Framed by globalization, Kazakhstan has embarked on initiatives to establish standards and quality educational services for universities to catch up with those in developed countries. The government policy for educational reforms is viewed not only as a means of convergence, that is, catching up with the knowledge-based societies of Europe and North America, but also as a gateway into the EU. The recent government policy calls for trilingual competence, implying a desire to equip future generations with fluency in three languages, namely, Kazakh, Russian, and English. Through this initiative, universities are mandating the English language as the language of instruction in graduate programs. This article is a case study of language reforms in a major university in Kazakhstan. The study investigated the implications of the English as the language of instruction policy in higher education and examined the challenges posed by the policy on faculty, students, and administrators. The findings indicated that the efficacy of the current reforms is bounded by the limits of the higher education traditionalism and the long-established educational value orientations in Kazakhstan. As a result, to become competitive globally, universities must develop new attitudes and organizational structures as well as improve current practices based on developing national identity.
AgboS. A. (2005). Myths and realities of higher education as a vehicle for nation building in developing countries: The culture of the university and the new African diaspora. In PrestonD. S. (Ed.), Contemporary Issues in Education (pp. 49–69). Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
2.
AkkaryR. K. (2014). Facing the challenges of educational reform in the Arab world.Journal of Educational Change, 15, 179–202.
3.
BaxterP., & JackS. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers.The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559.
4.
BeechJ. (2009). Who is strolling through the global garden? International agencies and educational transfer. In CowenR., & KazamiasA. M. (Eds.), International Handbook of Comparative Education, (pp. 341–358). London/New York: Springer.
5.
BrassettJ., & HiggotR. (2003). Building the normative dimensions of global polity.Review of International Studies, 29, 29–55.
6.
BoliJ., & ThomasG. M. (1997). World culture in the world polity: A century of international non-governmental organization.American Sociological Review, 62(2), 171–190.
7.
CarneyS., RappleyeJ., & SilovaI. (2012). Between faith and science: World culture theory and comparative education.Comparative Education Review, 56(3), 366–393.
8.
ClaytonT. (2004). “Competing conceptions of globalization” revisited: Relocating the tension between world-systems analysis and globalization analysis.Comparative Education Review, 48(3), 274–294.
CreswellJ. (2012). Educational Research.Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
11.
DaleR., & RobertsonS. L. (2009). Beyond methodological ‘isms’ in comparative education in an era of globalization. In CowenR., & KazamiasA. M. (Eds.), International Handbook of Comparative Education, (pp. 1113–1128). London/New York: Springer.
12.
DaleR., & RobertsonS. L. (2002). The varying effects of regional organizations as subjects of globalization of education.Comparative Education Review, 46(1), 10–36.
13.
FagerlindI., & SahaL. J. (1989). Education and National Development: A Comparative Perspective (2nd edition). Exeter: BPCC Wheatons Ltd.
14.
FiermanW. (2006). Language education in post-Soviet Kazakhstan: Kazakh-medium instruction in urban schools.The Russian Review, 65, 98–116.
15.
FurlongJ. (2013). Globalisation, neoliberalism, and the reform of teacher education in England.The Educational Forum, 77(1), 28–50.
16.
GinsburgM., & MegahedN. (2013). Globalization and the reform of faculties of education in Egypt: The roles of individual, and organizational, national and international actors.Education Policy Analysis, 19(15), 1–24.
17.
GraneyK. E. (1999). Education reform in Tatarstan and Bashkortostan: Sovereign projects in post-Soviet Russia.Europe-Asia Studies, 51(40), 611–632.
18.
HardimanM., & MidgleyJ. (1982). The Social dimensions of development: Social Policy and planning in the Third World.New York, NY: John Wiley.
19.
HarrisonD. (1988). The sociology of modernization and development.London: Unwin Hyman.
20.
HazelkornE. (2007). The impact of league tables and ranking systems on higher education decision making.Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(2), 87–110.
21.
HeadI. L. (1991). On a hinge of history: The mutual vulnerability of South and North.Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
22.
HongcaiW. (2009). University rankings: Status quo, dilemmas, and prospects.Chinese Education and Society, 42, 42–55. doi:10.2753/CED1061-1932420104.
23.
JarvisP. (2009). Lifelong learning and globalization: Towards a structural comparative model. In CowenR., & KazamiasA. M. (Eds.), International Handbook of Comparative Education, (pp. 601–617). London/New York: Springer.
24.
KamensD. H., & McNeelyC. L. (2010). Globalization and the growth of international testing and national assessment.Comparative Education Review, 54(1), 5–25.
25.
KellnerD. (2002). Theorizing globalization.Sociological Theory, 20(3), pp. 285–305.
26.
KimK. S. (2005). Globalization, statist economy and unsuccessful reform in South Korea, 1993–2003.Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(12), 1–24.
27.
KleridesE. (2009). National cultural identities, discourse analysis and comparative education. In CowenR., & KazamiasA. M. (Eds.), International Handbook of Comparative Education, (pp. 1225–1248). London/New York: Springer.
28.
KomatsuT. (2013). Why do policy leaders adopt global education reforms? A political analysis of SBM reform adoption in post-conflict Bosnia and Herzegovina.Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(62), 1–16.
29.
LatherP. (1986). Issues of validity in openly ideological research: Between arock and a soft place.Interchange, 17(4), 63–84.
LindahlR. (2006). The right to education in a globalized context.Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(1), 5–26.
32.
MargalitY. (2012). Lost in globalization: International economic integration and the sources of popular discontent.International Studies Quarterly, 56, 484–500.
33.
MarginsonS., & MollisM. (2001). “The door opens and the tiger leaps”: Theories, and reflexivities of comparative education for a global millennium.Comparative Education Review, 45(4), 581–615.
34.
McLarenP. (2007). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education (5th edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
35.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source-book (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications Inc.
36.
MyrdalG. (1972). Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations.New York, NY: Praeger Publishers.
37.
NeophytouL. (2013). Emotional intelligence and educational reform.Educational Review, 65(2), 140–154.
PavlenkoA. (2013). Multilingualism in post-Soviet successor states.Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(4), 262–271.
40.
PickelA. (2013). Nations, national cultures, and natural languages: A contribution to the sociology of nations.Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour, 43(4), 425–445.
41.
PhillipD., & OchsK. (2004). Researching policy borrowing, some methodological challenges in comparative education.British Education Research Journal, 30(6), 773–784.
42.
PhillipD., & OchsK. (2003). Processes of policy borrowing in education: Some explanatory and analytical devices.Comparative Education, 39(4): 451–461.
43.
ResnikJ. (2006). International organizations, the “education-economic growth” black box, and the development of world education culture.Comparative Education Review, 50(2), 173–195.
44.
RobertsonS. L., & DaleR. (2015). Towards a ‘critical cultural political economy’ account of the globalising of education.Globalisation, Societies and Education, 13(1), 149–170.
45.
SilovaI. (2009). Varieties of educational transformation: The post-socialist states of central/southern Europe and the former Soviet Union. In CowenR., & KazamiasA. M. (Eds.), International Handbook of Comparative Education, (pp. 295–320). London/New York: Springer.
46.
SimmonsJ. (1983). Reforming education and society: The enduring quest. In SimmonsJ. (Ed.), Better Schools: International Lessons for Reform.New York, NY: Praeger Publishers.
47.
StakeR. E. (1994). Case studies. In DenzinN K., & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research.London: Sage.
48.
TarcP. (2012). The uses of globalization in the (shifting) landscapes of educational studies.Canadian Journal of Education, 35(3), 4–29.
49.
TaylorP., & BraddockR. (2007). International university ranking systems and the idea of university excellence.Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29, 245–260. doi:10.1080/13600800701457855.
50.
ThakurM. (2007). The impact of ranking systems on higher education and its stakeholders.Journal of Institutional Research, 13(1), 83–96.
51.
The Address of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan N Nazarbayev to the People of Kazakhstan, February 28, 2007. Retrieved on July 18th, 2015 from www.edu.gov.kz/en/node/5475.
