As international large-scale assessments (ILSAs) have grown in numbers of studies, cycles, and groups of participants (Kamens & McNeely, 2010), so too has the reach and influence of these studies and their results to an increasingly global scale. Some have associated the rise of these assessments with the emergence of a global governance in education (Meyer & Benavot, 2013; Rizvi & Lingard, 2009). In the post-Soviet Central Asian context, this globalization of large-scale achievement tests links to broader educational policy changes in which transnational agendas for education link to post-Soviet geopolitics and the role of prominent policy players in post-Soviet educational reforms, particularly in international development contexts (Silova, 2011; Steiner-Khamsi, 2004). However, despite the increasingly prominent role of transnational policy players in national policy formation, the state remains the primary arena for national educational policy (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010, p. 31; Steiner-Khamsi, 2004, p. 208).

State governments fund and policymakers are tasked with interpreting results from ILSAs and developing national policy responses to them (Steiner-Khamsi, 2004, p. 208). As a tool for educational policymakers in many transitional economies such as Kazakhstan, ILSAs have emerged as one of the most technically sound assessments within the country and have great potential to play a role in national educational reforms. For example, after ILSAs are conducted, there is a large amount of data which can be used by national policymakers to inform or legitimize national reform agendas.  However, there is a shortage of research based evidence as to how effectively policymakers in many transitional economies, and specifically Kazakhstan, use the results of ILSAs.  Kazakhstan has participated in PISA 2009, 2012, and will participate in 2015, and also Kazakhstan participated in TIMMS 2007 and TIMMS 2011. Within this setting, this research is conducted to explore how Kazakhstan policy makers understand and use ILSA data. 

This research aims to understand the role of two international student assessments, TIMMS and PISA, in national education policymaking in the Republic of Kazakhstan. More specifically, the inquiry seeks to better understand: (a) the ways Kazakhstani Ministry of Education and Science policymakers understand and view TIMMS and PISA; (b) how, specifically, these key policymakers utilize data from these assessments; (c) and how they see the role of the assessments in national policymaking.

Cohen, L. & Manion, L. (1997). Research methods in education. (4th edition). London: Routledge. Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. London: Sage publications. Kamens, D. H., & McNeely, C. L. (2010). Globalization and the growth of international educational testing and national assessment. Comparative Education Review, 54(1), 5–25. doi:10.1086/648578 McEwan, E.K., & McEwan, P. (2003). Making sense of research: What’s good, what’s not, and how to tell the difference. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press Inc. Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Meyer, H.-D., & Benavot, A. (Eds.). (2013). PISA, Power, and Policy: the emergence of global educational governance. Symposium Books. Ozga, J., & Lingard, B. (2007). Globalisation, education policy and politics. The RoutledgeFalmer reader in education policy and politics, 65-82. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2009). The OECD and Global Shifts in Education Policy. In R. Cowen & A. M. Kazamias (Eds.), International Handbook of Comparative Education (Vol. 22, pp. 437–453). Springer Netherlands. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/h1144j221w064488/abstract/ Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2004). The global politics of educational borrowing and lending. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Yin, R. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, London: Sage.