The burning issues concerning professional training and education itself require consistent and severe measurements from the government, which will be directed on dealing with the situation.  The President of the Republic of Kazakhstan in his address to the citizens of Kazakhstan, dated by 29^th of January, 2010, pointed out that “By 2015 National innovational system must function completely, and by 2020 it should give prepared products such as developments and technologies.

One way of development of educational system was provided by the Faculty of Education, the Cambridge University, UK. In this regard, Nazarbayev Intellectual schools were chosen as tools of implementation and adaptation of the Cambridge system, before spreading it into all regions of our country. As a result, in 2011 the Autonomous Educational Organization «Nazarbayev Intellectual schools» signed the agreement with the Faculty of Education, the University of Cambridge about rendering educational services through the project of Kazakhstani teachers’ professional development programme, which was called "In-service training programme for pedagogic staff of the Republic of Kazakhstan".

            The selected research problem focuses on the existed education reform in Kazakhstan and examines issues and needs of teachers, which they faced during passing professional development course, how they evaluate it and what they suggest in order to improve it. 

             Purpose of the study

            The purpose of this study is how Kazakhstan secondary school teachers implement the knowledge and practice in their schools after completing professional development program.

Research questions

Related to the purpose of the study three main research questions were addressed:

1. What educational and non-educational reasons influenced teachers’ engagement into the program?
2. To what extent do participants feel that professional development program is beneficial for them?
3. How did participants attempt to develop their practice and change their teaching?

 Theoretical framework

The definition of professional development can be considered in different context.  According to Day, C., & Sachs, [2004], the professional development is an increase of teachers’ knowledge, improvement of his/her own teaching practice, construction of capability in making collaboration between teaching and learning processes at school.  

Considering more specifically professional development is strongly linked with teacher development. “Teacher development is the professional growth a teacher achieves as a result of gaining increased experience and examining his or her teaching systematically” [20, p.41,].

Another understanding of professional development connected continuing professional development that is a notion which engage teachers into the set of activities and enable their work [7, 2010]. In relation to teachers, professional development can be linked with “professionalism” that expressed in the following definition professional development is the “process whereby people’s professionalism may be considered to be enhanced, with a degree of permanence that exceeds transitoriness” [6, p. 11].

The initial characteristic of the professional development is based on the constructivist theory or constructivism. In broader context the term “constructivism” is refer to the environment that we perceive as a real. Humans are considered as a part of world, not existing separately (Duffy & Jonassen, 2013). In the context particular to teaching, it is a theory that relies on the position that students develop their understanding on particular context from their experience, it requires their thinking and active participation in the learning process (Glatthorn & Jailall, 2009). The followers of this approach are convinced that “traditional” transmission style of teaching is not adapted for learner-centered approach using students’ prior knowledge without any assistance of teachers. Pupil-centered approach would provide situation when pupils will be in a contact with each other, sharing with their ideas and knowledge. In order to provide such environment in the classroom, we need teachers, who are not afraid of using their beliefs, attitudes, decisions and actions (In-service training programme, third edition, 2014).

1. Bridges, D. (Ed.). (2014). Education Reform and Internationalisation. Cambridge University Press. 2. Ben-Peretz, M. (1995). Systemic Reform in National Assessment: The Determination of Policy and Its Relation to Practice. 3. Creswell, J. (2012). Educational research : planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4 ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. 4. Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession. Washington, DC: National Staff Development Council. 5. Day, C., & Sachs, J. (Eds.). (2004). International handbook on the continuing professional development of teachers. McGraw-Hill International. 6. Evans, L. (2014). Leadership for professional development and learning: enhancing our understanding of how teachers develop. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(2), 179-198. 7. Galanouli, D. (2010). A Report for the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland. 8. Glatthorn, A. A., & Jailall, J. M. (2009). The principal as curriculum leader: Shaping what is taught and tested. Corwin Press. 9. Guskey, T. R. (1994). Professional development in education: in search of the optimal mix. 10. Ingvarson, L. (1998). Teaching standards: Foundations for professional development reform. In International handbook of educational change (pp. 1006-1031). Springer Netherlands. 11. In-Service Training Programme For The Teachers Of Comprehensive Schools Of The Republic Of Kazakhstan, third edition, Centre of Excellence, University of Cambridge. 12. Kent, A. M. (2004). Improving teacher quality through professional development. Education, 124(3), 427. 13. Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming conceptions of professional learning. Innovating and Evaluating Science Education: NSF Evaluation Forums, 1992-94, 67. 14. Louis, C., Lawrence, M., & Keith, M. (2007). Research methods in education. New York: Routledge. 15. Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach: An interactive approach. Sage. 16. McGarr, O., & Clifford, A. M. (2013). ‘Just enough to make you take it seriously’: exploring students’ attitudes towards peer assessment. Higher education, 65(6), 677-693. 17. Retrieved from http://nis.edu.kz/ru/press-center/perform/?id=1931. 18. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in higher education, 31(2), 199-218. 19. Sweeney, C. (1993). Impact of perestroika and glasnost on Soviet education: A historical perspective for follow-on research. Russian Academy of Education. 20. Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: an international review of the literature. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning. 21. Zavalko, N. A., & Aytpaeva, Z. Z. (2013). The teachers'pedagogical skill increase, having worked with the gifted children, on the basis of the information technologies.