There is an international consensus that the professionalization of school leaders through education is necessary due to the increased complexity of governance expectations and needs of change (Crow et al., 2008; Spillane et al. 2002). In a complex world people and organizations are expected to learn something that is not stable or understood ahead of time (Engeström, 2001, p. 138). Consequently, there is a need of professional learning in ongoing work activities. During years, school leaders have had the opportunity to participate in various arrangements of school leadership development such as networks across schools and partnership with researchers. Developing partnerships between researchers and practitioners is a common strategy for supporting school improvement and professional development (Coburn & Penuel, 2016). It may involve interventional approaches, such as action research, design-based research, and formative interventions (Engeström, 2011) which is the strategy being used in the present study. In the present study, we are inspired by the Finnish version of formative intervention. This mode of intervention is building on cultural historical activity theory and on the principles of double stimulation and ascending from abstract to the concrete to mediate agency in and between workplaces (Sannino et al, 2016). The point of departure is ‘a problematic and contradictory object, embedded in the participants´ workplace (Engeström, 2015, p. xxxi). It can be manifested as a problem space riddled with conflicting motives and dilemmas (Engeström & Sannino, 2011; 2017).  We have explored the method of ChangeLaboratory (CL) in leadership teams in upper secondary schools in Norway. A central feature of CL is that the researchers intervene with specific triggers such as theoretical models and “mirrors” generated from data being collected from workplace to trigger explorative work with a problem statement based on the practitioners needs and future visions. Formative interventions have been conducted in a range of fields over the past three decades, such as in court reforms, farming, health care, small-firms and industries, media companies, medical care, and to a limited degree in vocational teacher education and in teacher teams (Engeström & Sannino, 2010). Some studies have been conducted within the field of teacher education (Jakhelln & Postholm, 2022) but to a limited degree in leadership teams in schools. As such, we organized several workshops in leadership teams in three upper secondary schools. The purpose of the paper is to contribute with empirical knowledge about school leadership workshops as an arena for formative interventions in partnership with a specific attention to the tools, the processes, and the experiences. The research questions are as follows:

1. What characterize the use of tools in ongoing school leadership workshops? 
2. How do the participants experience participation in the workshops?
3. To what extend do the collaborative work between school leaders and researchers have relevance when leading processes of school improvement in upper secondary schools?

The study is a longitudinal study with cases from three schools. We have collected video data from eight workshops in each case (2h) and materials being explicitly introduced and used when working on selected problem spaces. The data were collected over a two-year period of time and have been subject to content and interaction analysis. The transcripts from the video data have been organized into episodes, which makes it possible to trace the objects being worked on over time. We have also collected interview data from the participants. The interview data and the materials have been subject to content analyses.

Video data revealed that a myriad of artefacts was introduced in the leadership workshops. In addition, several artefacts such as models, charts, plans, and visions were being introduced by the school leaders. In the interactions, ideas flourished in the workshops. Over time, it became visible that some of the ideas were used or transformed to better handle the problematic situation under scrutiny. The artefacts were used for different purposes. Questions about the past, the present and the future were pervasive. Interview data showed this type of questions often triggered negotiations, elaborations, and clarifications about the leadership practices, and not at least agency to solve and handle existing problems and dilemmas. A premise seemed to be that the questions were open-ended rather than being closed questions. The video and interview data showed the object of the leadership workshops where rather ill-defined in the beginning. Several search actions among the participants and the researchers emerged in the workshops where the researchers used a variety of artefacts to make the purpose of the workshop explicit. It became visible in the video data that the concept of leadership workshops seemed to be rather abstract in the beginning. A turning point become visible when the researchers began to present mirrors based on observations and videos; an object seemed to emerge, which met their needs as leaders of professional work. In all three cases, the interview data indicated the issues being discussed seemed to have relevance to their practices, not at least since the conversations revealed that a horizon of possible actions became visible. Because the study built on longitudinal data from video recordings, it has been possible to trace how some episodes became conducive to transformative agency and substantial and incremental changes in how to lead the professional community of teachers.

Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research–practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational researcher, 45(1), 48-54. Crow, G., Lumby, J., & Pashiardis, P. (2008). Introduction: Why an international handbook on the preparation and development of school leaders? In J. Lumby, G. Crow & P. Pashiardis (Eds.), International handbook on the preparation and development of school leaders (pp. 1–17). New York: Routledge. Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory & psychology, 21(5), 598-628 Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Cambridge. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of education and work, 14(1), 133-156. Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory & psychology, 21(5), 598-628. Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2017). Studies of expansive learning: Foundations, findingsand future challenges. Introduction to Vygotsky, 100-146. Jakhelln, R., & Postholm, M. B. (2022). University–school collaboration as an arena for community-building in teacher education. Educational Research, 64(4), 457-472. Sannino, A., Engeström, Y., & Lemos, M. (2016). Formative interventions for expansive learning and transformative agency. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 599-633.Sannino, A., Engeström, Y., & Lemos, M. (2016). Formative interventions for expansive learning and transformative agency. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 599-633. Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., Burch, P., Hallett, T., Jita, L., & Zoltners, J. (2002). Managing in the middle: School leaders and the enactment of accountability policy. Educational Policy, 16(5), 731-762. Virkkunen, J. & Newnham, D.S. (2013). The change laboratory: A tool for collaborative development of work and education. Sense Publications.