Quality Assurance System of Higher Education in Kazakhstan Through Stakeholders’ Eyes: An Empirical Study to Identify Its Challenges

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to identify the problems of the quality assurance system of higher education in the Republic of Kazakhstan. To do this, the opinions of the stakeholders (students, teaching staff, employers, administrative, and managerial staff) in the process were screened. The data obtained were compared with the results of independent international ratings and other parameters. For screening, field studies were conducted using a questionnaire for students, teachers, non-academic employees of universities, and employers covering all regions of Kazakhstan in terms of quality assurance components. Based on the constructivist approach, the answers were interpreted to identify the problems of the quality assurance system in the understanding of the study participants. This study revealed that participants rate the quality of the content at a below-average level, the quality of the contingent at an average level, the quality of staff at a lower-than-average level, and the quality of infrastructure at a low level. Comparing the results of the survey and interviewing with the analysis of the results of entrance exams and ratings made it possible to identify the most pressing problems in ensuring the quality of educational programs, contingent, staff, and infrastructure of universities and draw conclusions about its improvement. The obtained results will help to customize the system of quality assurance of higher and postgraduate education, thus contributing to the training of highly competitive specialists for the country’s economy.

1. Introduction

Scientists from different countries research the problems in the development of national higher education systems. Ensuring the quality of education (including higher education) is one of the global Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations, which is in line with the initiative “Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” and its key performance indicators.

Aiming to create a system for ensuring the quality of education, Kazakhstani universities act in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance of Higher Education in the European Higher Education Area, or ESG. In Kazakhstan, ESG is used mostly as a practical tool.

At the beginning of the 2023–2024 academic year, 124 higher education institutions operated in the country with 592.7 thousand undergraduate students and 42.5 thousand master’s and doctoral degree program students enrolled, according to the Bureau of National Statistics of Kazakhstan. Therefore, the share of university students is more than 3% of the total population of the country.

According to the Global Competitiveness Index 2020, Kazakhstan ranks 55th among countries in the world and reached 51st place in the Human Development Index [1,2].

At the same time, according to the Global Knowledge Index 2021, Kazakhstan ranks low in terms of its knowledge infrastructure [3]. Kazakhstan ranks 78th out of 154 countries and 72nd out of 154 in the higher education sector. In 2022, its indicators deteriorated in this index: 78th place overall and 79th place in higher education among 132 countries [4].

In general, the indicators correlate with each other and reveal contradictions between the desired and achieved quality of education, in particular, higher education, and the competitiveness of the system.

The unsatisfactory quality of higher education in Kazakhstan is based on several factors. Here are the main ones:

-

Lack of autonomy: Until 2018, the system of higher and postgraduate education was under strict regulation of public administration, losing flexibility in the face of global competitiveness. This resulted in the rapid obsolescence of educational content, the irrelevance of educational programs, and the limited ability of universities to offer different educational pathways to students, which gave rise to a discrepancy with the needs of the growing labor market;

-

Insufficient funding: In conditions of low solvency of the population, the cost of state grants remained unchanged for a long time, with an increase in its number. This led to a low level of teachers’ salaries, resulting in the drain of the best specialists into more attractive economy sectors and the obsolescence of the material and technical base of universities. The cost of state grants for the training of master’s degree students remains low to this day, even lower than for the bachelors;

-

Corruption in licensing, and quality control both at the system and institutional levels of higher education, led to the opening of many educational institutions that do not meet qualification requirements, as well as distortion of the system for assessing the academic achievements of students.

These and other factors inevitably reduce the competitiveness and efficiency of higher education. It also includes the low efficiency of the education quality assurance system.

To solve these problems, it is necessary to take comprehensive measures, considering global trends and best practices, as well as to strengthen cooperation between the state, universities, employers, and public.

Along with the adoption of the Law “On Amendments and Additions to Certain Legislative Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the Expansion of Academic and Managerial Independence of Higher Educational Institutions’’ in 2018, higher education institutions received freedom of action to a certain extent, making the starting point for solving the first problem, which is the lack of autonomy.

In Kazakhstan, higher education is financed: (i) by students’ own expenses (59.1%), (ii) by state grants for education (38.4%), and (iii) by the expense of customer enterprises and regional authorities (2.5%) based on information from the Bureau of National Statistics.

Since 2020, the cost of grants for undergraduate programs has increased by an average of 30 to 300% (from USD 1000 to USD 3000 per each year of study) for certain specialties, which made it possible to gradually increase the salaries of teaching staff and update the material and technical of universities. Universities set tuition fees on their own; on average, they range from USD 800 to USD 8500, but the most common cost (median) is USD 1000–USD 1200. Despite this, there is still a shortage of highly qualified teachers in higher education.

The consequence of the low cost of education leads not only to staff outflow but also to the obsolescence of university infrastructure.

Addressing these and subsequent issues should affect the results from a medium- and long-term perspective. The state is taking measures to improve the quality and prestige of higher education. In 2022, through the reorganization of the Ministry of Education and Science, the Ministry of Science and Higher Education was created due to the specifics of managing the higher education system and science.

The concept for the development of higher education and science sets ambitious tasks for the system. Kazakhstani universities should take positions in world rankings, and one of the key tasks is to increase the share of international students to 10% by 2029 (according to demographic data, this is more than 100 thousand students).

In this regard, the system faces the following issues: how to accomplish the tasks and how to achieve the indicators. With an abundance of funding, it would be possible to open new or shake several existing universities according to the “accelerated universities” scenario. Unfortunately, in the face of global uncertainty and regional political instability, the country does not have such a possibility.

We see a way out in setting up the quality assurance system in such a way that it becomes synergetic and harmonious, with a clear definition of the responsibility and function of each participant in the process—students, universities, accreditation bodies, employers, and the state. Special attention should be paid to the internal quality assurance system, as the primary cell of the national quality assurance model, and the regulation of processes and procedures in accordance with quality assurance standards.

The quality of the educational process and teaching is important in ensuring the quality of higher education. By setting clear goals, developing a well-structured curriculum, choosing appropriate teaching methods, implementing a variety of assessment strategies, effectively managing the audience, and integrating industry perspectives, it is possible to create a dynamic and exciting learning environment for students. A well-organized learning process improves knowledge acquisition, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills, preparing students for success in their future careers. It can be said that the methodological competencies of teachers play an important role in ensuring the quality of higher education.

It is also necessary to note the importance of the second mission of higher education—conducting scientific research. The quality of research depends not only on the conditions created at the university but also on the competencies of the researcher. Therefore, the quality of the university staff is one of the key components of the quality of higher education.

These and other factors suggest conducting a study to determine the problems of ensuring the quality of higher education. Many researchers agree with the position that the competitiveness of higher education institutions depends on the quality assurance system of higher education. In turn, ensuring the quality of higher education depends on an effectively structured methodology and the integrity of its cycles; therefore, the definition of its problems is the subject of this article.

Based on the research, the hypothesis is that if we investigate the problems of quality assurance by screening the opinions of students, teachers, non-academic workers, and employers, they will be the most relevant since they are direct participants in this process and will provide an opportunity to suggest ways to solve these problems in four aspects of the quality of higher education. That is, to determine the inconsistencies between the necessary and achieved levels of quality of higher education content, contingent, quality of staff, and infrastructure of a higher educational institution.

A survey was conducted in all universities of Kazakhstan within the framework of this research project that covers the main stakeholders of the educational process. Thus, an educational organization, as an open and complex system, is constantly exposed to internal and external influences, resulting in both qualitative and quantitative changes. This is reflected in the dynamics of a large number of evaluation indicators, each of which can only give a point characteristic of one or another aspect of the activity from different perspectives.

The category of study participants was not chosen by chance. For example, students know and feel the problems of quality assurance “from the inside”, as recipients of educational services, and can provide valuable data on the quality of teaching, educational and laboratory facilities, as well as on the quality of the organization of the educational process. Teachers can suggest problems of an organizational nature and the sufficiency of material benefits for the qualitative organization of educational and research processes. Non-academic employees (including managers) see more deeply the problems of the strategic nature of the organization of the university’s activities. And finally, the opinion of the employer as the “end user” of the “products of the higher education system”, that is, the personnel trained by it, is very valuable.

Thus, this study attempts to identify the problems of the higher education system in Kazakhstan by screening the opinions of its participants and comparing them with data from advanced universities.

2. Literature Review

Quality assurance procedures are used in educational institutions, as well as criteria to assess quality in the context of higher education. The standardization and implementation of the quality management process is the basis of the education quality assurance system. In ESG and ISO, “quality” is presented as a broad concept, and the definitions have general meanings: “quality” is considered as compliance with established standards, requirements, inherent characteristics, and stated goals [5,6]. Part of the broad definition of quality is quality values: academic, managerial, pedagogical, and employment-oriented [7]. Therefore, quality in a broad sense can be defined as excellence, perfection, and compliance with high standards. This literature review is the basis for the further implementation of the concept of quality in the education system.

“Quality assurance”, as a term in ESG, is used to describe all activities within the continuous improvement cycle (i.e., quality assurance and quality improvement activities), focusing quality activities on two interrelated goals: reporting and improvement [5]. Based on this and the analysis of the scientific literature, it is proposed to adhere to the following definitions of the term “quality assurance of higher education”:

(a)

Ensuring the quality of higher education as a process of formation and maintenance of the required properties and characteristics of educational services;

(b)

Quality assurance as a procedure for maintaining the required properties and characteristics of educational services as they are provided;

(c)

Ensuring the quality of higher education as a result of the formation of the required properties and characteristics of educational services.

The “required properties and characteristics of educational services” means (i) the quality of the content of higher education; (ii) the quality of the university’s student body; (iii) the quality of the university’s staff; and (iv) the quality of the infrastructure for the organization of higher and postgraduate education [8].

The results of the scientific literature review on the concept of “quality assurance” in higher education reflect the authors’ opinion on quality assurance as a “process” of forming and maintaining desired properties and characteristics of educational services. Astin, Schellekens, and others consider the concept of “quality” as a process of transforming and changing personality development and talents [9,10,11].

When determining strategic goals, educational organizations basically take the concept of quality assurance as a key factor in determining the university’s mission and quality policy, where quality assurance is considered as a set of policies, procedures, and internal or external systems and practices, and as a set of indicators of an educational institution (content of education, forms and methods of teaching, material and technical base, etc.). Responsibility plays an important role in the quality assurance process since special attention is given to the formation of responsibility for quality management [12,13,14].

Stensaker [15] and Birnbaum [16] referred to the growing discussion of quality management as a “tendency” in management. Quality is also becoming an agenda for external parties such as government agencies and the business sector, not just universities. In 2020, Gulden et al. [17] stated that the ability of an organization and readiness for change directly affect the management system of the organization.

According to Jessop and colleagues, “quality assurance requires a comprehensive, integrative approach, because it involves a complex evaluation of programme outcomes that represent of program outcomes reflecting both the educational program’s philosophy and the complexity of outcomes” [18]. Continuous improvement and quality assurance of evaluation requires “a shift from quality control (with an emphasis on accountability) to greater autonomy based on the experience and stakeholders’ knowledge” [19]. Yessenbayeva and Kakenov [20] stated the importance of promoting such a shift in the culture of learning when implementing it. Kleinen’s research considered quality as “transformation, a process of change that adds value to students through their learning experience”, which emphasizes the possibility of developing and increasing students’ competencies” [21,22].

Education organizations face difficulties in monitoring and assessing quality, as a clear demonstration of coherence is problematic due to gaps in the results of modules and programs, as well as a lack of transparency [23]. Vlăsceanu and others defined quality assurance as “a continuous evaluation process (...) of the quality of the higher education system, institutes or programs” [24].

Lifelong learning for students is provided by various assessment practices [25]. To ensure the overall quality of the program, it is necessary to conduct qualitative evaluation practices through regular multi-stakeholder reviews [26]. This requires the participation of stakeholders during the research program review and exposure to the quality indicators of the procedures used to assess quality [27].

The definition of the “quality” concept is also based on the ability to meet consumers’ needs. Thus, according to the definition, “quality” means the provision of such a product or service, to satisfy specific requirements, with a numerical value; the second is the degree of satisfaction of the consumer’s expectations when applying or using a given product or service [28].

Valikhanova [29] identified the concept of quality as “what the consumer wants”. Universities use customer-oriented methods that aim to improve customer service and possible requirements. Harvey and Stensaker [30] defined quality in various aspects as “exceptional”, “fit for purpose”, or “value for money”.

Zinchenko and others [31] concluded that the existing education system still “educates” society. Researchers revealed that communication is a strategic resource, which makes a significant contribution to the sustainable development of universities and their competitive advantages of educational services in national and global markets. In their opinion, higher education institutions should be transformed and improved as institutions focused on all categories of people; must be “gender-sensitive”; should create and strengthen safe, non-violent, inclusive, and effective learning environments for all; and should ensure the training of qualified teaching staff, including international cooperation between developed and developing countries.

For some researchers, quality assurance should be implemented and enhanced to meet individual and societal needs by HEIs [32] through the transformation of higher education policy [33] and its management [34]. As a result of the literature review, a combined approach to the definition of the “quality” concept was revealed. Therefore, the concept of “quality” has become the subject of discussion at international forums of international organizations, where it is considered as a continuous process of quality assessment and a set of planned, systematic procedures, and measures for quality control [24,35,36].

In this study, the quality of education is considered through stakeholder opinions that become evidence that their engagement in crafting effective education policies has an impact on quality assurance in higher education [37,38,39]. The review indicated that theoretical works, such as reports, program documents, and quality concepts, contain different approaches to the concept of “quality”: a process, a procedure, and a result. A combined approach to the definition of the “quality” concept is also revealed, in which it is considered as a set of different components. Despite various attempts to formulate new theories and apply existing ones, researchers have yet to develop an updated theory of quality. Analysis of the concepts in this study revealed the concept of “quality” as a set of various components, where the main factors that determine the quality tools are international reputation, high-quality research activities, inquisitive students, international cooperation, qualified teaching staff, infrastructure, new disciplines, and effective management.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Research Design

This research is based on a constructivist approach, as it was based on the understanding that the same phenomenon or process does not have one objective interpretation, and everyone has their own subjective understanding of this phenomenon or process. A mixed research approach was used, combining the use of quantitative and qualitative research methods. Questionnaires and interviews were used to collect data, the results of which were subjected to correlation analysis. The use of qualitative methods was reflected in the use of methods for studying the cases of other universities and the results of ratings, conducting a comparative analysis of data.

A systematic literature review, as a method of scientific analysis, was used to evaluate the concept of “quality” in the educational setting. A systematic review and meta-analysis were used to ensure the effectiveness of the document search strategy in the largest multidisciplinary databases, such as Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus, and to conduct research in the field of quality assurance. In this study, regulatory and policy documents, publications, and reports with current information on quality were also examined and collected. The authors used filters for the keywords “quality assurance”, “quality monitoring and control”, and “quality culture” to search articles and open-access journals in the social sciences and education. The selection criteria for open-access articles were publications in scientific journals, including both theoretical and empirical research.

As part of the literature review, various types of data analysis were performed based on data collection tools and distribution methods, including descriptive and diagnostic analyses, reliability analyses, principal component analyses, comparative analyses, and content analyses.

In the selection stage, the titles and abstracts of the chosen articles were evaluated to determine their relevance to the research tasks and literature review methodology. Also, concepts, theories, and areas of research were classified.

3.2. Study Population

Students, faculty members, administrative staff, and employers are involved in the effective functioning of the quality assurance system in higher education institutions. Therefore, the sample for the survey was formed on the basis of these four categories. In conducting this empirical study, the main method of sampling was cluster sampling, which allowed a more accurate and detailed study of the problem. The sample size was determined from the known population and calculated using the formula of Krejci and Morgan for a known number of populations. A confidence level of 95% and a margin of error of 5% were assumed.

The sample population for each category of respondents was as follows (Appendix A):

• Students—7595;
• Teaching staff—2502 people;
• Administrative and managerial staff—292 people;
• Employers—329 people.

The type of sample was typical (stratified). It assumed the division of a heterogeneous general population into typological or zoned groups by some essential characteristic, after which a random selection of units was made from each group. All administrative regions (oblasts) of the country were covered.

The age range of the participants was from 20 to 49 years, of which 48% were men and 52% were women. Participants from all regions of the Republic of Kazakhstan were selected to participate in the survey.

One of the target groups of survey participants was students (target group I) who were studying in bachelor’s and master’s degree programs in higher education institutions of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The students who participated in the survey were enrolled in bachelor’s degree programs and entered the university in the 2020–2021 academic year (32.7%), the 2021–2022 academic year (26.4%), and the 2022–2023 academic year (16.1%). Master’s students who participated in the survey were enrolled at the university in the 2021–2022 academic year (12.3%) and the 2021–2023 academic year (12.5%). The survey was administered from 20 May to 27 June, 2023. The students who participated in the survey were enrolled in educational programs of philological, psychological, sociological, historical, legal, economic, and political science profiles, as well as in the fields of information and communication technologies, international relations, art, journalism, etc.

Another target group of survey participants was scientific and pedagogical workers (target group II), including assistants, associate professors, and professors. All participants were affiliated with higher education institutions of the Republic of Kazakhstan and worked in higher education institutions on a permanent basis. The target group of administrative staff (target group III) included representatives of the university administration and employees of various departments: planning and finance department, international department, educational department, etc. The target group of employers (target group IV) included directors and managers of companies hiring graduates of higher education institutions of the Republic of Kazakhstan familiar with the work of graduates, with the level of their knowledge, etc.

Also, for an in-depth study of the survey results, a separate interview was conducted in September 2023 among three categories: independent experts—5 people, university employees—6 people, and employers—8 people, including 9 women and 10 men aged 31 to 56 years.

3.3. Tools

Questionnaires were formed for the survey (Appendix B), which is the main tool for collecting information on the quality of higher education. The survey was conducted anonymously, so the participants of the target groups were free to answer the questions asked.

The questionnaire for Task Force I was divided into several categories: university enrollment process, infrastructure in higher education institutions, and educational process.

The first category included the following questions: “Did you undergo career guidance in school?”, “What influenced your choice of a higher education institution for study?”, “What influenced your choice of an educational program for study?”, “How would you evaluate the process of entering university?”, “What was difficult for you in the admission process?”, “Were equal conditions for admission and study created for people of different social groups?”, “Were equal conditions for admission and study created for people of different social groups?”, and “Was inclusion provided, etc.?”.

The second category included the following questions: “How satisfied are you with the infrastructure of your university?”, “Do you rate the quality of the infrastructure on a five-point scale?”, and “Do you think that the infrastructure of your university complies with the rules and standards of work for people with special needs?”.

In the third category, the following questions were asked: “Could you evaluate the listed areas of activity of your university on a five-point scale?”, “What is the relevance of the content of the disciplines you study?”, “Could you evaluate the quality of classes on a five-point scale on these or those parameters?”, ”How would you evaluate the level of qualification of the university teaching staff that conducts classes at your university on a five-point scale?”, “How satisfied are you with the work and communication of your department?”, “Do students have access to international libraries, portals of scientific literature?”, “Has the university created conditions for the possibility of academic mobility of students abroad?”, and “Have you participated in academic mobility programs?”.

The questionnaire for target group II included the following categories: level of resource provision and quality of content.

The following questions were asked for the first category: “Indicate how satisfied are you with the infrastructure of the university?”, “Indicate whether the university has enough classrooms for comfortable classes?”, “Do you consider the fund of educational and scientific literature at the university (including electronic media) sufficient for students and teachers?”, “Assess the quality of medical centers located at the university?”, “Are you satisfied with the quality of catering facilities at the university?”, “Rate the quality of infrastructure on a five-point scale”, and ”Does the university infrastructure meet all the rules and standards

The following questions were asked to the second category: “Do you think that students receive relevant knowledge and skills?”, “Assess the level of preparation of applicants”, and “Are you satisfied with the functional responsibilities and tasks assigned to the teaching staff?”.

The survey of administrative and managerial staff included the questions: “How do you assess the qualification requirements for the educational activities of higher education institutions?” and “In your opinion, has the quality assurance system improved/has the quality of education in your HEI improved according to the results of recent inspections (state control/preventive control) by the authorized state body in the field of education and science?”.

The survey of employers included the following questions: “Evaluate your satisfaction with the quality of training of young specialists (university graduates) when hired”, ”What criteria of training of young specialists do you consider the most important? (No more than 2 answer options)”, “Do you think that employers should be involved in the development of educational programs in universities?”, and “Is your organization ready to provide/allocate its specialists for training and internship of students on the territory of the university, or in your organization?”.

For the interviews, the questions were divided into three main blocks:

-

Understanding of the main concepts of higher education quality assurance systems and quality assurance;

-

Assessment of the current system of quality assurance of education (control and accreditation);

-

Recommendations for improving the quality assurance system of higher education.

3.4. Validity and Reliability

The survey was conducted in all universities of Kazakhstan within the framework of this research project (Republic of Kazakhstan) (see section on funding). The survey was conducted online, which allowed us to ensure the necessary requirement of anonymity. The link to the online questionnaire was provided to the participants of target groups I–III by corporate mail. In this way, it was possible to ensure that the questions were answered directly by the participants of the respective focus groups. A second answer was not possible because the link from the corporate mail could only be answered once. For Group IV participants, the questionnaire was sent to a personal e-mail. The questionnaire was available for response from 20 May to 27 June, 2023. Interviews with experts in higher education were conducted in September 2023. The questions for the questionnaire and interviews were selected so as not only to identify and emphasize the problems in ensuring the required quality of higher education in HEIs but also to identify possible solutions to these problems. After this period, the results obtained were analyzed, and assessments of quality assurance of higher education in HEIs of the Republic of Kazakhstan as a whole were established. The obtained results are important for reforming the sphere of higher education, bringing it to international standards, etc.

Quantitative methods were used to summarize the results of the empirical study because understanding and applying quantitative research tools is crucial to advancing educational research, both theory and practice, as it contributes to the accuracy and validity of research findings.

Statistical methods of data processing and inference statistical methods were applied to analyze the data.

4. The Results

Quality assessment is one of the most important aspects of managing the development of the higher education system. Therefore, the choice of methods for its implementation directly affects all aspects of the activities of universities and largely determines the quality of educational services.

To conduct an empirical study, the research group prepared questionnaires for the following categories of stakeholders on four aspects of the quality of higher education (quality of content; quality of the contingent; quality of staff; and quality of infrastructure):

• Students—25 questions on the quality of the admission process, the quality of the university’s infrastructure, the quality of the organization of the academic process and teaching staff, as well as 7 questions for socio-demographic block;
• Teaching staff—17 questions on emphasizing the quality of higher education and 5 questions of a socio-demographic nature;
• Administrative and managerial staff of universities—15 questions to determine the quality of higher education;
• Employers—seven questions to identify the quality of specialists who graduated from higher education institutions.

One more method to conduct the empirical research was the questionnaire method, considered as a universally applicable research methodology for research in the field of education.

For a more complete collection of materials and a comparison with the results of the questionnaire, questions were prepared for interviews with employers, teaching staff, administrative staff, and independent experts.

After the development of the toolkit, the research group conducted a massive online survey to determine the quality of higher and postgraduate education in the Republic of Kazakhstan among students, faculty, administrative and managerial staff, and employers.

Quantitative methods were used to summarize the results of the empirical study, as understanding and applying quantitative research tools is crucial for advancing research in education, both theory and practice, as it contributes to the accuracy and validity of research results.

When conducting an empirical study, cluster sampling became the main method of sampling, which allowed for a more accurate and detailed study of the problem. The sample size was determined from a known population and calculated using the formula of Krejci and Morgan for a known number of populations. At the same time, the level of reliability was 95% and the error was 5%.

In data analysis, statistical methods of data processing and inferential statistics were used.

4.1. Results of the Survey

Student Survey

Admission Process

Career guidance at school is an integral part of the admission process to a higher educational institution since it allows for obtaining data on the preferences, inclinations, and capabilities of students, as well as developing a flexible system of cooperation between the senior stage of school and institutions of additional and vocational education.

According to a mass survey, 76% of the respondents answered that they were provided with career guidance at school.

When choosing a university, the respondents most often turned to the recommendations of friends, relatives, acquaintances (25.9%), and the reputation of educational institutions (22.5%). An important factor was the location of the university (17.66%) (Figure 1). It is also worth noting that the choice of the university was due to the availability of a state grant.

When choosing an educational program, the students were guided mainly by the high probability of employment (35%), the prestige of the profession (27.8%), and the amount of grants available (16.2%). Unfortunately, 7.4% of the respondents were guided by the opinion of their parents, and not by their own. If only 3.9% chose a university because of strong teachers, then 2.9% chose a university because of the low cost of education. Another 5.9% could not justify their choice.

The results of the survey show that the process of admission to a higher educational institution did not cause any particular difficulties for the applicants since the majority (59.8%) considered it clear and simple, 32.9%—satisfactory, and only 3.7% of the respondents considered it difficult and incomprehensible. And 2.9% of the respondents found it difficult to answer.

At the same time, the testing stage or exams and the choice of university were the most difficult for the applicants (Figure 2).

Most of the respondents (81.3%) believed that in the admission process, equal conditions have been created for people from different social groups.

4.2. Infrastructure

The number of studies (CABE, SMG, JISC) analyzing the impact of architectural and planning solutions in university campus design on the efficiency of the educational and scientific process shows that universities with premises organized according to the interests of various intra-university groups stimulate students to actively acquire knowledge, and scientists and teachers to generate and translate it.

The results of the survey demonstrate a generally low level of student satisfaction with the infrastructure of their university, and the share of completely satisfied respondents does not reach half—only 44.8%. The further answers were arranged as follows: 31% are rather satisfied, 9.8% are rather dissatisfied, and 4.8% are completely dissatisfied. Another 4% of respondents found it difficult to answer.

At the same time, the greatest satisfaction is noted in relation to the library and the territory of the university, while the respondents are less satisfied with the restrooms, WI-FI functioning, and the speed of the Internet (Figure 3).

One of the main components of a university’s infrastructure is accessibility for people with special needs. In this case, it should be noted that in total, for the answers “Rather no than yes” and “No”, almost every fifth respondent believes that the university’s infrastructure does not comply with the rules of operation.

4.3. Educational Process

The educational process is a procedure during which a student or learner masters a specific set of disciplines and acquires certain knowledge and skills necessary in life (both every day and professional). The organization of this procedure requires consideration of a number of factors and conditions. Planning of the educational process comprises the relevance of knowledge, involvement of teaching staff and students, communication, administration of educational institutions, etc.

According to the survey, the students are less satisfied with the choice of teacher, desired course, or subject, as well as with the consideration and processing of student complaints (Figure 4).

Regarding the knowledge obtained, only 27.9% of the respondents consider it relevant; 34.7% rate the relevance at an average level, and the rest (19.7%) believe that the content of educational programs is unsatisfactory. Given that the quality of educational content is one of the important components of quality assurance, this situation can be considered alarming for the higher education system of Kazakhstan.

In terms of the quality of classes, the students are most dissatisfied with the classrooms and the format of classes (Figure 5).

The level of qualification of the teaching staff is also important in the organization of the educational process. It is quite interesting that the students note a good command of the subject, interaction with students, and the requirements for knowledge of the teaching staff, which indicates a fairly high level of qualification.

On the other hand, the respondents are less satisfied with the knowledge of modern technologies and teaching methods, the objectivity of assessment, and kindness (Figure 6).

Despite the fact that most modern universities have created conditions and opportunities for organizing academic mobility for students abroad, which is also reported by students, only 28.9% of the respondents took part in it. At the same time, 63.4% of the students would like to take part in the academic mobility program abroad.

4.4. Results of the Faculty Survey

Training of competent specialists by the higher education system and the successful performance of this function is determined by the quality of teaching staff. Orientation of higher education towards new formats of educational results involves regular monitoring of professionalism and pedagogical activities of teaching staff.

In turn, the effective work of the teaching staff depends on the full functioning of the university infrastructure. The results of the survey demonstrate a moderate level of satisfaction with the infrastructure: only 37.2% of the surveyed teachers are completely satisfied with it, 39.4% are not completely satisfied, and 15.9% are not satisfied.

According to every fifth teacher (20.2%), there are fewer rooms for the classes than there should be. At the same time, more than half believe that there are enough classrooms for normal work.

It should be noted that the teaching staff, as well as the students, have a rather low assessment of the available funds for educational and scientific literature at the university: only 42.6% of the respondents are completely satisfied with it.

At the same time, there is an ambiguous assessment of the quality of medical centers, since every fifth found it difficult to answer, 13.2% believe that first-aid posts are poorly equipped, and only 29.3% are satisfied with the work of first-aid posts at universities.

There is a rather low satisfaction with the quality of public catering facilities: in total, the answers “Rather dissatisfied” and “Completely dissatisfied” are about a third (28.2% of the respondents note low quality) (Figure 7).

At the same time, the greatest dissatisfaction is noted in relation to the functioning of WI-FI, Internet speed, restrooms, medical centers, and technical equipment in classrooms (Figure 8).

Regarding the accessibility of infrastructure to people with special needs, almost every fifth respondent believes that it does not meet the regulations and operating standards, 11.6% found it difficult to answer, and only 30.9% believe that it meets the requirements of inclusive protection.

It is noteworthy that the majority of the teachers (77.3%) consider that students receive relevant and useful knowledge in the learning process, and 11% found it difficult to answer.

At the same time, the level of training of applicants is important in the system of higher education, which the teaching staff mainly assesses as satisfactory (37.4%), but only 22.4% believe that they are well prepared. The remaining 33.8% believe that the readiness of applicants to study at the university is low.

In terms of their functional responsibilities and tasks, the faculty express moderate satisfaction: 33.7% are completely satisfied and 38.2% are rather satisfied.

4.5. Survey of Administrative and Management Staff

The quality of the educational process depends not only on the level of teacher qualification and student educational level but on the quality of process management. Promising solutions to improve the organization of the educational process are system monitoring and management, and implementation technology, which are constantly being improved.

According to the survey results of the administrative and managerial staff, the employment of graduates is primarily an indicator of the quality of higher education (75 open answers). Revealing answers on employment, the survey participants also mentioned the demand for university graduates in the labor market and their competitiveness.

The respondents considered knowledge or a high-quality educational program (70 open answers) to be an equally important indicator.

The next indicator in terms of response rate was qualified faculty (40 open responses).

4.6. Problems of the Higher Education System

Remarkably the answers to the open question “In your opinion, what are the problems of the effective functioning of quality assurance state system in higher education of Kazakhstan?” demonstrated a fairly wide range of problems, according to the administrative and managerial staff.

Therefore, the most frequently noted problem is of a systemic nature, directly in the organization of the higher education system itself (43 open answers). The respondents noted that there is no unified system, model, concept, or ideology of the higher education system in Kazakhstan. They also mentioned insufficient professionalism of specialists developing regulatory documents in higher and postgraduate education; an inappropriate approach to regulation of the education system and design of State Educational Standards and university plans; training of young teaching staff; etc.

Another significant problem, according to the staff, is the lack of university autonomy and excessive bureaucracy (29 open answers). The respondents also noted mistrust by the state, “strict regulation of subjects”, bureaucratization of the system, etc.

The respondents considered unsatisfactory levels of teaching staff qualification (21 open answers) and low funding of the higher education system (21 open answers), including low wages, funding for research, etc., to be equivalent problems.

There was also a moderate dissatisfaction with the qualification requirements for university activities (Figure 9).

Regarding the trend and state of the quality of education, only 32.2% of respondents believe that since the last inspection (state/preventive control), the system of quality assurance improved at their university: 37.2% marked rather yes than no.

4.7. Employer Survey

An important external stakeholder of higher education is employers since they are the “end consumers” of the “products” of universities.

According to the survey results, employers hiring university graduates have average satisfaction with the quality of young specialists’ training: only 57.1% of the respondents are satisfied. The rest of the answers were as follows: rather yes (22.8%), somewhat dissatisfied (11.9%), rather no (4%), and completely dissatisfied (0.9%). This can be considered a “wake-up call” for universities since employers find only a little more than half of their graduates to be high-quality staff.

Interestingly, the most important criteria (quality) of training young specialists, according to the employers, are “Practical work skills and understanding of how work is done” (48.9%), “Readiness for training and work in general” (19.7%), and “Theoretical knowledge” (14.6%) (Figure 10).

According to the current legislation, it is important nowadays to involve employers in the development of educational programs, teaching classes, and managing the university. In this regard, the survey comprised questions assessing their satisfaction with the knowledge of graduates and employers’ role in training. At the same time, employers demonstrated the conviction that they should be involved in educational program development at universities: 81.1% of the respondents agreed with it.

At the same time, almost all the employers (86%) expressed willingness to send specialists for the teaching and training of students on the territory of the university.

As can be seen from the survey results, the respondents assessed the level of higher education quality in Kazakhstan as average. The same opinion was expressed by the employers and independent experts during interviews.

Therefore, the results of the massive online survey showed the main advantages and disadvantages of higher education system development, activities of universities, and quality of training.

4.8. Interview Results

For an in-depth study and clarification of the respondents’ opinions, interviews were conducted among three categories of participants:

• Independent experts—five persons;
• University staff—six persons;
• Employers—eight persons.

Interview questions were divided into three blocks:

-

Understanding the basic concepts of higher education quality assurance system;

-

Assessment of the current system of quality assurance of education (preventive control and accreditation);

-

Recommendations for further improvement of the higher education quality assurance system.

As of today, there are three main tools for quality control and quality assessment in the quality assurance system of higher education:

-

Preventive control based on risk criteria;

-

Independent assessment or accreditation;

-

System of internal quality assurance in universities.

The introduction and development of these tools were influenced by the inclusion of our country in the Bologna process and the expansion of academic freedom of universities.

According to the majority of the interviewees’ opinions, the higher education system has formed a sufficient legislative framework for the functioning of universities and the use of academic freedom today. However, within the framework of the interview, opinions were expressed that universities are still afraid to take on this responsibility, which generates the formation of new additional instructions and rules for them.

Also, according to the respondents, preventive control is a barrier to the development of academic freedom, which is more aimed at controlling the quality of education. Its main document as risk criteria is more “a standard from the state to justify or comply with those requirements that are more quantitative and allow to monitor compliance with these standards”. Due to the large number of inspections following the immediate correction, there is a gap in understanding the quality culture. “If we are talking about preventive control and autonomy, then these two concepts are absolutely at odds with each other, because autonomy is the trust of the state, independence and maturity, and professional control nullifies all concepts”. It is also noted that “Our state does all this with its own hands, and there is total control and duplication of the accreditation system. This contradicts the world approaches in the field of management based on delegation and trust”.

Some experts noted that the introduction of risk criteria is a “step backwards” in development. Also, many experts considered the degree indicator to limit the development of teaching staff since young PhDs tend to leave for jobs in big cities, such as Almaty and Astana, where wages and living conditions are better than in the regions. In this regard, the obsolescence of staff can be seen, resulting in the use of old teaching methods and reducing interest in learning among students. “For example, it is very difficult for an elderly professor who has 40–50 years of experience and whom we respect, as students want to see a modern style of teaching”. “With our strict requirements, we drive our teachers into such a rigid framework that they do not think about quality, but think about formal compliance, and we get leadership in negative processes”.

The interviewees suggested that in the future, “preventive control will be discarded as useless, if each university is accountable to itself, its society and its country. When all of this is established, then universities will try harder and this is real tool of professional control”.

However, many university employees noted in the interviews that preventive control in the prevailing sense “is very effective, it sets the framework by which a person can assess the university, and how the things they do correspond to the framework set by law”. It was also noted that “at the institutional level, preventive control is still more important to see the compliance of the laboratory base, the ratio of the quality of teachers. And at the level of the educational program, accreditation is required, but with the involvement of experts who is aware of the educational program”.

In order to improve the preventive control procedure, one of the university employees noted that after an inspection, it is necessary to hold meetings with the university and “some debriefings” in terms of what mistakes are often made by the university and how to cope with it, that is, providing mutual assistance to the university to correct its mistakes, not only punishment and revocation of the license.

Meanwhile, regarding the adopted legislative acts, the university employees noted that such laws and rules are adopted without discussion and debate. That is, even if a working group is created, its work is carried out formally. For example, “usually a new law is passed, we sometimes disagree with something, and even if we cannot physically do it and there are no resources, no one asks for our opinion”. “We do not have discussions, a discussion platform where we could talk. If there was such a platform where it would be possible to express some issue and we would collectively adopt an alternative proposal that could later enter into legislative force, then we could say that it really works and helps”.

It was also noted that there is no interaction between the committees of the authorized body, which form the policy of training and quality assurance of higher education: “one committee, for example, does one thing, and the second committee contradicts and it turns out to be a mess”.

Thus, within the framework of the interview, the majority of the respondents noted the restrictive function of preventive control in the implementation of academic freedom, the autonomy of universities, the lack of discussion of the adopted legislative acts, the inexpediency of some indicators of risk criteria as a degree in the conditions of a rapidly developing economy, and the emergence of new specialties.

On the accreditation issue, many of the experts noted that today, our country has good experience in the development of accreditation and legislative framework for it. Thus, “our system is recognized in Europe and by our colleagues from Central Asia, and in their opinion, it is the Kazakh system that is taken as the number 1 example of successful creation the external quality assurance”.

According to the independent experts, accreditation is an opportunity to assess the development of the university in dynamics, and “our quality assurance system appeared earlier than other parameters of autonomy. Accreditation as one of the signs of autonomy, since 2012 it has existed as a formalized institution, began to be recognized, and long-accredited universities have received freedom from state certification”.

Among the interviewees, the formation and development of accreditation itself was positively noted, but there was dissatisfaction with the activities of the agencies established and recognized in Kazakhstan. Thus, many of the employers noted that it is necessary to introduce a system of independent assessment of the quality of education with the involvement of experts from other countries. This will provide objective assessments and comparisons with international standards, which will help to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the education system.

However, regarding the activities of accreditation agencies, it was noted that “they are not specialized, they work in all areas, and it is very difficult for the experts themselves to assess the compliance of technical, economic and pedagogical standards”.

In this regard, one of the recommendations during the interview was if there are high requirements for the university, then there should be higher requirements for agencies.

Meanwhile, the interviewees highlighted the work of the Republican Accreditation Council, which makes decisions on the recognition of accreditation agencies. According to the experts, the work of the Council today is not entirely transparent and understandable, as agencies send reports for register renewal but do not have the opportunity to present their agency, speak out, or discuss the existing problems in universities, which are often encountered during accreditation. It was also noted that the employees of the Ministry do not properly monitor the reports of agencies on their activities and reports on the accreditation of universities and educational programs in general. But this tends to be necessary before the extension of the agency’s membership in the Register: “Now membership of agencies is extended on formal base, and the Ministry does not analyze the agencies reports”.

Also, the respondents noted insufficient competence and expert level in the activities of accreditation agencies. According to one of the experts, “We need to develop our national agencies, so they could hire experts and use them as guides because they know our national system, and they have foreign experience”.

It was also noted that accreditation agencies should support universities in the development of an internal quality assurance system in terms of advanced training in writing self-assessment reports, mastering accreditation tools, as well as in being considered “as analytical centers that would help universities to conduct the necessary training for their large money, paid by the university for accreditation”. One of the experts recommended that “the expert involved should be trained and pass the exam before he is allowed to enter the university”.

In the accreditation procedure, important aspects are independence and objectivity, which are achieved through the involvement of independent experts, including employers and students. During the interview, many of the respondents noted the importance of this issue and the low activity of independent experts in the accreditation procedure. Often, the accreditation agencies themselves include such persons right before the accreditation, without conducting appropriate training and explanations. Therefore, there is low activity and a lack of experience of these stakeholders in the accreditation procedure. Thus, “attracted employers and students think that there is no need to read anything, write recommendations, but just need to sign documents”, “the main thing is to work with external communities, employers, former graduates, so that they are the voice of society during the external audit, speak openly and assess the quality of the university”. The employers noted that “it is worth paying attention to the participation of students and graduates in assessing the quality of education, as their opinion and experience can provide important and useful recommendations for improving the educational process”.

At the same time, the respondents noted that in the course of various inspections and accreditation procedures, universities prepare reports and documents that contain many different statistical data. However, these data are frequently not processed or used in decision-making. Also, “the university itself must understand what data is needed and make decisions based on them, include licensing requirements, risk criteria, and it will all work itself out in the future”.

This problem is more related to the functioning of the internal quality assurance system in universities. To date, the creation of such a system has been legislatively approved, and universities established it successfully or, some of them, formally. But the respondents noted that, in general, the quality policy in universities is more formal and is not related to the development strategy of the university. It was also noted that the role of quality departments and services in universities is important for the successful development of the internal quality assurance system. Often, according to the respondents, “quality assurance departments work in parallel with the training department and are perceived as ‘whipping boys’ or (where there are authoritarian leaders) as a firm hand of management”. “The whole quality monitoring department is limited to conducting questionnaires so that students evaluate the teacher, but there is no analytics afterwards”. At the same time, in their opinion, “these surveys are still only formal, because students do not fully answer, even if they are told that it is anonymous”.

The university staff considered that “quality services should include people with international experience, English proficient, who could participate in international conferences to improve the quality of education”.

Thus, the experts noted that the quality services in universities should perform a tremendous amount of work on training, responding to questionnaires and recommendations of students and teachers, and forming an internal quality assurance system, where reports for various inspections and accreditations are generated in advance and automatically without spending additional resources such as time, financial costs, and staff training.

It is also necessary to note the following recommendations for improving the higher education system and ensuring its quality, which were given during the interview:

-

“It is necessary to finalize from the side of state policy, to explain to people what a quality assurance system is, accreditation, and then there will be special attention to it”;

-

“It is crucial that emphasis should shift from control to quality assurance, and to trust those bodies make inspections”;

-

“It is very important that methods for calculating quality indicators (qualification requirements) are published and transparent;

-

“The concept of “quality” should be conceptually defined by our state, and each university would develop its own quality criteria for itself and this would not be dictated from above, then each university could be creative”;

-

“Increase funding for higher education”.

The answers to the questionnaire and interviews and these recommendations can be classified as follows: content quality—below average, quality of staff and quality of infrastructure: quality of content—below average, quality of staff—below average, quality of staff—below average, and quality of infrastructure—low.

Other parametric data were used to confirm/verify these statements. For example, the results of the Unified National Testing (this is a unified entrance exam for access to higher education) confirm the average level of readiness for higher education programs. If in 2021, the average UNT score was 68.75 out of 140 points (49.1%); then, in 2022 it was 67.14 (47.9%), and in 2023, this figure was 73.9 points (52.8%). In 2024, the average UNT score in the republic showed 68 points (48.6%) according to the National Testing Center (NTC).

Therefore, the values of the “quality of the contingent” component are correlated with each other.

The next comparative indicator, which indirectly confirms the opinion of the respondents, is the level of employment of university graduates: according to the rating of the National Chamber of Entrepreneurs “Atameken” (this is the most authoritative ranking of educational institutions of universities in Kazakhstan), the average percentage of employment in 2023 was 82.8%, while in 2021, this figure was 78.4%, and in 2022—sss79.5%. At the same time, only 70% of graduates got a job in the first 3 months after graduation. In addition, the average salary of graduates in 2023 amounted to KZT 168,156 (42.7% of the average salary in the republic), in 2022, it amounted to KZT 167,577 (49.5% of the average republican salary), in 2021, it was at the level of KZT 155,621 (63.9% of the average republican salary), and in 2020, it was KZT 114,067 (54.1% of the average republican salary) (data sourced from NTC in 2024). These data indirectly confirm the opinion about the low quality of higher education in the Republic of Kazakhstan.

The next material confirms the opinions of stakeholders about the quality of higher education. There are results of an international independent ranking, the QS World University Ranking, where many Kazakhstani universities participate.

QS World University Rankings included 21 Kazakh universities in 2024. The highest score among them is Al-Farabi Kazakh National University—41.6, or 230th place in the ranking. It is followed by L. Gumilyov Eurasian National University (score—30.9, 355th place) and Satpayev University (23.9 and 481st place). The other 18 universities—without an overall score—are ranked from 611th place onwards.

Comparing the results, not even taking into account the top 20, the first of the Kazakh universities (KazNU) lagged behind the University of Toronto (score—86.3), ranked 21st, by almost 45 points or more than 2 times, ENU by 55.4 points (more than 2.5 times), and Satpayev University by 62.4 points (more than 3.5 times). Next, we consider individual items (

Table 1. Comparison of positions in the QS World University Rankings—2024 of the University of Toronto (top 21) and Kazakhstani universities.

Ranking Criteria/University	University of Toronto	Al-Farabi Kazakh National University		ENU Named After L. Gumilyov		Satpayev University
	Score	Score	The Toronto Univ.Difference	Score	The Toronto Univ.Difference	Score	The Toronto Univ.Difference
Academic Reputation	99.7	51.4	−48.3	29.5	−70.2	23.3	−76.4
Employer Reputation	96.0	74.9	−21.1	51.7	−44.3	36.0	−60
Faculty Student	54.2	98.9	+44.7	96.8	+42.6	84.3	+30.1
Citations per Faculty	57.2	1.4	−55.8	1.4	−55.8	1.2	−56
International Faculty	95.7	28.8	−66.9	59.3	−36.4	40.5	−55.2
International Students	96.4	34.0	−62.4	5.7	−90.7	4.2	−92.2
International Research Network	95.5	12.0	−83.5	1.1	−94.4	1.0	−94.5
Employment Outcomes	96.4	11.5	−84.9	10.9	−85.5	10.5	−85.9
Sustainability	99.9	5.1	−94.8	9.6	90.3	1.3	−98.6
Overall	86.3	41.6	−44.6	30.9	−55.4	23.9	−62.4

Source: developed by the authors.

; the table was prepared based on materials [40]).

As can be seen from the table, Kazakh universities were able to compete only in terms of the Faculty Student quantitative indicator. For all other indicators that determine the quality of content, contingent, and staff, the lag is very significant, which directly confirms the opinion of the students, teachers, administrative staff, and employers about the quality of higher education in Kazakhstan.

Financial capabilities, undoubtedly, play a big role in ensuring the quality of education [41]. Comparing the budgets of the top universities in the world and Kazakhstan, the picture is as follows (

Table 2. University budgets (top world and top Kazakhstan).

RANK QS	Institution Name	Location	Revenue Amount (In USD Millions)
1	Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)	United States	USD 5191.8
2	University of Cambridge	United Kingdom	USD 3240
3	University of Oxford	United Kingdom	USD 3767.13
4	Harvard University	United States	USD 6100
5	Stanford University	United States	USD 8250
...
230	Al-Farabi Kazakh National University	Kazakhstan	USD 45.5
355	L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University (ENU)	Kazakhstan	USD 58.7
481	Satbayev University	Kazakhstan	USD 52.2

Source: developed by the authors.

):

The table demonstrates the difference between the budgets of the top universities in the world and Kazakhstan is more than 120 times. At the same time, the difference in GDP per capita (according to the World Bank) in the United States and Kazakhstan is slightly more than 2 times, and in the UK and Kazakhstan—1.5 times [42]. These data also indirectly confirm the opinions of our respondents.

The analysis of the collected materials made it possible to identify the priority problems of the current system of quality assurance of higher education in the Republic of Kazakhstan by components that need to be solved (

Table 3. Problems of the quality assurance system of higher education in Kazakhstan.

Quality Components	Main Problems
Content	Lack of relevance of the courses and disciplines taught Formal approach to the development of educational programs Insufficient variety of disciplines to choose from Insufficient quality of discipline/syllabus materials Formal choice of teacher and courses Low satisfaction of employers with the quality of graduates
Contingent	Insufficient level of readiness of applicants to study at the university Low motivation of applicants to enter Kazakhstani universities Insufficient level of academic mobility Insufficient level of student participation in collegial governing bodies of universities
Staff	Low level of scientific and pedagogical training Obsolescence of the teaching staff Lack of quality training courses Insufficiency of the order for the training of scientific and pedagogical staff
Infrastructure	Poor equipment of the library and inaccessibility of the modern fund of educational literature Weak WI-FI and internet speed Low quality of maintenance of restrooms and medical centers in universities Low level of technical equipment in classrooms Non-compliance of the infrastructure of universities with the rules and standards of operation for people with special needs

Source: developed by the authors.

).

The solution to these problems to ensure the quality of higher education is of great relevance for higher and postgraduate education organizations in Kazakhstan, considering the current period of modernization of the higher education system involved.

5. Discussion

This article presents the results of a study to identify the problems of the higher education quality assurance system on the basis of screening the opinions of the following groups of respondents: students, faculty, non-academic staff of higher education institutions, and employers [43].

The most appropriate and promising method of identifying the problems of the quality assurance system of higher education is a questionnaire and interviewing of participants [44], as well as comparative analysis with other parametric data, such as the results of entrance examinations and university rankings, since such analysis, as a multivariate statistical procedure, allows for the collection and systematization of information on homogeneous groups of parameters, properties, and characteristics of the studied object.

In the course of this study, the main problems of the educational quality assurance system were identified and grouped for ease of analysis as follows: quality of content and quality of the contingent, quality of personnel, and quality of infrastructure in contrast to criteria (resources of educational activities, organization of educational activities, the results of specialists training) and their indicators [45].

The results obtained during the questionnaire survey showed that the stakeholders (students, faculty, non-academic staff, and employers) understand the role of universities in forming the “charge” in human development at a high level. The high requirements of students for the quality of the educational process, its provision, and support should also be noted [46]. There was a clear understanding of the requirements of education on the part of customers, first of all, and on the part of employers.

The organized interviews also showed the respondents’ acceptance of the social importance of universities and the position of universities as one of the system-forming factors of regional development. This research allowed us to identify the dependence of the quality of education on the level of organization of the internal quality assurance system and the involvement of all subjects of the educational process.

In the course of this study, the participants identified the essential elements that contribute to the improvement in the quality assurance system in the university, such as the quality of personnel and continuous professional development; motivation of teaching staff; the state of the university’s material base; and university innovation activities.

A great role in the activity of universities belongs to the presence of a well-functioning internal quality assurance system, the formation of corporate culture and academic integrity policy through the values of quality culture, and the presence of effective administrative management that develops the values and principles of the quality assurance model in accordance with the mission and vision of the university.

The results obtained from the responses of the interviewees reflected their views on the importance of quality assurance in higher education in general, the challenges of quality assurance and the related impact, and the factors that contribute to a good quality assurance system [47].

The limitations of the conducted research are the reliance on the opinions of only a certain range of participants in the higher education system and incomplete consideration of the state policy in the sphere of higher education because, despite granting some level of academic and managerial autonomy to universities, in Kazakhstan, the regulatory role of the state is still high. The next limitation concerns the use of a limited range of research methods. Nevertheless, this research is ongoing as part of a research project on re-engineering the national quality assurance system of higher education.

6. Conclusions

This paper analyzes the main problems of quality assurance of higher education in the Republic of Kazakhstan. For this purpose, a questionnaire survey and interviews on quality assurance in universities were conducted. The survey was conducted among four target groups (students, academic staff, administrative staff, employers) among all universities of Kazakhstan. Based on the results of the questionnaire and interviews, an analysis was carried out to identify the main directions of possible reform of the higher education system and improvement in its functioning in the Republic of Kazakhstan. The results were compared with other parametric data. As a result of this study, the following problems were identified, which were grouped into four components of quality.

In the component “quality of content”, the main problems were named as insufficient relevance of taught courses and disciplines, formal approach to the development of educational programs, insufficient variety of disciplines to choose from, insufficient quality of materials of disciplines/syllabuses, formal choice of teachers and courses, and low satisfaction of employers with the quality of graduates.

In the component “quality of the contingent”, the main problems were defined as an insufficient level of applicants’ readiness to study at HEI, low motivation of applicants to enter Kazakhstani HEIs, an insufficient level of academic mobility, and an insufficient level of students’ participation in collegial governing bodies of HEIs.

The following problems were identified in the component “quality of personnel”: low level of methodological training; obsolescence of teaching staff; insufficient conditions for professional development; and insufficient order for the training of scientific and pedagogical staff.

The problems of infrastructure quality were identified as poorly equipped libraries and difficult accessibility of the modern collection of educational literature; poor Internet speed; low quality of maintenance of restrooms and medical stations in universities; low level of technical equipment in classrooms; and non-compliance of university infrastructure with the rules and standards of operation for people with special needs.

In general, the participants’ opinions about the problems of the quality assurance system of higher education were confirmed by the data of entrance examinations and HEI ratings.

The obtained results allow us to draw the conclusion that the system of quality assurance of higher education is aimed at the formation of the following:

(1)

Quality educational content through the creation of specialized network resources of continuing education embedded in university programs;

(2)

Quality contingent through the admission of talented applicants who passed the entrance examinations, characterized by high motivation and research potential, for further service to society;

(3)

Quality personnel through competitive recruiting integrated into the general process of the realization of the university personnel policy and attraction of specialists from the real sector, business structures, and certified project managers;

(4)

Quality infrastructure through the development of an innovation ecosystem and SMART university as a guarantee of a modern comfortable digital educational environment.

The obtained results will help to customize the system of quality assurance of higher and postgraduate education, thus contributing to the training of highly competitive specialists for the country’s economy.