Since 2008, when the first Nazarbayev Intellectual schools (NIS) appeared, many changes have occurred in the educational system in Kazakhstan. With demands to meet both national and international standards, teachers are expected to incorporate appropriate methods in teaching. One of the initiatives to make teaching more effective was to create professional research learning communities. Based on the world experience in education and research, Kazakhstan aims to integrate best international practices with national approaches. Such countries as UK, Finland and Singapore served a bridge towards the shift from traditional teacher to a reflective life-long learner.

Kazakhstan's integration into the world educational sphere does not neglect the issues and the quality of teaching staff, who solve the problem of education of the younger generation with an innovative mindset, developed ideological culture and multicultural awareness. To achieve these objectives the state looks for a teacher who is ready to learn and adjust to the demands of modern education through reflecting on practice and developing it. The process of building and sustaining research-based instructional community lies in the responsibilities of the whole school system including the heads and the teachers. An effective and sustainable action research cannot be built only through providing professional development opportunities for staff. Such factors as teachers’ self-development and readiness to learn, share and collaborate will result in effective action research at school.

The establishment of Nazarbayev Intellectual schools (NIS) in Kazakhstan pushed the senior managers of NIS set up new requirements not only for the level of teaching but also for leading and conducting action research in schools. NIS teachers are expected to develop and implement research based instructional practices, moreover, teachers are supposed to work in close collaboration with shared values in social cohesion. Rawlinson and Little (2004) regard action research as a model of professional development which enhances collaborative inquiry, reflection and dialogue. Researchers (Rawlinson & Little, 2004) say that action research helps teachers to analyze their own instructional practices by monitoring students’ performance. The important point is that teachers may face educational problems in the classroom and can plan actions to solve these problems quickly (Guskey, 2000). Thus, teachers should be engaged in “a continues and reflective process where they perform instructional decisions in their classrooms based in student needs reflected by classroom data” (Hewitt & Little, 2005, p.9). As result, today more and more teachers are aware of the importance of applying action research into their practice. They do not only discuss the necessity of research-based instructional practices at lessons they prove the benefits of it from their experience (Pine, 1981; Simmons, 1985, Strickland, 1988): educators develop their reflective skills and thinking; encourage teachers to become better learners/teachers (learning how to learn/teach); increase willingness to collaborate with colleagues; provide a stimulating environment for decision making; enhance confidence in what teachers believe about curriculum and classroom instruction.

Though action research is a watchword in the new Kazakhstani educational policy and at the level of teachers’ professional development, the phenomenon of research-based instructional practices is not defined clearly. NIS teachers face challenges in cooperating with each other and they run headlong into conflicts due to the lack of collaborative culture. In addition, teachers face difficulties in exploring the effectiveness of research-based instructional practices they implement on their lessons to increase student learning.

This discussion forwarded us to study this topic deeper and answer the following research question: How do the NIS teachers’ percieve the effectiveness of research-based instructional practices in the classroom and what is its influence on their professional development. This study is significant since it  gives participants an opportunity to reflect on their professional practices.

Autonomous Educational Organization “Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools” 2020 development strategy. (2011) Buchberger, F. (2004). Ability to solve problems of teacher education as a condition of success? Analysis of the example of Finland. Retrieved from www.etf.europa.eu Creswell, J. (2014). W.(2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Day, C. (1987). Professional learning through collaborative in-service activity. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Educating teachers: Changing the nature of pedagogical knowledge (New York, Falmer Press). 207-222. DiPardo, A. (1999) Teaching in common: challenges to join work in classrooms and schools (New York, Teachers College Press). Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 8(3), 381-391.Hewitt & Little, 2005 Forte, A. M., & Flores, M. A. (2014).Teacher collaboration and professional development in the workplace: a study of Portuguese teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 91-105. Hargreaves, A., &Fullan, M. G. (1992).Understanding teacher development. Teachers College Press, 1234 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027.Lesha, J. (2014). ACTION RESEARCH IN EDUCATION. European Scientific Journal, 10(13). Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2003).Sustaining leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(9), 693–700. Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities. Rawlinson, D., & Little, M. (2004). Improving student learning through classroom action research. Larrivee, B. (2000). Transforming teaching practice: Becoming the critically reflective teacher. Reflective practice, 1(3), 293-307. Lee, V.E.,& Smith, J.B. (1996).Collective responsibility for learning and its effect on gains in achievement for early secondary students. American journal of Education, 104(2), 103-147. Leithwood, K., &Jantzi, D. (2000).The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 112-129. Lumpe, A. T. (2007). Research-based professional development: Teachers engaged in professional learning communities. Journal of science teacher education, 18(1), 125-128. Pellegrin, R. J. (1976). Schools as work settings. Handbook of work, organization, and society, 343-374. Pennington, M.C. (1992). Motivating English language teachers through job enrichment. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 5(3), 199-217. Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers' workplace: The social organization of schools. Addison-Wesley Longman Ltd. Senge, P. M., & Sterman, J. D. (1992). Systems thinking and organizational learning: Acting locally and thinking globally in the organization of the future. European journal of operational research, 59(1), 137-150. State Education Development Programme of the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2011-2020 Stokes, L. (2001) Lessons from an inquiring school: forms of inquiry and conditions for teacher learning, in: Teachers caught in the action: professional development that matters (New York, Teachers College Press), 141-158.