Advertisement

Knowledge dissemination and use in science and mathematics education: A literature review

  • Janet R. Hutchinson
  • Michael Huberman
Article

Abstract

A synthesis of the literature on knowledge dissemination and use in education, notably in science and mathematics, is presented. Perspectives have changed in the ways in which knowledge and products are seen to reach potential users. From the top-down, linear models, we have come closer to bottom-up approaches and to the crucial role of linking agents. At present, the most influential approach is a “constructivist” one, whereby research and other kinds of specialized knowledge is exchanged between researchers and professionals in a mutually constructed social context. While there is still debate over the best predictors of successful knowledge use, the scope of the field has been considerably enlarged by including users' perspectives. To some extent then, specialists in this field are now working in a new paradigm.

Key Words

Science education mathematics education research and development constructivism research utilization knowledge use knowledge utilization dissemination linking agents 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson, R. D. (1984). Selecting interventions for improving science education. In Bybee, R. W., Carlson, J., and McCormack, A. J. (Eds.),NSTA Yearbook: Redesigning Science and Technology Education. National Science Teachers Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. D., Varanaka-Martin, M., Romagrano, L., Bielenberg, J., Mieras, B., Witworth, J. (1992). Review of the literature pertaining to curriculum reform in science, mathematics and higher-order thinking across the disciplines. The Curriculum Reform Project, The University of Colorado.Google Scholar
  3. Arzi, H. J., White, R. T., and Fensham, P. J. (1987). Teachers' knowledge of science: an account of a longitudinal study in progress. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC (quoted in Tobin and Espinet, 1989).Google Scholar
  4. Berman, P., and McLaughlin, M. (1978).Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change, Vol. 3. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica.Google Scholar
  5. Beyer, M., and Trice, H. (1982). The utilization process: A conceptual framework and synthesis of empirical findings.Administrative Science Quarterly 27: 597–622.Google Scholar
  6. Carlson, R. (1965).Adoption of Educational Innovations. University of Oregon Press, Eugene.Google Scholar
  7. Cobb, P., Wood, T., and Yackel, E. (1990). Classrooms as learning environments for teachers and researchers. Davis, R. B. Maher, C. A. and Noddings, N. (Eds.),Constructivist Views on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc., Reston, Virginia.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, D. K., and Ball, D. L. (1990). Relations between policy and practice: A commentary.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 12(3): 249–256.Google Scholar
  9. Confrey, J. (1990). What constructivism implies for teaching. In Davis, R., Maher, C., and Noddings, N. (Eds.),Constructivist Views on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Monograph No. 4, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, Virginia, pp. 107–122.Google Scholar
  10. Cox, P. L., Kahn, K. A., and French, L. C. (1985). A study of clients of informational service providers and their use of ERIC-based resources and services.Making the Match for Use of Educational Information: A Multimethodological Study of Providers and Users of ERIC-based Resources and Services, Vol. 3. The NETWORK, Inc., Andover, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  11. Crandall, D. P. (1984). School improvement: What the research says. Keynote address presented at the April 1984 conference on School Excellence, Sponsored by the Appalachia Educational Laboratory, Charleston, West Virginia.Google Scholar
  12. Crandall, D. P., (1982).A Study of Dissemination Efforts Supporting School Improvement, Vols. 3–4. The NETWORK, Inc. Andover, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  13. Crandall, D. P., and Loucks, S. F. (1983).People, Policies and Practices: Examining the Chain of School Improvement, Vols. I–X. The NETWORK, Inc., Andover, Massachusetts (quoted in Louis and Dentler, 1988).Google Scholar
  14. Cuban, L. (1990). A fundamental puzzle of school reform. In Lieberman, A. (Ed.),Schools as Collaborative Cultures: Creating the Future Now. The Falmer Press, New York, pp. 71–77.Google Scholar
  15. Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Instructional policy into practice: The power of the bottom over the top.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 12(3): 233–241.Google Scholar
  16. Darling-Hammond, L., and Berry, B. (1988).The Evolution of Teacher Policy. Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California (quoted in Darling-Hammond, 1990).Google Scholar
  17. Davis, R. B. (1990). Discovery learning and constructivism. In Davis, R., Maher, C., and Noddings, N. (Eds.),Constructivist Views on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics: Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Monograph No. 4, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, Virginia, pp. 93–106.Google Scholar
  18. Davis, R., Maher, C., and Noddings, N. (Eds.) (1990).Constructivist Views on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics: Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, Virginia.Google Scholar
  19. Davis, H. R., and Salasin, S. E. (1978). Strengthening the contribution of social R&D to policy making. In Lynn, L. E. Jr. (Ed.),Knowledge and Policy: The Uncertain Connection, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  20. Driver, R. (1983). The Pupil as Scientist?, The Open University Press, Milton Keynes, England.Google Scholar
  21. Dunn, W. N., and Holzner, B. (1988). Knowledge in society: Anatomy of an emergent field.Knowledge in Society, Spring: 3–26.Google Scholar
  22. Duschl, R. A. (1990).Restructuring Science Education: The Importance of Theories and Their Development, Teachers College Press, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Emrick, J., and Peterson, S. (1978). A Synthesis of Findings Across Five Recent Studies in Educational Dissemination and Change. Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  24. Fullan, M., and Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation.Review of Educational Research 47(1): 335–397.Google Scholar
  25. Fullan, J. G., and Steigelbauer, S. (1991).The New Meaning of Educational Change, Teachers College Press, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Guba, E. (1968). The process of educational innovation. In Goulet, R. (Ed.),Educational Change, Citation Press, New York, pp. 136–153.Google Scholar
  27. Hall, G. E., and Hord, S. M. (1987). Change in Schools: Facilitating the Process, State University of New York Press, Albany.Google Scholar
  28. Hall, G., and Loucks, S. (1978). Teacher concerns as a basis for facilitating and personalizing staff development.Teachers College Record 80(1): 36–53.Google Scholar
  29. Hargreaves, A. (1984). Experience counts, theory doesn't: How teachers talk about their work.Sociology of education 57: 244–254 (quoted in Louis and Dentler, 1988).Google Scholar
  30. Havelock, R. (1969). Planning for Innovation through Dissemination and Utilization of Knowledge, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
  31. Havelock, R. G. (1971). The utilization of educational research and development.British Journal of Educational Technology 2(2): 84–98.Google Scholar
  32. Havelock, R. G. (1973). Planning for Innovation through Dissemination and Utilization of Knowledge, University of Michigan Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
  33. Hood, P. D. (1989). How can studies of information consumers be used to improve the education communication systems? presentation at the 1989 Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association in San Francisco.Google Scholar
  34. Hord, S. M. (1989). Facilitating change in secondary schools —myths and management.NASSP Bulletin 173(516): 68–73.Google Scholar
  35. Horst, D. P., Piestrup, A. M., Foat, C. M., and Binkley, J. L (1975).Evaluation of the Field Test of Project Information Packages, Volume II: Recommendations for Revisions, RMC Research Corp., Los Altos, California, and Stanford Research Institute Menlo Park, California.Google Scholar
  36. Huberman, M. (1973). Experiments and innovation in education. Understanding change in Education: An Introduction, The Unesco Press, Paris.Google Scholar
  37. Huberman, M. (1983). Recipes for busy kitchens: A situational analysis of routine knowledge use in schools.Knowledge 4(4): 478–510.Google Scholar
  38. Huberman, M. (19985). What knowledge is of most worth to teachers: A knowledge use perspective. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Meetings, April (quoted in Louis and Dentler, 1988).Google Scholar
  39. Huberman, M. (1987). Steps toward an integrated model of knowledge utilization.Knowledge 18(4): 586–611.Google Scholar
  40. Huberman, M. (1989). Predictors of conceptual effects in reserch utilization.Knowledge in Society 2(3): 6–24.Google Scholar
  41. Huberman, M. (1990). Linkage between researchers and practitioners: A qualitative study.American Educational Research Journal, 27(2): 363–391 (1990).Google Scholar
  42. Huberman, M., and Crandall, D. P. (1982).People, Policies, and Practices: Examining the Chain of School improvement, Vol. IX: Implications for Action. The NETWORK, Inc., Andover, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  43. Huberman, M., and Miles, M. (1984).Innovation Up Close: How School Improvement Works. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  44. Klein, S. S., and Gwaltney, M. K. (1991). Charting the education dissemination system: Where we are and where we go from here.Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 12(3): 241–265.Google Scholar
  45. Lieberman, A. (Ed.) (1990).Schools as Colloborative Cultures: Creating the Future Now. The Falmer Press, New York.Google Scholar
  46. Loucks, S. (1983).Planning for Dissemination. Monograph 1. Chapel Hill: Technical Assistance Development System (TADS), Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, North Carolina University.Google Scholar
  47. Loucks-Horsley, S., and Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). Using knowledge of change to guide staff development. In Lieberman, A., and Miller, L. (Eds.),Staff Development for Education in the '90s: New Demands, New Realities, New Perspective, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
  48. Louis, K. S. (1980).The Role of External Agents in Knowledge Utilization, Problem Solving and Implementation of New Programs in Local School Contexts, Far West Lab for Educational Research and Development, San Francisco. ERIC ED203462.Google Scholar
  49. Louis, K. S., and Dentler, R. A. (1988). Knowledge use and school improvement.Curriculum Inquiry 18(1): 34–62.Google Scholar
  50. Louis, K. S., and Rosenblum, S. (1981).Designing and Managing Interorganizational Networks. Abt Associates, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  51. Louis, K. S., Rosenblum, S., Molitor, J. A. et al. (1981).Strategies for Knowledge Use and School Improvement. National Institute of Education, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  52. Louis, K. S., Dentler, R. A., and Kell, D. G. (1984). Putting knowledge to work, issues in education dissemination. Final report, NIE, AAI. No. 85-6. Abt Associates, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  53. Lynn, L. E., Jr (Ed.). (1978).Knowledge and Policy: The Uncertain Connection. Washington, DC. National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  54. Lythcott, J., and Duschl, R. (1990). Qualitative research: From methods to conclusions.Science Education 74(4): 445–460.Google Scholar
  55. Maher, C., and Alston, A. (1990). Teacher development in mathematics in a constructivist framework. In Davis, R. B., Maher, C., and Noddings, N. (Eds.),Constructivist Views on the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics: Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Monograph No. 4, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, Virginia, pp. 147–165.Google Scholar
  56. Mann, D. (1978). The user driven systems and a modest proposal. In Mann, D. (Ed.),Making Change Happen, Teachers College Press, New York, pp. 285–307 (quoted in Louis and Dentler, 1988).Google Scholar
  57. McClure, R. M. (1991). Individual growth and institutional renewal. In Lieberman, A., and Miller, L. (Eds.),Staff Development for Education in the '90s: New Demands, New Realities, New Perspectives, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, pp. 221–241.Google Scholar
  58. Menlo, A. (1985). A reconceptualization of resistance to change and its application to the institutionalization process. Paper presented to the International School Improvement Project, Lucerne, Switzerland, June (quoted in Louis and Dentler, 1988).Google Scholar
  59. Miles, M. (1983). Unraveling the mystery of institutionalization.Education Leadership 41(3): 14–19.Google Scholar
  60. Mort, P. (1964). Studies in educational innovation from the Institute of Administrative Research. In Miles, M. (Ed.),Innovation in Education, Teachers College Press, New York.Google Scholar
  61. Muthard, J., and Felice, K. (1982). Assessing activities for utilization of rehabilitation research.Knowledge 4(2): 309–328.Google Scholar
  62. Nelson, M., and Sieber, S. (1976). Innovation in urban secondary schools.School Review 27: 101–119 (quoted in Louis and Dentler, 1988).Google Scholar
  63. Pines, A. L., and West, L. H. (1986). Conceptual understanding and science learning: An interpretation of research within a sources-of-knowledge framework.Science Education 70(5): 583–604.Google Scholar
  64. Rogers, E. (1988). The intellectual foundation and history of the agricultural extension model.Knowledge 9(4): 492–510.Google Scholar
  65. Rogers, E. M., and Kincaid, D. L. (1981).Communication Networks: Toward a New Paradigm for Research, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  66. Rogers, E., and Shoemaker, F. F. (1971).Communications of Innovations, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  67. Sarason, S. (1971).The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change, Allyn & Bacon, Boston.Google Scholar
  68. Sarason, S., Carroll, D., Maton, K., Cohen, S., and Lorentz, E. (1977).Human Services and Resource Networks, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  69. Schlechty, P. C. (1990).Schools for the Twenty-First Century, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  70. Schuell, T. (1986). Cognitive conceptions of learning.Review of Educational Research, 56: 411–436.Google Scholar
  71. Sieber, S. D. (1981). Knowledge utilization in public education: Incentives and disincentives. In Lehming, R., and Kane, M. (Eds.),Improving Schools: Using What we Know, Sage, Beverly Hills, California, pp. 115–167 (quoted in Louis and Dentler, 1988).Google Scholar
  72. Sieber, S., Louis, K., and Meretzger, L. (1972).The Use of Educational Knowledge: Evaluation of the Pilot State Dissemination Program, Vols. 1 & 2, Columbia University, Bureau of Applied Social Research, New York.Google Scholar
  73. Steffe, L. P. (1983). The teaching experiment methodology in a constructivist research program. In Zweng, M., Green, T., Kilpatrick, J., Pollak, H., and Suydam, M. (Eds.),Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress on Mathematical Education, Birkhauser, Boston, pp. 469–4711.Google Scholar
  74. Steffe, L. P., and Cobb, P. (1983). “The constructivist researcher as teacher and model builder,”Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 14(2), 83–94.Google Scholar
  75. Sunesson, S., and Nilsson, K. (1989). Intervening factors in the utilization of social research.Knowledge in Society: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer 2(1): 42–56.Google Scholar
  76. Sykes, G. (1990). Teaching incentives: Constraint and variety. In Lieberman, A. (Ed.),Schools as Collaborative Cultures: Creating the Future Now, The Falmer Press, New York, pp. 103–125.Google Scholar
  77. Tobin, K. (1987). Teaching for high-level cognitive learning in high school science? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  78. Tobin, K., and Espinet, M. (1989). Impediments to change: Applications of coaching in high school science teaching.Journal of Research in Science Teaching 26(2): 105–120.Google Scholar
  79. Weiss, C. H. (1977). Research for policy's sake: The enlightenment function of social research.Policy Analysis 3: 531–545.Google Scholar
  80. Weiss, C. H. (1986). The circuity of enlightenment: Diffusion of social science research to policy makers.Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 8(2): 274–281.Google Scholar
  81. Weiss, C. H., and Bucuvalas, M. J. (1980).Social Science Research and Decision-Making, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  82. Wheatley, G. J. (1991). Constructivist perspectives on science and mathematics learning.Science Education 75(1): 9–21.Google Scholar
  83. Yin, R., and Moore, G. (1985).The Utilization of Research: Lessons for the Natural Hazards Field, Cosmos Corp., Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  84. Yin, R. K., Quick, S. K., Bateman, P. M., and Marks, E. L. (1978).Changing Urban Bureaucracies: How New Practices Become Routinized, Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California, and D. C. Heath, Lexington, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  85. Zaltman, G. (1983). In Seidman, E. (Ed.),Theory-in-use Among Change Agents in Handbook of Community and Social Intervention, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janet R. Hutchinson
    • 1
  • Michael Huberman
    • 2
  1. 1.Virginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmond
  2. 2.Harvard University and Senior ResearcherThe NETWORK, Inc.Andover

Personalised recommendations