0.3 Hauser, l. (october 2011) to practice from theory professional  (Page 2/5)

The literature is filled with varying and differing definitions of research dissemination and knowledge utilization. Many researchers distinguish between conceptual use of knowledge, which Huberman (1992) described as “changes in levels of knowledge, understanding, or attitude,” and instrumental use, “changes in behavior and practice” (p.6). For this paper, knowledge utilization means not only the dissemination of research information, but also the integration of approaches designed to promote conceptual and instrumental use. The term “knowledge utilization” generally refers to the systematic application of professional wisdom and findings of high quality research to improve education outcomes for students. Knowledge utilization activities are typically dynamic and structured interaction among key stakeholders, including researchers, developers, disseminators, technical assistance providers, practitioners, and policy makers (Kohlmos&Joftus, 2005). Hutchinson and Huberman (1993) described a shift in the perspectives on knowledge use from one where the flow of knowledge is a one-way process purported in Havelock’s 1969 research-development-dissemination-evaluation model to the perspective where the user “acts upon information by relating it to existing knowledge, imposing meaning and organization on the experience and, in many cases, monitoring understanding throughout the process” and is viewed as “an active problem-solver and a constructor of his/her own knowledge, rather than as a more passive receptacle of information and expertise” (p. 2).

Additionally, there has been a major shift from thinking about knowledge residing with individuals to thinking about knowledge as embedded in a group or community. Intellectual communities play an important role in which practitioners do their work to profoundly improve outcomes for students. Senge (1990) specifically speaks to this point as he described the importance of “learning communities” as places “where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together” (cited in Garvin, 1998, p.49). Wenger and Synder (2002) contended that knowledge is developed as people actively participate in practices of a social community such as a work team.

School systems must continuously improve and find new ways to significantly accelerate student learning. Before districts and schools can improve their capacity to help students learn, they must first become “learning organizations - skilled at creating, acquiring, and transferring knowledge, and at modifying [their] behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights” (Garvin, 1998, p. 51). Transformational work requires large-scale systems change where schools and districts learn from each other. Fullan (2006) refers to this as “lateral capacity building” and views it as “absolutely crucial for system reform” (p. 10).