Measuring Curriculum–Assessment Regulation Coherence

Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education (NJCIE), 2026

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.7577/njcie.6574
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

National curricula regulate educational expectations and assessment through their statement genres and the linkage between expectations and criteria. This article compares Kazakhstan and Finland through cross-lingual computational document analysis of formal curriculum and assessment-regulation texts; it does not examine classroom assessment or implementation. Atomic normative statements were embedded and compared using directional mean-best similarity, threshold coverage, one-to-one matching, and size-matched bootstrapping. Both systems show strong internal textual coherence through different architectures: Kazakhstan exhibits close outcomes-to-criteria coupling, whereas Finland links a broader objective layer to criteria. Cross-system convergence is higher for expectations/objectives than for criteria, indicating that evaluative phrasing is more system-specific than curricular intentions. Finland shows higher semantic alignment with literacy, civic and social learning, sustainability, and inclusion frames, whereas Kazakhstan shows higher semantic alignment with digital-competence language in the assessment-related layer. The findings show that global curriculum discourses travel more readily at the level of stated aims than assessment rules, where evaluative frameworks remain less portable.