Abstract:

Kazakhstan’s universities have undergone significant transformations in the content of the curriculum for the past three decades (Kerimkulova & Kuzhabekova, 2017). In particular, Kazakh education policymakers asked the teaching body to modernise the content of the curriculum and change the way in which faculty work by aligning it more closely with the Bologna process (Maudarbekova & Kashkinbayeva, 2014). The purpose of this study was to explore how faculty members of one foreign languages department were enacting changes in curriculum and teaching policy implemented in Kazakhstan’s public higher education system and their perspectives on changing their teaching and learning practices. The study was theoretically guided by the framework of policy enactment into practice (Ball et al., 2012). To contextualise the research, the current study drew on an ethnographic research design. During the period from February to May 2023, an in-depth data collection was conducted at a public university in Kazakhstan. Through data collection, including twenty-nine classroom observations, three document analysis, twenty semi-structured and twelve informal interviews, and field notes, this study aimed to address three key research questions: (1) Faculty perspectives on curriculum and teaching policy reform; (2) Faculty experiences of curriculum and teaching policy in practice; and (3) Factors that facilitate or impede the adoption of curriculum and teaching policy. The findings of the study unveiled that faculty had diverse opinions to curriculum reforms. Some participants showed openness and self-efficacy to probe new experiments aligning it to the idea of remaining competitive in the international arena while others criticised the existing curriculum stating that the content and topics of the curriculum needed revision as it had not been changed throughout ten-fifteen years as a result of the government oversight and low teacher autonomy. At the same time, faculty had different beliefs of what to teach that was shaped by their previous teaching backgrounds. Their teaching methods were categorised into teacher-centred approaches including memorisation, grammar-translation method as well as student-centred teaching such as collaborative learning, development of critical thinking skills and active engagement. Furthermore, a peer collaboration, peer observation, faculty self-development, peer networking, seminars, professional development, technology integration, and faculty creativity facilitated curriculum development and improvement in instructional approaches. However, insufficient funding, poor university equipment, technical challenges, lack of clear guidelines, and instructions hindered curriculum policy enactment. At the same time, university top-down environment, aligned with constant control, inspection, pressure, heavy workload further inhibited faculty to implement curriculum changes.