Purposes:

Capacity building is “a self developing force” (Senge et al., 1999) by means of "developing the conditions, skills and abilities to manage and facilitate productive school-level change (Harris, 2008, p. 133). This article aims to disclose the process of capacity building through teacher-led initiatives. The study, first, to explore how a program evaluation practice helped to shape the professional learning community in its attempts to initiating research-based science teaching, and, second, to analyze how the emergent professional learning community exercised as a system of practices or distributed leadership practices that integrated individual efforts into a synergy of collaborative action which sustains professional growth of teachers and enhance capacity building of local schools. 

Theoretical Framework

The notions of professional learning community (PLC) and distributed leadership was the two main concepts of this study. Hord (1997) conceptualized this collaborative culture and shared leadership through five dimensions: shared and supportive leadership, shared vision and values, collective learning and application, shared personal practice, and supportive conditions - relationships and structures.

        Gronn (2000, 2002) viewed distributed leadership as an emergent property of a group in which interacting individuals work together to constitute of a form of conjoint agency. We applied the conceptual framework of distributed leadership developed by Spillane et al.(2004). Spillane team developed the ideas of artifacts and a system of practices to disclose how teachers take leadership space, interact with one another, and engage in leadership activities stretched across people and situations.

       The artifacts oftentimes are observed as materials such as meeting notes; structures, such as timetables, procedures; and symbols, such as language (Timperley, 2005). In this study, program evaluation tools are primary artifacts to be analyzed. A system of practice provides a conceptual framework by which we can observe how school leaders intentionally develop and selectively use artifacts to influence the educational practices in schools.

Gronn, P.(2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 423-451. Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational Management and Administration, 28(3), 317-338. Halverson, R. R. (2007). Systems of practice and professional community: The adams case. In Spillane, J. P. & Diamond, J. B.(eds.), Distributed Leadership in Practice(pp. 35-62). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Harris, A. (2008) Distributed school leadership: Developing tomorrow’s leaders. New York, NY: Routledge. Hord, S. M. (Ed.). (2004). Learning together, leading together: Changing schools through professional learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G. & Smith, B. (1999). The dance of change：The challenges of sustaining momentum in learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday. Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2004) Towards a theory of school leadership practice: Implications of a distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1) 3-34. Timperley, H. (2005). Distributed leadership: Developing theory from practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(4):395-420.