreetMap, under CC BY SA.
NUGSE Research in Education is a peer-reviewed journal designed for educational leaders,
policymakers, researchers and students interested in empirical research, critical reviews, and
analytical papers on a wide range of topics in education. The primary aim is to share experience
and promote understanding of Kazakhstan’s unique educational context. The journal is peer-
reviewed by an editorial board comprising students, alumni and faculty of the Nazarbayev
University Graduate School of Education, offering its students and alumni the experience and
knowledge of the publication process, peer-revision boards, and critical analysis of quality
scholarly work.
NUGSE Research in Education is a free, open source publication.
All work in this issue carries the Creative Commons Copyright license BY-NC-SA 3.0
Any future publication or reference to this work should include attribution to this publication.
nugserie.nu.edu.kz

Table of Contents Volume 1, Issue 1
June 2016
Welcome Letter from the Editor PHILIP MONTGOMERY 1
Peer Reviewed Articles
Quality of Education in Kazakhstani Universities: LYUDMILA KOVALEVA 2
Real or Not Real?
Academic Mobility and the Labor Market ZHANNA JUMABAYEVA 8
The Role of Language Policies in Developing RIZAGUL SYZDYKBAYEVA 15
Plurilingual Identities in Kazakhstan
Editorials
Welcome Letter from the Editorial Board KAMILA KOZHABAYEVA 20
AISULU SANAT
Publication Tips from NUGSE Faculty ALTYN BAIGAZINA 21
LYAZAT GAPBASSOVA
Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in ZIYAT ABDYKAIMOV 24
Higher Education: U.S. Policies and
Lessons for Nazarbayev University
The Benefits of Blogging AISARA YESSENOVA 28

1
June 2016
The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things,
but their inward significance. —Aristotle
On behalf of the editorial board, the peer reviewers, the authors, and the faculty and students at
Nazarbayev University’s Graduate School of Education, I would like to thank you for your interest in our work.
This has been a project over a year in the making, involving NUGSE students, faculty, and alumni. As you will
see, this is a time of exciting change, both in Kazakhstan and in the international field of educational research.
Scholarly research is as much a science as it is an art. The articles presented in this inaugural issue of
NUGSE Research in Education reflect the high academic and ethical standards of educational research and policy
analysis. All of our authors have completed graduate or postgraduate courses in research methods and
educational policy studies. They have chosen and researched the topics themselves, topics which are relevant to
education in Kazakhstan and which deserve a wider audience. This critical and analytical inquiry can and will
bring positive change to schools, universities and governmental organizations, by placing value on passionate
intellectual curiosity and meticulous evidence-based decision-making. The very act of writing, reviewing and
editing these articles, we hope, will encourage students to tackle the big problems and wrestle with the big ideas
in their field.
All of our authors have learned English as a second, third, or even fourth language. Aristotle’s words
should ring especially true for them, as they navigate the international landscape of scholarly work in English.
Our hope in publishing a student journal is not only to produce writing with a pleasant “outward appearance,”
but to highlight the “inward significance” of our work in educational research. The writing and editing work will
not be perfect, but I can assure you that the work within these pages is important.
This issue consists of two types of writing: articles and editorials. Articles are selected and approved
through a blind peer review process involving graduate and post graduate students, alumni and faculty. Each
article was reviewed by one faculty member and one student or alum. The three articles presented here are the
result of several rounds of review, editing and collaboration between our authors, reviewers and editors.
All the articles in this issue deal with large-scale, global issues in education from a Kazakhstani perspective. The
first article problematizes quality assurance in higher education in Kazakhstan. Lyudmila Kovaleva walks the
reader through the motivations and obstacles involved in monitoring and reforming universities which seek to
develop high-performing, highly-qualified graduates in a competitive global economy. The second article
outlines and deconstructs the concept of academic mobility in the labor market. Zhanna Jumabayeva argues that
while there remains a tendency for Kazakhstani students to glorify and seek out international degrees, those
degrees do not have a significant effect on their employability. The third article changes tracks, moving away
from higher education and into the field of multilingual education. Rizagul Syzdykbayeva presents an overview
of the important role language policy plays in promoting a plurilingual society.
The editorials come from our editorial board, the students and alumni responsible for shaping and
guiding the creation of this journal. While these are not peer-reviewed, they do present unique and sometimes
personal perspectives and insights into educational policy and practice in Kazakhstan and abroad. Our first
editorial frames the journal itself in the larger field of educational research, presenting the voices of the student
editors at NUGSE. Your appreciation and understanding of this project will be profoundly improved by reading
this essay by Kamila Kozhabayeva and Aisulu Sanat. The second editorial, by Altyn Baigazina and Lyazat
Gapbassova, offers advice from NUGSE faculty members about the research and publication process. Ziyat
Abdykaimov then offers a critical view of Nazarbayev University’s policies and efforts to promote inclusion and
to support students with special needs. Finally, Aisara Yessenova shares an example of how NUGSE students
are developing their English-language writing and argumentation skills in an academic blog.
These are just words—whether you are seeing pixels on a screen or lines of ink on paper—these are just
words. But there is magic in the written word. By writing and reading, we have the ability to share ideas across
time and space. However, the promise of that magic is only fulfilled when the reader really reads and mentally
engages with the words on the page.
Philip Montgomery
Chief Editor

2
NUGSE Research in Education
Quality of Education in Kazakhstani Universities:
Real or Not Real?
LYUDMILA KOVALEVA
The quality of education in the sector of higher education has been one of the key priorities of the government for
the last decade. In order to assure the quality of education and produce highly qualified human resources, the
country needs to have an effective tool for assessing the activities of higher education institutions. Successful
international experiences and the need to integrate into the European Higher Education Area urged Kazakhstan to
introduce the procedure of external accreditation by independent quality assurance agencies. To understand the
effectiveness of the external accreditation in the framework of Kazakhstani context, there is a need to contemplate
the issues of the general concept of quality, overall procedure of quality assurance as well as its strong and weak
points. While there are ongoing debates about the efficiency of quality assurance agencies and their impact on
quality of education, it is important to realize that the internal quality within universities cannot be assured by the
means of external review alone. In summary, this article argues that the process of assuring the quality of education
in Kazakhstani institutions has to be a cooperative attempt of both quality assurance agencies and educational
organizations. Therefore, the culture of quality and attitudes of society, policy-makers and universities towards
quality assurance agencies is an important issue for discussion.
Keywords: quality assurance, external accreditation, quality assurance agency, evaluation, standards, higher education
Introduction
The quality of education in a modern knowledge-based economy should be regarded as a key to the well-
being and advancement of the country. Kazakhstan, as one of the developing countries, which strives to be one
of the 30 most developed countries by 2050, has already started an ambitious policy of training highly-qualified
professionals at all levels of education, including primary, secondary, vocational, higher, and post-graduate
education.
The Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter – MES RK, the
Ministry) acknowledges the fact that the achievement of qualitative indicators is especially important at the levels
of higher and post-graduate education (NCEPA, 2014). In particular, innovative development of the economy
and training of competitive human resources is directly related to the quality of knowledge and skills delivered at
the level of higher education. Therefore, the Ministry of Education and Science set implicit goals for the
improvement of the quality of higher education in its Strategic Plan for 2014-2018. In this sense, the major role
for evaluating the quality of higher education institutions has been delegated to national and international quality
assurance agencies, which are approved by the Ministry and included in the National Register of accreditation
agencies (MES, 2014). The independence of these agencies is believed to assure transparency and objectivity of
accreditation procedures and to foster the culture of cooperation rather than control.
Nevertheless, there are several issues concerning the introduction of the external quality assurance in
Kazakhstan, which have to be critically analyzed in order to understand how effectively accreditation agencies
assure quality education in Kazakhstani universities. First, the procedure of external accreditation by quality
assurance agencies is still new to Kazakhstani higher education institutions, which are used to comply with
standard requirements of the state attestation conducted by the MES RK. This distrust and fear of accreditation
agencies create situations when universities try to ‘please’ external experts by hiding all faults in their practices
and showing only the good sides of their work (Bishimbayev & Nurasheva, 2012). As a result, these universities
do not have the opportunity to objectively analyze and assess their weaknesses or to receive valuable
recommendations from experts on improvement of their educational activities.
Moreover, under the present situation of affairs, when Kazakhstan is actively involved in
‘Europeanization’ of education, universities have to adopt simultaneous changes, which do not match with the
state regulations set by the MES. In specific, the obligations put on Kazakhstani universities after the entrance
into European Higher Education Area required them to change the whole system of their operation by
introducing the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS), the three-tier system of education,
and diploma supplements (OECD, 2007). In other words, too many simultaneous innovations still make it hard
for higher education institutions to keep up with the demands of the Bologna Process, the requirements of the
Ministry, standards for quality provision from external accreditation agencies, and their own internal quality
assurance systems.

3 | KOVALEVA
June 2016
Having said that, the question arises as to whether higher education institutions in Kazakhstan are able
to provide quality education or they simply comply with endless requirements and standards. To understand
this, it is necessary to analyze the following questions:
1) What is the quality of education and how it should be evaluated?
2) Who is responsible for evaluating the quality of education in Kazakhstan?
3) Do these organizations indeed assure the quality of education or it is just an illusion?
The Meaning of Quality Education
Quality is a very controversial concept, which cannot be touched, seen, or perceived. Moreover, quality
can mean absolutely different things to many people. Quality of education, for instance, is one of the most
difficult ‘dimensions’ to measure. It is interesting to note that in spite of the complexity of the phenomenon of
quality, there are a great number of groups who feel qualified to measure it: parents, employers, students,
teachers, representatives of educational organizations, media, government, and others. Paradoxically, all these
groups tend to see quality in their own interpretation and demand from educational organizations things, which
cannot be achieved by the means of quality assurance (Boland, 2013; Hopper, 2007).
Boland (2013) identifies five groups of stakeholders within the area of quality assurance of education:
students, academic staff, governments, employers, and society. All these groups have different understandings of
the meaning of quality education. For example, a student measures quality education by the degree to which it
develops his or her professional skills and fosters personal development. Academic staff understands the quality
education as the outcomes of their teaching in the form of graduates’ achievements and further transmission of
their professional knowledge. Governments measure quality education by its capacity to prepare human
resources necessary for economic prosperity of the country. For employers, the meaning of the quality
education equals to graduates’ readiness to work. Finally, society see the quality education in the reflection of all
listed meanings, including an additional criteria of “creating better places to live” (p. 57) by training highly-
qualified staff. It is evident to see that each group of stakeholders requires its own benefit from the quality
education and, therefore, makes it even more complicated to understand how to assess quality in educational
organizations.
Yakubova (2009) in her empirical study argues that apart from external stakeholders, the internal
stakeholders within higher education institutions also perceive quality education using different criteria. She
found that the meaning of the quality education “varies at upper administrative level, institutional level, and
student level” (p. 30). By upper administrative level the researcher refers mostly to the Ministry of Education
and Science. As she defines it, the quality education in their perspective is characterized by the existence of the
international recognition, participation in international projects as well as the inclusion in foreign networks. In
other words, the quality of education in this term equals to the promotion of international criteria for education
excellence and adoption of best international practices. As for institutional representatives, including
administration and academic staff, they see quality education through the lenses of material and technical
provision of the institution, availability of professional teaching staff, and opportunities for mobility of students
and academic personnel. Students, who should be regarded the main customers of higher education institutions,
mostly focus their understanding of quality education on “employability” opportunities, “practicality of the
knowledge,” “academic freedom,” and “learning environment” (p. 36).
As it is seen, there is no universal meaning of quality education, which creates ambiguity in assuring the
quality in educational organizations. In this review, the main focus is given to the analysis of procedures of
quality assurance in Kazakhstan and the role of quality assurance agencies in providing quality education at
higher education institutions.
Quality Assurance Agencies and Procedure of Accreditation in Kazakhstan
The quality of education in Kazakhstani higher education institutions is assured by national independent
agencies, which conduct procedures of external accreditation. The first experience of introducing accreditation
in Kazakhstan happened in 2001 (Kalabayev, 2008). Until that time, higher education institutions had to
undergo the procedure of the state attestation. The procedure of the state attestation in Kazakhstan was widely
criticized due to its nature of compliance, quantitative nature of assessment, and centralized control from the
Ministry of Education and Science. The whole concept of the state attestation was built on the compliance with
bureaucratic procedures required by the Ministry. The concept of accreditation, on the contrary, inculcated the
ideas of continuous improvement of educational organizations and cooperation with accreditation agencies
(OECD, 2007).

QUALITY OF EDUCATION IN KAZAKHSTANI UNIVERSITIES | 4
Unfortunately, the first experience of accreditation turned out to be a ‘disaster’ due to its quantitative
rather than qualitative nature and the failure to consider specific peculiarities of the Kazakhstani system of
education. As a result, accreditation was assumed to be an inefficient approach for assessing the quality of higher
education institutions and was again replaced by the state attestation (Kalabayev, 2008). Nevertheless, almost a
decade later, and after continuous analyses of international experiences, accreditation was again “revived” in
Kazakhstan. In fact, the main and ‘urgent’ reason for introducing external accreditation instead of the state
attestation in Kazakhstan was based on the initiative of Kazakhstan to join the Bologna Process in 2010
(OECD, 2007). According to the membership obligations to countries in the European Higher Education Area
(EHEA), accreditation of higher education institutions has to be conducted by independent quality assurance
agencies. Thus, the state attestation, which is fully coordinated by the Ministry of Education and Science, had to
be replaced with the external accreditation conducted by independent quality assurance agencies.
As a result, external accreditation became one of the priorities for Kazakhstani education, and in 2011, it
was officially introduced in accordance with the State Program of Education Development in the Republic of
Kazakhstan for 2011-2020 (MES, 2010). In 2012, the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of
Kazakhstan officially vested non-profit non-governmental organizations with the rights to conduct accreditation
of higher education institutions and colleges in Kazakhstan. The main document, which regulates activities of
quality assurance agencies in Kazakhstan, is “Rules and Requirements for National Registers of Accreditation
Institutions, Accredited Education Institutions, and Education Programs” (MES, 2011).
The procedure of external accreditation in Kazakhstan is one of the government’s prioritized but
inconsistent initiatives. During the early stages of establishment of the external accreditation, the government set
high indicators for its future implementation. In particular, it was planned to have 50% and 65% of
institutionally accredited universities by 2015 and 2020 respectively. As for specialized accreditation of
educational programs, these indicators constituted 20% and 30%. Moreover, it was intended to fully replace the
state attestation of universities and colleges with external national accreditation by 2015 (MES, 2010).
The percentage of universities which had passed external institutional accreditation by 2013 was 40.4%.
The most interest in passing accreditation was demonstrated by the state universities and institutes (NCEPA,
2014, p. 194). However, the initiative to fully replace state attestation with external accreditation was shifted
from 2015 to 2017 due to the concerns of the Ministry of Education and Science of Kazakhstan regarding the
competencies of independent quality assurance agencies (MES, 2014).
While the Ministry of Education and Science allowed independent quality assurance agencies to conduct
accreditation, it reserved its rights to select quality assurance agencies by including them in the National Register
of Accreditation Agencies. In particular, even though the Ministry does not control the process of accreditation,
it has the rights to impose requirements to foreign and national accreditation agencies. At present, the National
Register of Agencies includes 10 quality assurance agencies, two of which are national agencies: Independent
Kazakh Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (IQAA) and Independent Agency for Accreditation and
Rating of the Republic of Kazakhstan (IAAR) (Kalanova, 2013).
Each of these two Kazakhstani agencies has its own standards for institutional and specialized (program)
accreditation, which are developed in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in
the European Higher Education Area (NCEPA, 2013). The process of accreditation has a clear and organized
structure. Compared to the process of the state attestation, accreditation is supposed to help universities
improve their internal quality prior to the visit of the group of experts from the agency. Specifically, after
applying for a procedure of accreditation, a university has to draft a self-assessment report. This report is
supposed to reflect the management of the university, its mission, strategies and goals, culture of quality,
material and technical bases concerning the university. Thus, the first stage of accreditation focuses on self-
reflection of universities, which is supposed to help them analyze their own weaknesses and strengths, as well as
threats and opportunities for further development. It is important to note that this report has to be drafted in a
joint cooperation of the faculty, administrative staff, and students in order to see a full picture of the university
state (Kalanova, 2013).
As soon as this report is completed, it is sent to the agency for consideration, revision, and identification
of inaccuracies. When the report is corrected and adjusted to standards, the agency sends a group of experts for
a procedure of external review. The group of experts is usually comprised of five to eight people, including an
international expert, a representative of employers, and a student. The members of the group of experts are
selected on the basis of their academic degrees, ranks, and working experiences in the field of higher education.
The procedure of external review lasts for two to three days depending on the volume of work and number of
educational programs. In brief, the work of experts is mostly focused on examining higher education institutions

5 | KOVALEVA
June 2016
for compliance with their self-assessment reports and providing recommendations based on observation and
analysis (Zakirova, 2010).
The final stage of the external review includes a process of drafting reports by the members of the group
of experts and a further analysis of these reports by the Accreditation Council of the agency. The Accreditation
Council is a group of external representatives from the Ministry, other governmental organizations,
representatives of employers, international experts and students. In its turn, the Accreditation Council of the
agency can make one of three decisions in regard to universities or colleges which underwent the procedure of
accreditation: to accredit the university for five years, to provide an accreditation with conditions for three years,
or to postpone accreditation (Kalanova, 2013).
In general, the procedure of accreditation seems to be an efficient way of assuring the quality of education
in Kazakhstani universities. The national quality assurance agencies took the previous mistakes into account,
analyzed international experience, and cooperated with foreign agencies and organizations. However, there is a
need for a deeper and more critical look at this procedure and analysis of its efficiency, problems, and areas for
improvement.
Quality of Education and its Assurance in Kazakhstani Universities
Having analyzed the meaning of the quality and the procedure of accreditation in Kazakhstan, it is now
possible to assess the real state of the quality assurance of education in Kazakhstani universities. Overall, if
looking at the procedure of quality assurance in Kazakhstan superficially, one can find no serious shortcomings:
well-defined standards, clear structure of the procedure, external opinions, continuous support of universities,
and constant improvement due to the cooperation with international quality assurance agencies, organizations,
and networks.
Nevertheless, the reality shows that the quality of education of graduates from successfully accredited
universities is far from being excellent. High unemployment of young Kazakhstani graduates is mostly explained
by the low satisfaction of many employers with the knowledge and skills of recent students (Bishimbayev &
Nurasheva, 2014, p. 6). Moreover, according to the Global Competitiveness Report 2014-2015, Kazakhstan
holds a low position on the rating of higher education and training. In particular, it maintains the 76th
place
among the other 144 countries for the indicator of “the quality of the education system” (Schwab, 2014, p.231).
And the question which comes to mind is “Who is responsible for the low quality of education in the sector of
higher education in Kazakhstan—universities, which do not provide quality education, or quality assurance
agencies, which accredit these universities?”
In order to answer this question and to work on the improvement of education in Kazakhstan, there is a
need to acknowledge the existence of problems and to understand the roots of their appearance. The first
possible reason for incomplete efficiency of accreditation in Kazakhstan is rooted in false perceptions of
accreditation as a type of control rather than assistance in improvement. The representatives of higher education
institutions, mainly rectors and heads of departments, tend to regard the external accreditation as a threat to
reputation and activities of their educational organizations. As OECD (2007) indicates in its report, the previous
procedure of the state attestation left negative ‘imprints’ regarding any types of evaluations. In particular, higher
education institutions in Kazakhstan nowadays hold a culture of compliance and control cultivated during the
previous experiences of the state attestation (NUGSE, 2014). More importantly, many representatives from
HEIs including administration and academia, still do not understand the difference between state attestation and
external accreditation.
The process of “moving from quality control to quality improvement” is supposed to take a substantial
amount of time and work from the side of quality assurance agencies (OECD, 2007, p. 202). In this regard,
quality assurance agencies have to provide more educational seminars and workshops for faculty, students, and
administration, which will give them insights into the real purpose of accreditation. Specifically, all stakeholders
need to be aware of the fact that accreditation has to be regarded as an opportunity for universities to improve
their activities with the help of the professional external review. This understanding may help to resolve many
issues concerning the procedure of accreditation. For example, it is highly unlikely that universities will draft a
self-evaluation report in a joint-cooperation of the faculty, administration, and students. Due to the overload of
work and bureaucratic structure of management, a self-assessment report of the university is, most probably,
written by one or two representatives of the university without much awareness and participation of other
university staff and students. Therefore, self-assessment reports should not be considered a basis for the
external review since it cannot reflect the real picture within the university and can even “color the truth” about
university activities.

QUALITY OF EDUCATION IN KAZAKHSTANI UNIVERSITIES | 6
One of the good sides of accreditation is the procedure of interviews with university students, graduates,
faculty, and employers of the university (Zakirova, 2010). However, these interviews also may present certain
omissions in terms of their reliability. The first issue with interviews is the fact that these groups of interviewees
do not entirely understand the concept of quality or perceive it in different terms. For example, students can
understand the quality of their study as timely lectures, qualified teaching staff, or provision of equipment for
study. Meanwhile, employers of universities may confuse personal qualities of their employees with their
professional skills and knowledge received at educational organization. As a result, it is unclear whether
interviewing is an effective way of assessing the quality of education at universities.
As a solution to this possible distortion of facts due to different perceptions of the quality, quality
assurance agencies in Kazakhstan have to work more on cooperation with different stakeholders, including
students, employers, and university representatives. Students as direct customers of higher education institutions
have to be aware of their rights on quality education and to be actively involved in the process of external
evaluations of their universities.
Overall, it can be stated that quality assurance agencies take great risks and great responsibilities by
accrediting higher education institutions in Kazakhstan. Firstly, it is a matter of the objectivity since different
stakeholders rely on the results of accreditation and ranking of higher education institutions and colleges in
Kazakhstan. In particular, quality assurance agencies are responsible for results of their accreditation procedures
and have to provide stakeholders with a clear picture of educational services in various educational institutions.
Secondly, quality assurance agencies have to be extremely transparent and cautious in their activities. More
specifically, the trust of different stakeholders means a lot and requires quality assurance agencies to be flexible
and accountable to all stakeholders by using different means: websites, media, social networks, and others.
At the same time, quality assurance agencies are not able to guarantee the quality of education in higher
education institutions. The role of quality assurance agencies is not even in assuring the quality of educational
organizations, but in assessing their opportunities and capabilities for providing quality education, and in
recommending improvement of their activities. In this regard, turning back to the question “Who is responsible
for the low quality of education in the sector of higher education of Kazakhstan,” the answer is obvious - higher
education institutions, which do not provide the real evidence of their activities during the procedures of
accreditation and hide their deficiencies. Therefore, there will be no tangible results in the provision of quality
education in Kazakhstan until higher education institutions perceive quality assurance agencies as their partners
and facilitators in quality enhancement.
Conclusion
The quality of education in higher education institutions is an important factor for the well-being of the
country. The aim of this review was to question the existence of quality education in Kazakhstani higher
education institutions and to analyze the ways for assuring and providing quality in educational organizations.
To answer these questions, this article was divided into three sections dedicated to the meaning of quality in
education, quality assurance agencies in Kazakhstan, and their capacity to assure and to provide the quality
education in Kazakhstani universities and academies.
The process of quality assurance in the field of higher education in Kazakhstan is at the early stage of its
development. Higher education institutions in Kazakhstan still have ‘prejudices’ regarding accreditation and
associate it with an attempt to find only deficiencies in their activities. In addition, the procedure of external
accreditation itself has its shortcomings, which need to be resolved by the means of cooperative efforts of all
involved stakeholders: agencies, government, employers, and students.
While there are ongoing arguments whether quality assurance agencies can effectively assure the quality of
educational organizations, it is important to remember that the responsibility for providing quality education lies
entirely with institutions themselves. Quality assurance agencies, in their turn, are responsible for evaluating how
well institutions are prepared to execute their roles and providing them with expert recommendations on
improving their operations.
To conclude, the quality of education in higher education institutions remains highly problematic. The
evidence shows that the majority of Kazakhstani graduates have poor knowledge and skills inadequate to be
competitive in the world arena. Unfortunately, the procedure of accreditation cannot assure the overall quality of
education, but only demonstrates general quality indicators. To improve this situation, it is necessary to change
attitudes of higher education institutions towards the procedure of external accreditation. In addition, quality
assurance agencies in Kazakhstan need to maintain more support and trust from the government and society,

7 | KOVALEVA
June 2016
and to encourage different stakeholders to be active in the process of quality assurance of Kazakhstani
universities.
References
Bishimbayev, V., & Nurasheva, K. (2014). Rynok truda v Kazakhstane i problemy trudoustroistva vypusknikov vuzov
[The labor market in Kazakhstan and problems of employment of university graduates]. Information-Analytical
Magazine, 3.
Boland, T. (2013, June). Quality assurance in education, research and accountability. In A. Sagintayeva & K. Kurakbayev
(Eds.). Global Trends in Higher Education and Their Impact on the Region. Paper presented at Eurasian Higher Education
Leaders Forum, Astana (57-62). Astana: NUGSE.
Hopper, R. R. (2007). Building capacity in quality assurance: The challenge of context. In Cross-border tertiary education: A way
towards capacity development. The World Bank and OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264038493-5-en
Kalabayev, N. B. (2008). Accreditation and state control in the system of higher education of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
Reports of the International Scientific-Methodic Seminar Role of Accreditation in Improvement of Higher Education Quality,
Almaty.
Kalanova, S. (2013). Budushee nezavisimoi accreditacii v Kazakhstane [The future of the independent accreditation in
Kazakhstan]. Accreditation in Education, 63. Retrieved from
http://www.akvobr.ru/nezavisimaja_akkreditacia_v_kazahstane.html
MES (Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan). (2010). State program of education development in the
republic of Kazakhstan for 2011–2020. Retrieved from http://esperantic.org/dosieroj/file/reagan-st-KZ.pdf
MES. (2011, December). The rules and requirements for national registers of accreditation institutions, accredited education institutions, and
education programs. Retrieved from http://iqaa.kz/images/Laws/30.12.2011_MON_RK.pdf
MES. (2014). Strategic plan of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2014-2018. Retrieved from:
http://www.edu.gov.kz/ru/strategicheskiy-plan
NCEPA (National Center for Education Statistics and Assessment). (2013). National report on the state of the education system
development. Retrieved from: http://www.edu.gov.kz/ru/analytics/nacionalnyy-doklad-o-sostoyanii-i-razvitiisistemy-
ob
NCEPA (2014). National report on the state of the education system development. Retrieved from:
http://www.edu.gov.kz/ru/analytics/nacionalnyy-doklad-o-sostoyanii-i-razvitiisistemy-ob
NUGSE (Nazarbayev University Graduate School of Education). (2014). Development of strategic directions for
education reforms in Kazakhstan for 2015-2020: Diagnostic report. Astana: Indigo Print. Retrieved from
http://nur.nu.edu.kz/bitstream/handle/123456789/335/DIAGNOSTIC%20REPORT.pdf
OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2007). Reviews of national policies for education: Higher
education in Kazakhstan. Paris: OECD publications. Retrieved from:
http://www.oecd.org/countries/kazakhstan/reviewsofnationalpoliciesforeducationhighereducationinkazakhstan.ht
m
Schwab, K. (2014). The global competitiveness report 2014-2015: Full data edition. Geneva: World Economic Forum. Retrieved
from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2014-15.pdf
Yakubova, S. (2009). Perception of quality in changing university education in Kazakhstan. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Retrieved
from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/kent1259029065/inline
Zakirova, G. D. (2010). Internationalization of processes of accreditation in the system of Higher Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan
(28-37). Almaty: National Tempus Office. Retrieved from http://tempuskaz.belight.net/files/collection2.pdf

8
Academic Mobility and the Labor Market
ZHANNA JUMABAYEVA
The current study is aimed to better understand the concept of academic mobility and identify its labor market
outcomes in the context of Kazakhstan. The paper considers whether mobility is an advantage for the domestic
employment market and whether it enhances graduates’ employability. The researcher also investigates whether in
Kazakhstan students’ participation in the international programs, particularly the Bolashak International
Scholarship of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, affects their employment upon completion of their
studies. This investigation indicates that increasingly large numbers of students continue to study abroad despite
the lack of clear evidence supporting the gains graduates have in finding jobs. This suggests that students who
return are not necessarily guaranteed with ideal jobs upon their graduation. Just because someone studied abroad,
the competition for them does not disappear: work experience can have a higher priority. Hence, the results of
this study showed that the Bolashak program is not always a ticket to a better future, at least in the short term.
Keywords: academic mobility; labor market; Bolashak program; employability
Introduction
In the era of globalization, distance is no longer a barrier to academic mobility. Studying abroad has
become so common over the past ten years that it is easier than ever before to go and study abroad as more and
more students have this opportunity. Recently, for example, there was a threefold increase in students who
chose to study in foreign countries (OECD, 2013).
It seems that many European and American countries are now selected by students of Asian countries to
study on site. However, while the majority of students from Asia study in other regions, American and
European students tend to stay in their own. Furthermore, due to the variety of grants and scholarships available
for students nowadays, one can see increasing numbers of skilled people moving from developing to developed
countries. Despite the fact that studying abroad is not something that every student will choose, it is a good
option for all.
Today the role of academic mobility seems to have become a key instrument for certain countries to
cope with the labor market needs and to move from a Global South towards a Global North position.
Kazakhstan is no exception. It is believed that academic mobility gives individuals better job opportunities
(Byram & Dervin, 2008, p. 8). However, there are different views on this issue. Hence, this paper tries to clarify
the concept of academic mobility in the Kazakhstani context and identify its labor market outcomes. Specifically,
the researcher investigates whether in Kazakhstan students’ participation in international programs, particularly
the Bolashak program, affects their employment upon completion of their studies.
The Bolashak program is primarily designed for participants to study abroad. The Embassy of the
Republic of Kazakhstan (2016) explains that Bolashak means future in the Kazakh language, and “speaks to the
importance Kazakhstan puts on educating its youth at the best universities in the world.” Kazakhstan also
collaborates with a number of other programs to study abroad such as Erasmus Mundus, Edmund S. Muskie
Graduate Fellowship Program, Fulbright Program, International Scholarship DAAD (German Academic
Exchange Service), KOICA (Korea International Cooperation Agency), Alliance Française (French Alliance) and
many others. This is important as students can study abroad with the help of such programs, which will increase
their competitiveness in both the global and domestic labor market. However, these programs are not the only
ones through which students may study overseas. Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of
Kazakhstan has various educational agreements with a number of universities in Asia and Europe which support
the idea of mobility (MoES, 2010, n.p.). Thus, as one can see, the main reason for advocating programs to study
abroad is that they bring various positive effects (better academic achievement, greater cultural appreciation,
personal and professional development) for students.
However, the opportunities and outcomes of participation in academic mobility programs are different
for different participants, either students or employers. As stated by Kazinform (2009): “The most famous
international initiative set up by President Nursultan Nazarbayev is the Bolashak program which covers tuition
fees for outstanding students, enabling them to study at the best universities of the world” (para. 1). For twenty
years of existence, the Bolashak program has granted a great majority of people the chance to study abroad and
as a result to obtain degrees from leading higher education institutions (HEIs) such as Harvard, Oxford,
Cambridge and others.
The two research questions which guide this study are as follows:

9 | JUMABAYEVA
June 2016
1. Does academic mobility enhance employability, if at all?
2. To what extent is knowledge acquired abroad applicable and relevant to a domestic labor market?
Academic mobility is meant to include “a period of study, teaching and/or research in a country other than
a student’s or academic staff member’s home country” (UNESCO, 2001, para. 1). This phenomenon is crucial
for several reasons. It is considered to be one of the significant policies for internationalization of higher
education (HE). As mentioned by International Association of Universities (1998),
Whether in the economic, political, or social realms, HE is expected to contribute to raising the overall quality of
life. To fulfil its role effectively and maintain excellence, HE must become far more internationalized; it must
integrate an international and intercultural dimension into its teaching, research, and service functions. (p. 1)
This is important because HE should become more internationally minded in this competitive world.
Thus, academic mobility is considered to be an integral part of the learning process.
The Concept of Academic Mobility
Academic mobility is not a new concept. The root of the concept of academic mobility can be traced
back to the Middle Ages. As stated by Musselin (2004): “In Europe, academic mobility has a long tradition
which began with the birth of the European universities in the Middle Ages” (p. 55). The idea to go abroad and
learn from people of other cultures, for example, was also mentioned by famous writer and poet Shakespeare
(Keogh & Russel-Roberts, 2009, p. 108). However, as noted by Rizvi and Lingard (2010), “Never before in
history have there been more people moving across national boundaries” (p. 161). It has become a popular
trend today as one can see that more and more students are choosing to study abroad.
As mentioned above, academic mobility implies a period of study in a country, different from the home
country (UNESCO, 2001). This period is of limited duration, meaning that the length of the program typically
ranges from a semester to the full program of study.
Academic mobility is considered to be one of the basic principles of the Bologna process. In other
words, one of the aims of the Bologna process is to enhance the mobility of both students and staff. According
to the report of the European Higher Education Area (2014), the Bologna process began in 1999 “with the
signing the Bologna Declaration.” This European space for HE was initially signed by 29 countries (European
Higher Education Area, 2014). Afterwards, other countries continued to join the Bologna process from year to
year.
The first mention of academic mobility is noted in the Magna Carta of Universities; this expression was
continued by the Sorbonne Declaration which pointed out “the creation of the European area of HE as a key way
to promote the mobility of citizens” (European Higher Education Area, 2014). The Magna Carta of Universities is
“a document that was signed by 388 rectors and heads of universities from all over Europe and beyond on 18
September 1988” (Observatory Magna Charta Universitatum, 2016, p. 1).
As stated by Eremina (2012),
The ‘Magna Carta’ of universities, the Joint Declaration of Ministers of Education (Sorbonne, 1998), the Prague
Communique of Ministers of Education (2001), the Message of European Rectors (Salamanca 2001), the Berlin
Communique (2003), the Bologna Declaration, and many other documents contain recommendations on the need
to encourage students to spend at least one semester in a university outside their own country, since college
students’ mobility is the basis for the creation of the European space of HE. (p. 4)
As a result, recently there has been significant growth in the student and academic staff mobility and
student exchange programs. This presents many new opportunities such as increased access to HE, movement
of graduates and professionals and improvement of education quality. As stated by Merrill (2012), “If the
student can find a job after graduation, then he or she has had a ‘quality’ education” (p. 7). However, while
academic mobility affords many benefits to HE, it is clear that there are some challenges as well. For example,
increasing emphasis on English as the language of instruction or the possibility of losing cultural identity are
considered to be serious risks associated with this complex and growing phenomenon of academic mobility. The
problem is that people sometimes do not want to return to their homes after their studies abroad. They seek
better job opportunities and a brighter future abroad; therefore, the government may lose a significant labor
force. As mentioned by Wiers-Jenssen (2008): “This is probably more likely to happen if the labor market
options and general living conditions are better in the host country than the home country” (p. 121).
Rizvi and Lingard (2010) describe brain drain as “the loss to the more developed countries of their
talented workers in whom they have invested heavily through education” (p. 179). As a result, governments see
some measures as necessary, for example, to force students return to home after their studies. The Bolashak

ACADEMIC MOBILITY AND THE LABOR MARKET | 10
program is one of the bright examples of a scholarship program that requires students to return after completing
the international study. However, when the first group of Bolashak students graduated from Western
universities, some chose not to come back to Kazakhstan. They did so because they did not sign a contract,
which obliged them to return. As a result, money invested in these students’ education was wasted. The solution
for this problem was the contract that obliged students to present a piece property as a warranty for them to
come back. It is now expected that students return to their homes right after completing their studies abroad.
Some people would argue, perhaps, that this particular scholarship is not considered to be a mode of academic
mobility as it gives the possibility to get a full degree abroad.
It is necessary to note that there are several types of academic mobility. For example, in the Bologna
process, two different types of academic mobility are identified, among which there are “vertical mobility in
which the student acquires a complete education in pursuit of an academic degree in a foreign institution of
higher learning; and horizontal mobility in which the student is enrolled for a limited amount of time” (Eremina,
2012, p. 5). In addition, academic mobility is divided into external and internal (teaching students at foreign and
domestic HEIs, respectively). In this paper, however, the focus is more on external and vertical mobility to
support this idea and answer the research questions.
As stated by Rizvi and Lingard (2010), study abroad programs are “based on the principles of
internationalization, as a way of not only supporting structural cooperation but also promoting curriculum
development and the creation of networks and credit transfer arrangements” (p. 173). Thus, the high quality of
education by either program seems to be the guarantee to a constant demand for Kazakhstani graduates in the
labor market. They, therefore, have reasonably good opportunities for gaining employment. However, some
would argue that mobile students might come across some difficulties as their skills are sometimes not enough
for today’s competitive labor market. Yet, they have a possibility to change their job opportunities for the better
by acquiring necessary competitive skills required by employers. Each of these points is important to the
discussion below of the next question: Does academic mobility enhance employability, if at all?
Employability of Mobile and Immobile Students
Although there are some opportunities of academic mobility such as an increased access to HE,
movement of students and teachers, and the improvement of academic quality, there is still limited evidence
about students’ benefits from their educational experience abroad. Nonetheless, academic mobility is more likely
to improve students’ chances in the labor market. As mentioned by Rizvi and Lingard (2010), “The educational
rationale underlying international education was largely concerned with the development of skills, attitudes and
knowledge so that, upon their return, graduates could make a robust contribution to national development” (p.
169). This is important because nowadays knowledge gained while studying abroad is considered to be the most
valuable treasure that a state can invest in. But does it really give the highest return on investment, or do people
only think that it does? It is important to take into account students’ personal qualities when addressing such
questions.
It is often said that studying abroad can extend students’ vision and their perspectives about life. In
addition to getting a Western diploma, students acquire different competencies including language skills,
research skills and cultural knowledge (Wiers-Jenssen, 2013, p. 474). But it does not, or should not, necessarily
mean that these social capital skills are required in the home country (Wiers-Jenssen, 2013, p. 474). As stated by
Wiers-Jenssen (2013): “Students spending several years abroad may in fact score lower on certain capabilities
and features such as relevant networks and familiarity with domestic rules and regulations” (p. 474). Thus, it can
be claimed that mobile students face several challenges such as lack of professional connections, less familiarity
with domestic laws and regulations, international qualifications not recognized by domestic employers, and most
importantly lack of work experience (Wiers-Jenssen, 2013, p. 474). For this reason, a study abroad may not be
used as an advantage in the domestic labor market.
Bolashak scholars receive a good education; however, it is not very easy for them to find a job. As
mentioned by Sukhomlinova (2013), “Normally graduate specialists face great difficulties finding a job for a
simple reason - employers prefer experienced workers” (n.p.). Does it mean that employers put work experience
as a priority over Western education then? Conversely, it is said that one of the requirements for Nazarbayev
University employees, for example, is having a Western diploma (Nazarbayev University, 2013). However, some
employers are skeptical toward the study abroad experience. They value work experience more highly than
academic experience abroad. Wiers-Jenssen (2008) explain this saying, “Employers are not always competent to
judge diplomas from abroad; hence, it may seem rational to select graduates with a known educational
background rather than spending resources on obtaining information about education from abroad.” (p. 105).

11 | JUMABAYEVA
June 2016
Clearly, there is still much debate about the role of Western universities in developing students’ employability
skills.
At this stage of writing the definition of employability is necessary. For example, employability is defined
by Confederation of British Industry as “the possession by an individual of the qualities and competencies
required to meet the changing needs of employers and customers and thereby help to realize his or her
aspirations and potential in work” (McQuaid & Lindsay, 2005, p. 199). Mason, Williams and Cramer (2006) add
that employability is not about graduates themselves, but about how they will help the employer:
“‘Employability’ often seems to refer to ‘work readiness’; i.e. the possession of the skills, knowledge, attitudes
and commercial understanding that, soon after commencing employment, will enable new graduates to make
productive contributions to organizational objectives” (p. 2). Hence, mobile graduates should be ready to make
important contributions to their fields preferably in their home country regardless of different factors. In other
words, employability can be interpreted as having the skills both to gain employment, and to make a direct
contribution to the company’s success (ADEST, 2002).
It is important to note that “labor market success may vary in respect of different segments of the labor
market and according to country in which education is undertaken” (Wiers-Jenssen, 2013, p. 485). Nevertheless,
in the globalization era, students need to be prepared to enter the domestic and foreign job markets. This may
involve different skills as the acquisition of foreign languages, a variety of learning experiences and soft skills
including critical thinking skills, communication skills and interpersonal skills. However, due to high demands,
mobile students sometimes think that they do not need to find a job by themselves as employers will be looking
for them upon completion of their studies.
Many graduates believe that the Bolashak program is “a golden ticket to success, but reality is harsher
than some realize” (Burns, 2008). There is statistical data given by the Center for International Programs (CIP)
that “67 percent of Bolashak graduates hold entry-level jobs as junior managers or specialists. In fact, finding
work has been so difficult for many alumni that the CIP was charged with finding employment for every
graduate” (Burns, 2008). This means that the requirements in the current economy are really tough. In this
context, the CIP is interpreted as a center which supervises the administration of Bolashak scholarships for
students from Kazakhstan.
To sum up, the purpose of this study was to find out whether academic mobility enhances employability.
To do so, the researcher tried to investigate first whether mobile students differ from immobile students in
terms of employability capabilities. As mentioned above, mobile students encounter more challenges when
entering the job market in comparison with immobile students. For example, it requires more time for Bolashak
graduates to find a job compared with others. There are different reasons for this, for example, the expectation
to have a high salary and better position from the very beginning. However, it seems that differences in labor
outcomes between mobile and immobile students are not substantial; everything depends on the person and
one’s ability to apply knowledge in practice. Studying abroad is more likely to improve students’ employability
skills by obtaining skills that are much appreciated in the workplace. But different employers have different
priorities. Depending on the type of employer, one can see work experience as a high priority.
Academic Mobility and Labor Market Relevance
From the discussion above, it can be seen that studying abroad could improve students’ employability
and most importantly make them obtain skills that are highly desirable to prospective employers. However,
nowadays more and more employers complain that the training abroad is sometimes not applicable to the
current labor market (Tashkinbayev, 2013, para. 4). Thus, the ability of graduates to find relevant jobs and
contribute to the government may be suffering. As it is known, the government spends a lot of money to send
students to study abroad. But this does not, or should not, necessarily mean that the money spent on
international education produces desired outcomes. For example, according to the requirements of the Bolashak
program, graduates must engage in labor activity in their specialty acquired through the program for five years.
If their jobs do not match with their specialties, it means that scholars of Bolashak program fail the terms of
agreement and must repay the full costs of the scholarship (Center for International Programs, 2013). Thus,
graduates may have difficulty finding a job that fits their education and labor market needs.
Another problem is related to the list of the main specialties for award of a Bolashak scholarship. As the
former President of the Bolashak program, Sayassat Nurbek, said, “When we started the program twenty years
ago, there was a big need for people with degrees in certain fields. Later, the Bolashak program began training
scientists, engineers, information-technology people and others for Kazakhstan’s Industrial and Innovation
Strategy” (Foster, 2013, para. 14). There is then a list of priority specialties of Bolashak program in the labor

market of Kazakhstan which changes every year. If, for example, engineers are on the priority list this year, the
majority is likely to decide to become engineers. This trendy choice can be the motive why students work outside
of their specialties. As a result, graduates do another job than they were educated for. Students do not use their
knowledge; they simply choose other jobs which in turn contradicts the agreement.
Generally, the Bolashak program has undergone different changes throughout twenty years. These
changes were connected with the constant demands and needs of the labor market. Along with degree
programs, Bolashak added short-term internships abroad from a semester to two years. The reason for
introducing these short-term training programs was to provide students with study-abroad experience valued by
employers. Hence, it seems that current employers “do not need more degree programs; they need more short-
term training” (Foster, 2013, para. 22). These shorter programs are similar to Western adult education, which
“retrains degree holders throughout their lives to obtain the latest, most relevant skills” (Foster, 2013, para. 23).
At the present time, for example, there are more than 200 Bolashak scholars working at Nazarbayev
University. It is important to note that some of them are not necessarily working in their specialties. Why are
they working at Nazarbayev University if it is not relevant to their specialties? It seems that Bolashak scholars
who studied abroad feel more inclined to “have jobs including ‘international’ aspects,’” which Nazarbayev
University provides (Wiers‐Jenssen, 2013, p. 487). As it turns out, academic mobility experience has implications
for finding such an international job at home. As stated by Wiers‐Jenssen (2013): “Mobile students are more
likely to work for international employers, to travel abroad on business, and apply foreign language skills on a
weekly basis” (p. 481).
There are also specific disciplines as American law, British law, American history and many others
studied abroad by means of different programs. By studying American law or history, students do not fully
understand that applying acquired knowledge to the Kazakhstani context is not easy. Sometimes there is a great
necessity for graduates to adapt knowledge acquired abroad to the local context. As stated by Wiers-Jenssen
(2013): “Graduates who have a diploma from abroad face more challenges entering the labor market; they are
more likely to experience unemployment and overeducation compared to graduates that have an all-domestic
degree as well as graduates who have had a sojourn abroad during studies” (p. 475). Overeducation in this context,
perhaps means being overqualified for available jobs or being educated rather than having relevant skills.
Nonetheless, although a significant number of graduates have experienced unemployment after studying
abroad, unemployment is not a consistent problem. The good thing is that “graduates with a diploma from
abroad eventually obtain higher wages and more international jobs” (Wiers-Jenssen, 2013, p. 475). This suggests
that the long-term outcomes are partly due to job selectivity, unwillingness to work, low wages and high
demands.
In general, the knowledge acquired abroad seems not always to fit the current labor market needs.
However, adding short-term internships abroad makes students highly desirable to prospective employers and
retrains them to obtain the latest, most relevant skills which are applicable for the domestic labor market.
Conclusion
To sum up, the paper begins with the concept of academic mobility which existed long before the
introduction of the Bologna process. To gain a better understanding of academic mobility, the researcher gave
background material on the Bologna process and other conventions as the Magna Carta of Universities, the
Sorbonne Declaration, the Prague Communique and the Berlin Communique which encourage students to study abroad.
Generally, there is a large number of students who have studied abroad at present time. However, there are
some students who do not want to return to their home countries and use the skills they have learned abroad.
Hence, there are serious risks associated with this trend such as brain drain, losing cultural identity and others.
Mobile students might struggle as their skills were insufficient for today’s competitive labor market. To solve
this issue, students need to acquire necessary skills to increase their employability opportunities.
In section two, it was questioned whether mobility is an advantage for the domestic employment market
and enhances graduates’ employability. Academic mobility seems to increase the demands for graduates on the
labor market and assist them to better adapt to the new economic conditions. However, along with a number of
opportunities (an increased access to HE; movement of students and teachers; and the improvement of
academic quality), it is still not clear what benefits students gain from their educational experience abroad. It
seems that academic mobility has a number of effects on the labor market regarding employability skills and
work experience. A potentially fair reason is that skills obtained abroad cannot be fully adapted to employment
opportunities in the domestic job market. Nevertheless, the investigation indicates that the employability of
mobile and immobile students is pretty similar either in the domestic or international market. Thus, a Western

13 | JUMABAYEVA
June 2016
diploma “seems to be neither an advantage nor a serious drawback regarding employability” (Wiers-Jenssen,
2013, p.485).
It was also assumed that studying abroad enhances students’ employability skills. But it seems that
everything depends on the person and one’s ability to apply knowledge in practice. Just because someone
studied abroad, the competition for them does not disappear. Furthermore, different employers have different
priorities; some employers are still skeptical toward the study abroad experience. Depending on the type of
employer, one can see work experience as a priority over Western education.
The third section highlighted how academic mobility can lead to issues regarding relevance and
applicability of certain skills in the labor market. In particular, research shows that Bolashak graduates have skills
that do not always fit the current market needs. This suggests that students who return are not necessarily
guaranteed ideal jobs upon their graduation. Work experience can have a higher priority instead. There is also a
necessity for Bolashak graduates to adapt their knowledge acquired abroad to the local context to gain better job
opportunities. Hence, the results of this study showed that the Bolashak program is not always a ticket to a
better future, at least in the short term.
The outcomes of this study reveal to the wider community of HE the effects of studying abroad on
graduates’ employability. This study may serve as a guide to broaden and deepen the knowledge and
understanding of the Bolashak program and the impact it has on graduates’ employability in the domestic labor
market of Kazakhstan.
References
ADEST (Australian Department of Education, Science and Training). (2002). Employability skills for the future. Retrieved
from http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/62282
Burns, W. (2008). Kazakhstan: Not a golden ticket. Retrieved from http://chalkboard.tol.org/kazakhstan-not-a-golden-ticket/
Byram, M. & Dervin, F. (2008). Students, staff and academic mobility in higher education. Retrieved from http://www.c-s-
p.org/flyers/9781847186034-sample.pdf
Center for International Programs (2013). Completion of education. Retrieved from
http://bolashak.gov.kz/index.php/en/vypuskniku/zavershenie-obucheniya
Embassy of the Republic of Kazakhstan (2016). Bolashak Scholarship. Retrieved from
http://www.kazakhembus.com/content/bolashak-scholarship
Eremina, S. L. (2012). The academic mobility of engineering students. Russian Education and Society, 54(11), 3-17. Retrieved
from ERIC database. (EJ1000358)
European Higher Education Area (2014). Bologna Process. Retrieved from http://www.ehea.info/
Foster, H. (2013). Bolashak to add short-term student experience abroad to its degree-focused repertoire. TengriNews.
Retrieved June 1, 2016 from http://en.tengrinews.kz/opinion/406/
International Association of Universities (1998). Towards a century of cooperation: Internationalization of higher education. Retrieved
from http://www.iau-hesd.net/sites/default/files/documents/internationalization_policy_statement_fr_0.pdf
Kazinform (2009). Kazakh delegation for the first time ever participates in the Bologna Process conference. Retrieved
from http://en.government.kz/site/news/042009/07
Keogh, J. & Russel-Roberts, E. (2009). Exchange programmes and student mobility: Meeting student’s expectations or an
expensive holiday? Nurse Education Today, 29(1), 108–116. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2008.07.006
Mason, G., Williams, G. & Cramer, S. (2006). Employability skills initiatives in higher education: What effects do they have
on graduate labor market outcomes? Retrieved from
http://aces.shu.ac.uk/employability/resources/061006_91251.pdf
McQuaid, R. W. & Lindsay, C. (2005). The concept of employability. Urban Studies, 42(2), 197-219. doi:
10.1080/0042098042000316100
Merrill, M. (2012). Kasha and quality in Kyrgyzstan. European Education, 43(4), 5-25. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/EUE1056-4934430401
MES (Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan). (2010). International collaboration. Retrieved from
http://www.edu.gov.kz/ru/dejatelnost/mezhdunarodnoe_sotrudnichestvo/
Musselin, C. (2004). Towards a European academic labor market? Some lessons drawn from empirical studies on academic
mobility. Higher Education, 48(1), 55-78. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4151530
Nazarbayev University (2013). Vacancies. Retrieved from http://b23.ru/5z6u
OECD (2013). Education indicators in focus. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/skills-beyond-
school/EDIF%202013--N%C2%B014%20(eng)-Final.pdf
Observatory Magna Charta Universitatum (2016). The Magna Charta Universitatum. Retrieved from http://www.magna-
charta.org/magna-charta-universitatum
Rizvi, F. & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. New York, NY: Routledge.
Sukhomlinova, T. (2013). Job Fair-2013: Graduates prefer international companies. Ak Zhaik. Retrieved June 1, 2016 from
http://azh.kz/en/news/view/2053

Tashkinbayev, R. (2013). Mussabayev comments his statement about 'beer bar English' of Bolashak graduates. TengriNews.
Retrieved June 1, 2016 from http://en.tengrinews.kz/edu/Mussabayev-comments-his-statement-about-beer-bar-
English-of-23880/
UNESCO (2001). What is mobility? Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/education/studyingabroad/what_is/mobility.shtml
Wiers-Jenssen, J. (2008). Does higher education attained abroad lead to international jobs? Journal of Studies in International
Education, 12(2), 101-130. doi:10.1177/1028315307307656
Wiers-Jenssen, J. (2011). Background and employability of mobile vs. non-mobile students. Tertiary Education and
Management, 17(2), 79-100. Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ928094)
Wiers-Jenssen, J. (2013). Degree mobility from the Nordic countries: Background and employability. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 17(4), 471-491. doi: 10.1177/1028315312463824

15
June 2016
The Role of Language Policies in Developing
Plurilingual Identities in Kazakhstan
RIZAGUL SYZDYKBAYEVA
Kazakhstan is a multicultural country that conducts democratic policy towards every ethnic group living there;
therefore, major language policy documents raise the importance of maintaining and developing all languages in
Kazakhstan. Moreover, raising Kazakh, Russian and English speaking plurilinguals is seen as a key factor for
establishing peace and reciprocity among all nations. This paper reviews how language policies contribute to the
development of plurilingual individuals in Kazakhstan, and analyzes their role as major drivers for promoting a
multilingual society. It also focuses on language policies along with ensuing initiatives through the lenses of
historic roots, socio- political context, and outcomes.
Keywords: plurilingual identities, language policies, multilingual society, multicultural society
Introduction
Kazakhstan is a multi-ethnic state, and therefore the rights and interests of all ethnic representatives are
protected and embedded in the main state document−the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan (1995).
The linguistic plurality and cultural diversity of the country are also regulated and supported by various policy
documents. Moreover, learning Kazakh as a state language, Russian as a language for interethnic, and English as
a language of international communication is widely promoted. Therefore, the role of language policies in
developing plurilingualism, a characteristic of individuals (Liddicoat, 2013), in the Kazakhstani context should
not be overlooked. The Council of Europe defines plurilingual competence as an “ability to use languages for
the purpose of communication and to take part in intercultural interaction, where a person, viewed as a social
agent, has proficiency of varying degrees, in several languages, and experience of several cultures” (Coste, Moore
& Zarate, 2009, p. 11). The role of language policies in developing plurilingual competence of Kazakhstani
people will be central to this paper.
Many scholars debate the role and efficacy of language policies. While some recent studies (e.g., Aryn,
2009) point out that language policy plays an important role in establishing political stability in the polyethnic
nation of Kazakhstan, others (Makhmutova & Sagitova, 2014) argue that it is not an effective means for the
integration of national diasporas into Kazakhstani society.
Historic Roots
In this section, I will explore the historical grounds of the policy documents that report language issues
of Kazakhstan. An analysis of its historical roots can assist in gaining an in-depth understanding of Kazakhstan’s
multiculturalism.
Language related issues are embedded in these state documents:
 The Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan (1995);
 Strategies 2030 and 2050;
 The State Program of Languages Development and Functioning for 2011-2020 (MES, 2010);
 The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Languages (1997);
 The Order of the President of Kazakhstan on the Concept of Language Policy (1996);
 and the cultural project called Trinity of Languages.
In the Soviet Kazakhstan era when the Russian language dominated in all domains, only in 1987 for the
first time, the Kazakh language saw some progress towards gaining more importance in an official document
called On Improving the Study of the Kazakh Language, followed by the next important document called Law on
Languages in 1989. After the fall of the USSR, Dadabayeva and Adilbayeva (2010) identified three parties
pursuing different positions in language policy. First, Russians willing to keep the Russian language’s leading
position; second, Kazakhs wanting the Kazakh language to be the only state language; and third, the state trying
to attain equilibrium in a diverse society. After Kazakhstan’s independence, the Kazakh language was
proclaimed the sole state language, and every citizen was called upon to learn Kazakh, whereas Russian was
given the status of interethnic language in the Constitution of Kazakhstan (1993), and then shortly thereafter in
the amended constitution (1995), it was granted official status. By redefining the position of the Russian

LANGUAGE POLICIES IN DEVELOPING PLURILINGUAL IDENTITIES | 16
language, it gained the position to be used equally with the Kazakh language in official documents. This shift
enabled the country to minimize possible conflicts between nations.
After independence, there was a need for change that would steadily lead to prosperity and development
of the state and its citizens. In his annual address to the nation, President Nazarbayev (2012) declared that
Kazakhstan seeks to join the thirty most competitive countries in the world, and then elaborated on how to
achieve this goal. Bearing in mind that unity, tolerance, and peace in the country are the main values in this
sovereign state, he strongly emphasized that as a multicultural society Kazakhstan needs to develop and foster
pluralism and cultural awareness in younger generations. This goal is reflected in the various initiatives, reforms,
laws, and programs. Encouraging trilingualism is seen as a key factor for developing individuals who respect and
value plurality. The State Program of Languages Development and Functioning for 2011-2020 (MES, 2011)
aims to increase the number of Kazakh (95%), Russian (90) and English (20%) language speakers. According to
Kydyralina (2014), Doctor of Historical Sciences, tolerance and loyalty appear to be the key for building such a
nation, and that requires much time and effort.
These policy documents have set the path towards forming plurilingual and multicultural individuals that
possess their own cultural features, along with having raised cultural awareness of and respect for neighboring
cultures.
Socio-Political Context
Taking into account the diverse cultural and ethnic situations in the country, Kazakhstan is confidently
moving forward to achieve its ambitious goal of becoming an intellectual multilingual nation. The
implementation of language policies took place in the country’s education, media, social, economic, and political
spheres. In this section, I will be analyzing how the language policies on developing plurilingual individuals were
implemented in the educational and socio-political contexts.
It is true that “language can be used as a symbol of ethnic and cultural identity, a key element of ‘nation
building’ that can lead to both the consolidation of the society and the ethno-cultural confrontation inside the
community” (Makhmutov & Sagitova, 2014, p. 103).
Developing multilingualism in Kazakhstan is not only vital for the consolidation of the nations living here, but it
is also necessary to develop the country’s education system. The country’s attitude toward the development of a
multilingual community is reflected in all main education documents. The orientation of these documents in the
learning of foreign languages is primarily directed to the students’ development of intercultural competence. In
all schools, students learn Kazakh, Russian and English languages. In fact, speaking more than one language has
become the norm for Kazakhstani children. Moreover, minority language children are schooled in their native
language as a medium of instruction (MES, 2012). Trilingual education was experimented in pilot schools, in
Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools (NIS) and in some higher education institutions (MES, 2012). In the process of
implementing trilingual education in schools, students become acquainted with the foreign cultures, and at the
same time can reconsider their development as plurilinguals.
Research conducted by Yeskeldiyeva and Tazhibayeva (2014) shows that university and secondary school
students in the northern and southern parts of the country support trilingual education. Data collected from
their sociolinguistic study indicate that students would like to learn through three languages. Another study
conducted by Zharkynbekova, Akynova, and Aimoldina (2013), by employing document analysis, questionnaires
and interviews, revealed that the majority of their participants were in favor of trilingual education policy. They
believe in the importance of English as a means to be competitive. However, as stated in Nazarbayev
University’s Diagnostic Report (NUGSE, 2014), there is a need to better define the levels of fluency in the English
language, and to increase knowledge about trilingual education and stakeholder cooperation. Although the
Kazakhstani education system allows minority children to learn in their native language, it is detrimental for
them when taking the UNT. All these factors complicate the development of multilingual education.
The next level where multilingualism was implemented is the social area. The status and use of Kazakh
was expanded in many institutions, in television and in radio broadcasting (Aryn, 2009). Every year, within the
scope of the cultural project Trinity of Languages, the regional departments for developing languages conduct a
trilingual Olympiad called Tildaryn among the people between ages 18-25. This trilingual Olympiad is a good
example of successful implementation of trilingualism in our society where plurilingual competence is highly
encouraged and given an incentive to develop. Another trilingual project organized specifically in Pavlodar
region is Reading Abai in Three Languages (MES, 2014). During the summer break, high school students read the
words of Abai in Kazakh, Russian and English. These projects address the issue of developing multilingualism

17 | SYZDYKBAYEVA
June 2016
outside classroom settings. In addition, there are 130 centers for learning both Kazakh and English. Also, 30-
volume specialized Kazakh- English dictionaries are being developed (NUGSE, 2014).
Finally, multilingual development finds support in the political context too. Top civil servants should
speak Kazakh, and the knowledge of English is regarded as an asset. However, in reality there are cases when
even the person in the highest civil servant position does not speak Kazakh (Aksholakova & Ismailova, 2013).
In spite of the fact that plenty of support is provided to learn Kazakh in language centers, and then to take the
national KAZTEST, there is still a large number of people who do not speak Kazakh (Aksholakova &
Ismailova, 2013).
Although the government is very ambitious and determined to develop a multilingual society, some
parties do not share the same vision. There is a debate about the belief that the use of different languages can
harm the literary norms of Kazakh language. Rsalieva (2014) studied how the use of Russian and English is
influencing the Kazakh language in terms of deviation of lexical and grammatical norms. Fishman (1991) also
stated that the shift of languages simply means a decrease in the use of the language. Nevertheless, the status and
acquisition planning of the Kazakh language is more powerful than ever before (Aksholakova & Ismailova,
2013).
It is evident that Kazakhstan is more than suitable for the flourishing of a multilingual and multicultural
society. The initiative to develop plurilinguals was implemented and is being implemented in schools, in societies
and in the media. In other words, as Munday (2010) writes, “the sense of learning from other cultures and
mutual enrichment is demonstrated in Kazakhstan” (p. 6).
Outcomes and Impact
The problem of multicultural identity forming has emerged because of growing globalization
(Tamirgaliev, Dzhamalieva, & Abdrasheva, 2014). In the Kazakhstani context, the term multicultural identity is not
only attached to the English language and globalization, but to the inner multi-ethnicity of the country.
However, there is a lack of empirical research on how multicultural identities form in Kazakhstan. This issue has
been studied only implicitly (Tamirgaliev, Dzhamalieva, & Abdrasheva, 2014). Consequently, we can look to no
direct data or statistics on this issue. Nevertheless, we can speculate about the potential outcomes and discuss
the role of language policies in developing multicultural identities.
We discussed earlier how language policies could contribute to the formation of identity; however, its
characteristics will depend on many factors. As identity formation builds in many domains—for instance
education, society, media, politics—and at different degrees, it is hard to predict what the outcomes will be. In
Kazakhstan, the Law on Languages (1997) and the State Program of Languages Development and Functioning
for 2011-2020 (MES, 2011) are considered the most important language policy documents. The question is what
outcomes we can see today from the very start of launching these documents. There is a common belief that
identity is formed at an early stage. Therefore, it would be reasonable to consider only those individuals who
were affected by those language policy initiatives from the younger age. To analyze outcomes and impacts of
identity formation, I would divide it into two periods; first, identity formation before inserting the English
language into various projects and reform initiatives; and second, after the time when English language started
to find a place in Kazakhstani language reform documents.
After the country gained its independence, “Kazakhization aimed at establishing Kazakh as the state
language of independent Kazakhstan” (Smagulova, 2008, p. 448). The Decree on Expansion of the Usage of the
State Language in State Bodies (1998) and the Decree on Requirements for Placing Information in Kazakh and
Russian on Product Labels (1999) enabled the Kazakh language to be revitalized. Statistically, sixty per cent of all
students go to Kazakh schools (MES, 2014). In a couple of decades, we can expect to have a new generation of
adults who are proficient in the Kazakh language (Belova, 2013).
It is quite possible that in several years we will be witnessing outcomes that we do not expect now.
According to Smagulova (2015), if we consider international experiences, we see that South Korea faced the
problem of teacher shortage while implementing multilingual education with substantial budget allocation. We
understand that even a developed country like South Korea did not succeed in this. Therefore, it is quite difficult
to predict whether Kazakhstan will be developing multilingual education further. If Kazakhstan retrains
schoolteachers to learn English, this may have another negative impact. Smagulova (2015) anticipates that
schoolteachers will leave their jobs for ones that are more lucrative. Her predictions are based on international
experience showing that Indonesian and Korean teachers left their teaching positions after course completion.
Another example is the case of China that tried to implement teaching content subjects through English long
ago. In this case, the new policy raised serious debates among the main stakeholders and eventually the program

LANGUAGE POLICIES IN DEVELOPING PLURILINGUAL IDENTITIES | 18
was closed. From the experiences of these countries, one can be doubtful about successful implementation of
trilingual education. Consequently, mistrust for the Kazakhstani education system might arise and most
importantly, if the trilingual policy is implemented inappropriately, it might lead to the academic retardation of
students.
Next, there is a threat to the role of Kazakh language and its use. Rsalieva (2014) stated that the Kazakh
language is already undergoing some changes in its literary norms. We can only speculate that if this tendency
continues, Kazakhstan may lose its regained language.
Nevertheless, much effort is being put to implement this initiative. Despite the fact that some
researchers define Kazakhstani initiatives as too ambitious, we are now seeing the first results. For instance,
universities with trilingual education have launched university-based centers for multilingual education.
According to the article on the Pavlodar State University’s website (PSU, 2015), the University’s center for
multilingual education sees the academic mobility for students as its main priority so that students can develop
multicultural identities. Additionally, every year the students participate in international scientific conferences.
PSU conducts its own annual international conference, Education and Science: Without Barriers. At the secondary
education level, in schools where trilingual education was implemented in 2006, we can see the first results.
According to a website report of specialized gymnasium for gifted children in Pavlodar region (Tuleubayeva,
2013), which is one of the first 33 schools which started to implement trilingual education, their graduates are
students of world-class universities, and winners of international intellectual competitions. We can expect that
these young people will contribute to the development of their own country.
Moreover, schools are disseminating their best practices and sharing ideas in different seminars and
workshops. They discuss the problems they face and learn from one another. International experience shows
that schools that do not have subject teachers who are proficient in English collaborate with English language
teachers. This practice is encouraged in many multilingual schools (Kelly, 2014).
Conclusion
The analysis shows that language policies in Kazakhstan strongly support diversity in society. The major
language policy documents and the laws serve as a basis for the promotion of individual plurilingualism in
Kazakhstan. Learning languages other than native language can help raise linguistic and cultural awareness of the
Kazakhstani people. The initiatives, programs and many other facilities to learn and maintain languages of all
ethnicities living here are promoted and regulated by these policies. From the review, it is clear that this language
policy was developed due to historical, social and cultural situations formed in Kazakhstan. The incorporation of
the English language into the long-term plans of the policy documents reinforces the development of
plurilingual and pluricultural identities. Thus, this policy is seen as a right one for modern Kazakhstan in the
modern world.
The existence of debatable issues indicate the areas for future research. For example, more research is
needed to explore the potential obstacles in implementing trilingual education. The investigation of local and
international contexts would help learn the immediate needs and world experience respectively. A holistic
approach that would address linguistic, cultural, social, economic and ethnic concerns of developing plurilingual
identities would enable this ambitious goal to be achieved. At this stage, it can be safely presumed that
Kazakhstan is moving towards realizing its goal of becoming an intellectual multilingual and multicultural nation.
References
Aksholakova, A., Ismailova, N. (2013). The language policy of Kazakhstan and the state
language in government service. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1580–1586. Retrieved from
ttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042813035301
Aryn, R. (2009). Language policy as reflection of ethnic status evolution of the titular ethnos.
Perspectives of Innovations, Economics & Business, 2, 76-77. Retrieved from
http://academicpublishingplatforms.com/search-article.php?journal=PIEB&number=2&article=30
Belova, O. (2013, November 27). Budushee Kazakhstana v kazakhskom yazyke [Future of
Kazakhstan in the Kazakh language]. Retrieved December 6, 2015, from http://www.kp.kz/society/2978-
budushchee-kazakhstana-v-kazakhskom-yazyke
The Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (1995). Retrieved December 3, 2015, from
http://www.akorda.kz/ru/official_documents/constitution
Coste, D., Moore, D., & Zarate, G. (2009). Plurilingual and pluricultural
competence. Retrieved April 11, 2016, from
https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/SourcePublications/CompetencePlurilingue09web_en.pdf
Dadabaeva, G. & Adilbayeva A. (2010) Post-soviet Kazakhstan: nationalism and language

19 | SYZDYKBAYEVA
June 2016
issues. The Soviet and Post-Soviet Review, 37(2), 125-141. doi: 10.1163/187633210X536861
Decree on Requirements for Placing Information in Kazakh and Russian on Product Labels
(1999). Retrieved from http://www.keden.kz/ru/zakon.php?id=14023
Kydyralina, Z. (2014). Yazykovaya politika v Kazakhstane kak instrument stroitelstva natsii.
[Language policy in Kazakhstan as a tool for nation consolidation].
Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya, 12, 51-56. Retrieved from http://e-history.kz/ru/expert/view/50
The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan (1997). On languages in the Republic of
Kazakhstan” of July 15, 1997. Retrieved December 3, 2015, from
http://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=1008034
Liddicoat, A. (2013). Plurilingual individuals: languages, literacies and cultures.
[PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://slideplayer.com/slide/8188401/
Makhmutov, Z. A., & Sagitova, A. G. (2014). Perceptions of national diasporas language
policy in Kazakhstan. Life Science Journal, 11(8), 103-106. Retrieved from
http://www.lifesciencesite.com/lsj/life1108s/021_24777life1108s14_103_106.pdf
MES (Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan). (2010). The state program of education
development for 2011- 2020, Retrieved December 6, 2015 from http://primeminister.kz/page/article_item-34
MES. (2011). The state program of languages development and functioning for 2011-2020. Retrieved December 3, 2015,
from http://prokuror.gov.kz/rus/dokumenty/gosudarstvennyy-yazyk/o-gosudarstvennoy-programme-razvitiya-i-
funkcionirovaniya-yazykov-v
MES. (2014). National report on current state and development of education system of
Kazakhstan. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.kz/ru/analytics/nacional
MES. (2014, April). Proekt chitaem Abaya na trech yazykakh. [Project reading Abay in three languages]. Retrieved
December 2, 2015 from http://edu.gov.kz/ru/proektchitaem-abaya-na-treh-yazykah
Munday, E. (2009). Language and identification in contemporary Kazakhstan (Doctoral dissertation). The University of
Edinburgh. Retrieved from
https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1842/6200/Munday2010.pdf
Nazarbayev, N. (2012). The message of the president of the Republic of Kazakhstan N. Nazarbayev to the people of
Kazakhstan. Strategy 2050: the new political course of the established state, Astana. Retrieved December 6, 2015,
from https://strategy2050.kz/ru
NUGSE (Nazarbayev University Graduate School of Education). (2014). Development of strategic directions for
education reforms in Kazakhstan for 2015-2020: Diagnostic report. Astana: Indigo Print. Retrieved from
http://nur.nu.edu.kz/bitstream/handle/123456789/335/DIAGNOSTIC%20REPORT.pdf
The Order of the President of Kazakhstan “On the concept of language policy in the Republic
of Kazakhstan” (1996). Retrieved December 3, 2015, from http://kazakhstan.news-
city.info/docs/sistemsl/dok_pegtfo.htm
PSU (Pavlodar State University). (2015). Education and science without language barriers. Retrieved December 1, 2015
from http://www.psu.kz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5735:pgu-razvivaya-
mezhdunarodnoe-otrudnichestvo&catid=106:news&Itemid=163&lang=eng
Rsalieva, N. (2014, April). Kazakhstandagy ushtugurly til ideologiyasynyn positivti zhane
negativti tustary. [Positive and negative sides of trilingual ideology in Kazakhstan]. Paper presented at International
Conference Building Cultural Bridges, Kaskelen Almaty: Print World, 447-457.
Smagulova, J. (2008). Language policies of kazakhization and their influence on language
attitudes and use. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(3-4), 440-475, doi:
10.1080/13670050802148798
Smagulova, J. (2015, September 30). Mnogoyazychnoe obrazovanie: Zhelanie, realnost i
context [Multilingual education: Wishes, reality and context]. Paper presented at Reforms of School Education:
Big Changes, Cyprus. Retrieved from http://agkipr.kz/archives/602
Tamirgaliev, K., Dzhamalieva, G. & Abdrasheva, B. (2014). Problem of cultural identity in modern Kazakhstan. European
Researcher, 70(3), 521- 526, doi: 10.13187/issn.2219-8229
Tuleubayeva, K. (2013). Koptildilik- bilim beru isinin jana satysy [Multilingualism as a new step of education]. Retrieved
December 2, 2015, from http://aksu-gymnasium.edu.kz/blogs/view/2/171
Yeskeldiyeva, B., & Tazhibayeva, S. (2015). Multilingualism in modern Kazakhstan: New challenges. Asian Social Science,
11(6), 56-64. doi: 10.5539/ass.v11n6p56
Zharkynbekova, S., Akynova, D., Aimoldina, A (2013). Multicultural situation in Kazakhstan: Aspects of language studies.
World Applied Sciences Journal (Education, Law, Economics, Language and Communication), 27(13), 32-37. doi:
10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.27.elelc.8

20
Welcome Letter from the Editorial Board
KAMILA KOZHABAYEVA AND AISULU SANAT
As American writer, political activist, and the first special needs woman in history to get a bachelor’s
degree, Helen Keller said, “Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much.” Truly, each member of the
NUGSERIE editorial board contributed a brick to establish a solid base for this journal. Below, we would like
to share our voices, so that you have an idea what we have gained from this extraordinary experience. The
following paragraphs are collated and edited responses from our Editorial Board: two MSc students, two MA
students, two PhD students, two alumni, and two faculty members.
It is all about a common vision.
NUGSERIE started its “life” with the first editorial board meeting. When we gathered and talked
through plans and tasks to accomplish, the road ahead seemed as exciting as it was challenging. “Can we do this?
Can we do that?” The questions were innumerous. No wonder. Not all of us had experience of establishing a
scientific journal. We wanted NUGSERIE to be a student journal made by and for NUGSE students and
alumni. Because NUGSE students’ everyday life has a lot to do with reading scholarly journals, we wanted them
to experience being author and peer-reviewer apart from reader. The Editorial Board agreed on establishing
efficient submission and peer-reviewing processes comparable to those of international journals. NUGSERIE
was destined to become a platform to share the work. We wanted to provide our authors and reviewers with a
pure scholarly journal publication experience. We wanted our authors and peer-reviewers to learn from practice.
We had and continue to have a common goal.
It is all about teamwork.
Another lesson we learned was working as a team and reaching consensus. As the Editorial Board
comprises a student and alumni representative of every program, it allowed us to take into account as many
opinions as possible. At every meeting we had a list of tasks to do and shared them. Despite the fact that some
of us worked and lived off-campus, others had “burning” deadlines and thesis writing, and some combined
studies and family, we still felt responsible for the journal-to-be and did our best to develop the journal further.
One of the best parts of being a part of the NUGSERIE team was a feeling of collaboration. We helped each
other, shared our thoughts and doubts freely and assisted each other if needed. We believe that it is this
NUGSERIE team spirit that helped us attract faculty and students to participate in the project.
It is all about hard work.
Our experience of working on the journal has shown us that sometimes, quite often, things don’t turn
out the way you expect. So we kept working trying to adjust to every situation. Complications helped us grow
more creative and open-minded as we kept on developing the journal. Working schedule and publication date,
additional workshops and deadline extensions were some of the problem-solving measures we took. This would
have never worked out if we did not listen to each other. This would have never worked out if we did not work
hard, fully committed to the development of our journal.
Now we are proudly presenting the result of our work, the first issue of Nazarbayev University Graduate
School of Education’s Research in Education - NUGSERIE.

NUGSE Research in Education 1.1 (1)

NUGSE Research in Education 1.1 (1)

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (13)

Ähnlich wie NUGSE Research in Education 1.1 (1)

Ähnlich wie NUGSE Research in Education 1.1 (1) (20)

NUGSE Research in Education 1.1 (1)