Book contents
- Mapping Educational Change in Kazakhstan
- Mapping Educational Change in Kazakhstan
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I Foundations of Scaling Up
- Part II Piloting Initiatives and Scaling Up to the Whole System
- 6 Piloting the Renewed Content of Education
- 7 Revising the Content and Standards of Student Assessment
- 8 New Ways of Financing Schools
- 9 Professional Capacity of the Leading Schools as a Managing Mechanism in Updating the Content of Secondary Education in Kazakhstan
- 10 The Teacher Leadership in Kazakhstan Initiative
- 11 Developing Teachers as Researchers
- Part III Evidence of Implementation
- Conclusions
- Select Bibliography: School-Level Educational Reforms in Kazakhstan, 2011–2022
- Index
- References
7 - Revising the Content and Standards of Student Assessment
from Part II - Piloting Initiatives and Scaling Up to the Whole System
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 November 2023
Book contents
- Mapping Educational Change in Kazakhstan
- Mapping Educational Change in Kazakhstan
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Part I Foundations of Scaling Up
- Part II Piloting Initiatives and Scaling Up to the Whole System
- 6 Piloting the Renewed Content of Education
- 7 Revising the Content and Standards of Student Assessment
- 8 New Ways of Financing Schools
- 9 Professional Capacity of the Leading Schools as a Managing Mechanism in Updating the Content of Secondary Education in Kazakhstan
- 10 The Teacher Leadership in Kazakhstan Initiative
- 11 Developing Teachers as Researchers
- Part III Evidence of Implementation
- Conclusions
- Select Bibliography: School-Level Educational Reforms in Kazakhstan, 2011–2022
- Index
- References
Summary
Chapter 7 provides a rationale and description of the main transformation processes in the content and standards for assessment of student learning achievements in Kazakhstan introduced within the Renewed Content of Education. Revision of assessment is a complex process that requires consistency with the socio-cultural context and well-structured communication to achieve its credibility. The presented assessment framework was intended to develop the internal structure and content of assessment based on criteria that could be reflected in improving learning outcomes, reducing disparity and building a sustainable culture of interaction based on transparent assessment mechanisms. As with any system, the assessment system depended on the integrity of its consideration and the interrelatedness of teachers’ actions in each classroom. Despite facing a problem of implementation complexity in the initial stages, the teaching community coped with the rethinking of the traditional approach and showed a willingness to develop its own methodological potential in assessment, which made it possible to expand the understanding and involvement of students, parents, politicians and society.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Mapping Educational Change in Kazakhstan , pp. 113 - 136Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Abacioglu, C. S., Volman, M. and Fischer, A. H. (2020). Teachers’ multicultural attitudes and perspective taking abilities as factors in culturally responsive teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 736–752.Google Scholar
Armstrong, P. (2015). Effective School Partnerships and Collaboration for School Improvement: A Review of the Evidence. London: Department for Education.Google Scholar
Bertrand, L., Roberts, R. A. and Buchanan, R. (2006). Striving for success: Teacher perspectives of a vertical team initiative. National Forum of Teacher Education Journal, 16(3), 1–10.Google Scholar
Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational Research, 51(1), 5–32.Google Scholar
Courtney, M. G. R., Rakhymbayeva, Z., Shilibekova, A., Ziyedenova, D., Soltangazina, S., Muratkyzy, A., Goodman, B. and Olzhayeva, A. (2022). Kazakh, Russian, and Uyghur child language literacy: The role of the updated curriculum on longitudinal growth trajectories in Kazakhstan. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101189Google Scholar
Creemers, B. and Kyriakides, L. (2007). The Dynamics of Educational Effectiveness: A Contribution to Policy, Practice and Theory in Contemporary Schools. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dimitrov, D. M., Mozhayeva, O. I., Shilibekova, A. S., Ziyedenova, D. B. and Rakhymbayeva, Z. K. (2020). Updated content of education in Kazakhstan: Longitudinal trajectories of learning performance in mathematics and science. Journal of Education and Human Development, 9(1), 88–102. https://doi.org/10.15640/jehd.v9n1a9Google Scholar
Downes, P., Nairz-Wirth, E. and Rusinaitė, V. (2017). Structural Indicators for Inclusive Systems in and Around Schools: Analytical Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
Dweck, C. S. (2016). The remarkable reach of growth mind-sets. Scientific American Mind, 27(1), 36–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egodawatte, G., McDougall, D. and Stoilescu, D. (2011). The effects of teacher collaboration in Grade 9 applied mathematics. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 10(3), 189–209.Google Scholar
Fadel, C., Trilling, B. and Bialik, M. (2015). Four-Dimensional Education: The Competencies Learners Need to Succeed. Boston: The Center for Curriculum Redesign.Google Scholar
Fastré, G. M. J., Van der Klink, M. R. and Van Merriënboer, J. J. (2010). The effects of performance-based assessment criteria on student performance and self-assessment skills. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(4), 517–532.Google Scholar
Fullan, M. (2013). The Jossey-Bass Reader on Educational Leadership. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Gajda, R. and Koliba, C. J. (2008). Evaluating and improving the quality of teacher collaboration: A field-tested framework for secondary school leaders. NASSP Bulletin, 92(2), 133–153.Google Scholar
Gipps, C. (1999). Chapter 10: Socio-cultural aspects of assessment. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 355–392.Google Scholar
Glaser, R. (1963). Instructional technology and the measurement of learning outcomes: Some questions. American Psychologist, 18(8), 519.Google Scholar
Goddard, Y., Goddard, R. and Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hattie, J. (2008). Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-analyses Relating to Achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hayward, L., Priestley, M. and Young, M. (2004). Ruffling the calm of the ocean floor: Merging practice, policy and research in assessment in Scotland. Oxford Review of Education, 30(3), 397–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, F. and Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 185–212.Google Scholar
Kohn, A. (1999). The Schools Our Children Deserve: Moving Beyond Traditional Classrooms and ‘Tougher Standards’. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Leadbeater, C. (2016). The Problem Solvers: The Teachers, the Students and the Radically Disruptive Nuns Who Are Leading a Global Learning Movement. London: Pearson.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (2008). How to Change 5000 Schools: A Practical and Positive Approach for Leading Change at Every Level. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (2010). Governments and education reform: Some lessons from the last 50 years. Journal of Education Policy, 25(6), 739–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lomos, C., Hofman, R. H. and Bosker, R. J. (2011). Professional communities and student achievement: A meta-analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(2), 121–148.Google Scholar
Moolenaar, N. M. (2010). Ties with Potential: Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences of Social Networks in School Teams. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Mozhayeva, O. I., Shilibekova, A. S. and Ziyedenova, D. B. (2017). Methodology of the Criteria-Based Assessment System of Student Academic Achievements: Educational-Methodical Manual. Astana: Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools.Google Scholar
Muthén, L. K. and Muthén, B. O. (2009–2018). Mplus User’s Guide (Version 8.3). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
Nazarbayev University Graduate School of Education (2014). Development of Strategic Directions for Education Reforms in Kazakhstan for 2015–2020: Diagnostic Report. Astana: Indigo Print.Google Scholar
OECD (2013). Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
OECD (2014). Reviews of National Policies for Education: Secondary Education in Kazakhstan. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
OECD/CERI (2008). Learning in the 21st Century: Research, Innovation and Policy. Paris: OECD Publishing. www.oecd.org/site/educeri21st/40554299.pdfGoogle Scholar
Order of the Minister of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 125 dated 18 March (2008). On approval of the model rules for the current monitoring of academic performance, intermediate and final certification of students for organizations of secondary, technical and vocational, post-secondary education.Google Scholar
Order of the Minister of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 52 dated 21 January (2016). On approval of criteria of students’ knowledge assessment.Google Scholar
Order of the Minister of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 130 dated 6 April (2020). On approval of the list of documents required for the record-keeping by teachers of organizations of secondary, technical and professional, postsecondary education, and their forms.Google Scholar
Pellegrino, J. W. (2004). The Evolution of Educational Assessment: Considering the Past and Imagining the Future. Princeton: Educational Testing Service, Policy Evaluation and Research Center, Policy Information Center.Google Scholar
Phelps, R. P. (2006). Characteristics of an effective student testing system. Educational Horizons, 85(1), 19–29.Google Scholar
Pryor, J. and Crossouard, B. (2008). A socio‐cultural theorisation of formative assessment. Oxford Review of Education, 34(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravela, P., Arregui, P., Valverde, G., Wolfe, R., Ferrer, G., Rizo, F. M. and Wolff, L. (2009). The Educational Assessments that Latin America Needs. Washington, DC: PREAL.Google Scholar
Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 460 dated 24 July (2018). On approval of the State Program of Development of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2016–2019.Google Scholar
SABER (2012). Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER) Country Report. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/346291468038347210/SABER-student-assessment-country-report-Kazakhstan-2012Google Scholar
Schwartz, F. and White, K. (2000). Making sense of it all: Giving and getting online course feedback. In The Online Teaching Guide: A Handbook of Attitudes, Strategies, and Techniques for the Virtual Classroom. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 57–72.Google Scholar
Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14.Google Scholar
Shute, V. J. (2007). Focus on formative feedback. ETS Research Report Series, 7, i–47.Google Scholar
Slavit, D., Kennedy, A., Lean, Z., Nelson, T. H. and Deuel, A. (2011). Support for professional collaboration in middle school mathematics: A complex web. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(3), 113–131.Google Scholar
Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) (2018). First Results of Kazakhstan: National Report (2019) (Vol. 1). Astana: Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan Information and Analytical Center.Google Scholar
UNESCO (2017). Global education monitoring report summary 2017/8: Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments. gem-report-2017.unesco.orgGoogle Scholar
Van der Linden, W. J. (2005). Linear Models for Optimal Test Design. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Van Maele, D. and Van Houtte, M. (2011). The quality of school life: Teacher–student trust relationships and the organizational school context. Social Indicators Research, 100(1), 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westheimer, J. (2008). Learning among colleagues: Teacher community and the shared enterprise of education 1. In Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. New York: Routledge, pp. 756–783.Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, M. (2011). The Effects of Teacher Collaboration on Students’ Understanding of High School Earth Science Concepts. Master’s thesis, Montana State University.Google Scholar
World Bank (2012). The World Bank Annual Report 2012: Volume 1. Washington: World Bank.Google Scholar
Yisrael, S. B. (2008). A Qualitative Case Study: The Positive Impact Interdisciplinary Teaming Has on Teacher Morale. Oxford, Ohio: Miami University.Google Scholar