Originally published in the Spring 2025 issue of the MASB Leaderboard Magazine.

Introduction

A few years ago, I came across Master of Change by Brad Stulberg, and it couldn’t have landed at a more fitting time. Personally and professionally, I was navigating big transitions—shifts in my role in education, family and health challenges, and the dizzying pace of change unfolding all around us. Change wasn’t just happening to me; it was happening within me. I’m sure you’ve felt this too, the way life’s only constant seems to be change itself.

But what is change, really? And how can we define it in a way that’s meaningful for both our work in education and our own lives?

The truth is, change isn’t just an event. It’s a process, a force, sometimes a companion we didn’t invite but who shows up anyway. We experience it personally, collectively, gradually, and/or all at once.

When change is everywhere and all the time, we need ways to make sense of it. For me, having a skilled coach beside me was a game-changer, but I’ll come back to that shortly. First, let’s zoom out and explore change through different lenses. I believe that when we do this, we’ll see the key isn’t to resist change, but to master it, and the right coaching can help us do exactly that.

Understanding change through allostasis and rugged flexibility

To lead well through change, we first need to understand it more deeply. For decades, we leaned on the concept of homeostasis, the belief that systems work best when they return to a stable balance. I get it, we crave stability in life. But let’s be honest: in today’s complex world, especially in education, “going back to normal” isn’t always possible, or even desirable.

Instead, modern science introduces a more realistic, helpful model: allostasis. Unlike homeostasis, allostasis acknowledges that stability can be maintained by continuous adaptation. It is the science of stability through change, adapting and creating a “new normal” as circumstances shift. That idea really resonates with me, especially as I reflect on the sheer volume of change we all experience. Stulberg (2022) points out that the average person encounters 36 life-disrupting events. Think about that: a big disruption roughly every 18 to 24 months. I know you’re likely already doing that math for your own life, and yes, it adds up quickly.

In education, where change comes from shifting policies, technologies, student needs, and societal pressures, it’s essential that we, as leaders, develop mindsets, skills, and identities that help us not just endure change but use it as a catalyst for growth.

One concept Stulberg offers that’s helped me tremendously is rugged flexibility. It’s about holding firm to essential values, such as equity, student success, and instructional excellence, while remaining open to new methodologies, strategies, and approaches that better serve the changing needs of schools. I’ve found that rugged flexibility doesn’t just help me as a leader, it creates space for innovation and resilience across entire systems. And while it’s powerful on its own, there are additional tools we can use to navigate change with even more clarity and intention.

Mindsets, behaviors, and identities that support change

Change is inevitable, but how we respond to it is where choice comes in. In my own leadership journey, I’ve realized that how we navigate change is shaped by an interplay of mindset, behaviors, and identity.

Mindset: The lens through which we view the world. Certain mindsets have helped me—and many leaders I’ve coached—lean into change with confidence:

• A growth mindset reminds us that intelligence and capacity aren’t fixed; we can grow (Dweck, 2006).
• Embracing the impermanence of life helps us find comfort amid uncertainty or ambiguity (Dalai Lama, Tutu, & Abrams, 2016).
• A curiosity mindset pushes us to ask deeper questions and explore creative connections (MacKenzie & Bathurst-Hunt, 2018; Vance, 2022).
• An innovator’s mindset reframes challenges as opportunities and encourages bold thinking (Couros, 2015).

In my experience, watching leaders live these mindsets and being coached to adopt them myself has shaped how I see and respond to complexity.

Behaviors: Mindset alone isn’t enough. Our actions need to align. One of my favorite reminders comes from Henry Ford: “If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.”

Here are three behaviors I encourage all leaders to practice and that I do myself:

1. Prioritize regular self-reflection. Create time to ask, what truly matters to me? What am I doing that is helping or hindering my transformation?
2. Foster authentic human connections. Have real conversations, not just surface-level exchanges.
3. Rely on intentional, defined processes aligned to long-term values for effective decision making, even when short-term pressures push on us all the time.

📋 Take a quick pulse-check:

How often have you lived these behaviors recently? Go to your calendar. Start to examine the frequency and depth at which each behavior—reflection, connection, and processes for choice-making has occurred. How many of these behaviors did you do in the past week? Do you need to go back further than a week? How about the past month? Now look at your calendar going forward, can you block out time to intentionally ensure you are practicing these behaviors? Remember, what you pay attention to gets done.

Identity

Finally, how do you see yourself? Do you view yourself as a change agent, a leader with the power to influence meaningful transformation? Titles might hint at this role, but the deeper driver is your core values. When we internalize identities like “architect of transformation,” we bring energy and courage to the work ahead.

Mindsets fuel behaviors, behaviors reinforce identity, and identity acts as a multiplier in our change journey. Yet, no one leads change alone. Sustainable transformation is also shaped by context, culture, and community—external forces we’ll explore next.

External Factors: The role of context and professional learning

Even the most adaptable leaders can’t create lasting change in isolation. Schools are living ecosystems influenced by politics, funding, and community expectations. That’s why personal adaptability needs to be paired with structural and cultural support.

Cynthia Coburn’s work (2003) reminds us that context matters when scaling or sustaining change. Schools don’t operate in a vacuum, they’re part of interconnected systems. As leaders, we must account for both internal and external influences as we design and evolve change efforts.

But here’s the thing: navigating change in education isn’t just about implementing an initiative; it’s about scaling it in a way that’s both meaningful and sustainable. And that’s where many well-intentioned people and efforts typically fall short.

Scaling change in schools: Depth before breadth

The challenge in education is not just adapting to change but also scaling it effectively. Coburn challenges us to rethink what it means to scale. It’s not just about how fast or far an idea spreads, it’s about how deeply it takes root. Coburn (2023) claims that scalable and sustainable change rests on three key principles:

• Depth: Ensuring that shifts in practice are deeply understood and embedded individually and/or in small groups before expanding them across a larger system.
• Pacing: Recognizing that real transformation takes time. Avoid rushing for quick wins that don’t last. Respect when timing is out of your control, but don’t stop moving either!
• Breadth/cultural integration: True change aligns with the values and behaviors of the entire organization, and is done with people, not to them.

I often hear myths like “If a change didn’t go systemwide, it wasn’t successful” or “If it didn’t happen on schedule, it failed.” But the real impact doesn’t always follow neat timelines or show up in spreadsheets. Sometimes, helping one person, one team, or one school take a transformative step forward is enough to spark a ripple effect. By utilizing a broader definition of scalability, as well as debunking these myths about scalability of change, sustainability, and impact, individuals like school leaders, groups like boards of education, and districts as communities can authentically navigate change together. And this is where coaching becomes invaluable, it creates the space for leaders (with all different titles) to think deeply, plan intentionally, and navigate change in ways that stick.

Professional learning to address change

Navigating change isn’t just an individual challenge, it’s a collective one. That’s why professional learning is so essential. In education, where complexity is the norm, leaders need high-quality learning experiences to strengthen their capacity to lead through uncertainty.

Jay Bennett (2023) spotlighted the Learning Forward Standards for Professional Learning, which emphasize that learning should be ongoing, collaborative, embedded in daily work, and data-informed. These principles don’t just apply to teachers and students; they’re critical for leaders, too.

While workshops, courses, and peer learning communities all play important roles, in my experience, coaching is one of the most powerful forms of professional learning. Coaching provides personalized, ongoing, just-in-time support that helps leaders build resilience, sharpen strategies, and sustain meaningful change.

Coaching for Change: The power of human connection

Coaching has been a game-changer for me, not just professionally, but personally. At its core, coaching is a relationship built on trust, reflection, and intentional dialogue. It’s about helping leaders like you and me surface ideas, challenge assumptions, and strengthen both mindset and action.

I draw from the work of researchers like Costa, Garmston, Knight, Aguilar, and others, but here’s my personal take:

• Coaching is an intentional set of conversations leveraging structured but authentic dialogue, growing an individual’s self-reflection, exploration of ideas, and the development of new perspectives and skills.
• Coaching occurs in a one-on-one environment, establishing a trusting relationship and a safe space to take risks and be honest. It is also customized based on the unique context (district, community, etc.) and needs of the individual.
• Coaching takes time but is most likely to sustain changes in behavior and mindset in a way that exceeds stand-alone professional development or other forms of learning.

From my own lived experience and research, I’ve seen four clear benefits that coaching brings to the change process:

1. By talking with another person, thinking is made visible, more real, and more actionable.
2. Repeated talking with a trusted person over time increases a person’s internal accountability and external sustainability of a transformation at multiple levels.
3. By engaging with others of various viewpoints and perspectives, new ideas are more likely to be generated. Exposure to different viewpoints challenges assumptions and encourages creative solutions.
4. By spending time in reflection with others, learning deepens, beliefs and mindsets solidify into behaviors, and effective decision-making processes increase.

Also, good coaching is customized to your unique role, your district, and your community. And while it takes time, it creates lasting shifts, far beyond what stand-alone professional development can do.

I know, I’ve lived it. I’ve been coached and have coached others for years. During my time as the Director of Learning Services and Instruction at the Jackson County Intermediate School District, with goals as a leader and a strategic vision for innovation, I found I wanted and needed a trusted person to push my mindset, co-build action and accountability for small steps of change, and much more. So, I invested in an external coach for myself as well as coaching for some leaders on my team. The results? Tangible, meaningful transformation—not just in me, but across the entire organization.

Today, I’m a champion of Leadership Coaching for Innovation, a model designed specifically for education leaders managing complex change and striving for innovation that will make a difference in our schools. Grounded in research and tailored to each leader’s unique context, this coaching approach has helped me and many others harness change as a lever for positive impact.

Conclusion

Change in education isn’t just inevitable—it’s essential. But it doesn’t have to feel overwhelming. When we understand models like allostasis, adopt the right mindsets, and engage in intentional behaviors, we start turning disruption into progress.

And when we add coaching to the equation? That’s when things really shift. Coaching provides the reflection, structure, and human connection that helps leaders like us move from reacting to change to mastering it.

I’ve lived this journey. I’ve seen how coaching has helped me, and countless others, build resilience, deepen purpose, and lead with clarity, even in uncertain times.

So, here’s my invitation to you: Don’t just navigate change. Learn to master it—with support, with intention, and with a coach by your side. Because when you do, change becomes more than something to survive. It becomes your greatest opportunity to lead, grow, and transform your community.

References

Bstan-ʼdzin-rgya-mtsho., Tutu, D., & Abrams, D. C. (2016). The book of joy: Lasting happiness in a changing world. Avery, an imprint of Penguin Random House.

Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond the numbers. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3-12.

Couros, G. (2015). The innovator’s mindset: Empower learning, unleash talent, and lead a culture of creativity. Dave Burgess Consulting.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.

Learning Forward. (2023). Standards for professional learning. Retrieved from https://learningforward.org/standards-for-professional-learning/

MacKenzie, T., & Bathurst-Hunt, R. (2018). Inquiry mindset: nurturing the dreams, wonders, & curiosities of our youngest learners. EdTechTeam Press.

Michigan Virtual. (n.d.). Leadership coaching for innovation. Retrieved from https://michiganvirtual.org/consulting/leadership-coaching-innovation

Spivey, M. & Shulberg, B. (2024, Jan. 2). Podcast: How to make your resolution stick, with ‘Master of Change’ author Brad Stulberg. Retrieved from https://www.spiveyconsulting.com/blog-post/brad-stulberg-podcast

Stulberg, B. (2022). Master of change: How to excel when everything is changing – Including you. HarperOne.

Vance. J. (2022). Leading with a lens of inquiry: Cultivating conditions for curiosity and empowering agency. Elevate Books Edu.

Self-paced asynchronous online courses offer students significant flexibility in when and where learning occurs. Recent research by the Michigan Virtual Research Institute examined how student pacing, particularly the order in which they submit assignments, is related to online STEM and World Language course performance. Understanding students’ pacing behavior and its relationship to course performance can help inform the strategies educators and mentors use when working with students in self-paced online courses.  

In the following interview from our “Interview with a Researcher” blog series, the lead researchers behind Michigan Virtual Learning Research Institute’s (MVLRI) STEM and World Languages reports synthesize some take-home messages about students’ assignment submission patterns. 

Why is it important to consider online learners’ assignment submission patterns? 

Assignment submission patterns are a part of a set of student behaviors called pacing—how students progress through a course. Pacing has traditionally been thought of as the timing of students’ assignment submissions. When conceptualizing pacing in this way, we often ask questions like, Are students waiting until the last minute to submit assignments? Are they submitting assignments early or late? Are they submitting a lot of assignments close together? It’s well-established that the timing of student assignment submissions is related to course outcomes. However, our team wanted to know more about the possible impact of out-of-order assignment submissions because, anecdotally, this was a pattern Michigan Virtual (MV) instructors were noticing within these asynchronous courses. Assignment sequencing is the term we gave to describe the order in which students submit their assignments. When we looked at this behavior across two domains (STEM and World Languages), we found evidence that it is related to course outcomes. Specifically, as students submit more assignments out of their intended course order, final course scores tend to decline.  

Why did you feel like it was important to look at assignment sequencing in World Language courses?

Great question! The original hypothesis that prompted this research was that submitting assignments out of their intended order would be detrimental to student performance because it would undermine the scaffolding built into the courses. So, based on this hypothesis, our first study on assignment sequencing used a sample of students enrolled in Michigan Virtual STEM courses since they are highly scaffolded. Of course, scaffolding is likely to vary by subject area and course, so we felt it was important to expand our research. After preliminary analyses of assignment sequencing in several other subject areas, World Language had a high percentage of students who moved out of alignment with course pacing guides and is a distinct subject area from STEM, making it an ideal choice for expanding our previous research. Looking across these two subject areas also allows us to understand the generalizability of our findings, compare and contrast key differences, and provide data-backed recommendations to instructors and mentors of students in these subject areas. 

What did students’ assignment submission patterns look like in World Language courses? Could you explain the relationship between students’ assignment sequencing and their final course scores?

We found that it was really common for students to deviate from course pacing guides! 97% of students submitted at least one assignment out of alignment with their course pacing guide. Among these students, approximately 45% of completed course assignments were submitted out of order. While the volume of assignments submitted out of order was fairly high, students were about three assignments “off” from the intended pacing guide order.

Looking across the spectrum of student performance, we observed that students’ final course scores steadily declined as their assignment submissions became increasingly out of order, both in terms of the number of assignments submitted out of order and how far “off” students were from the pacing guide expectation. To put this in perspective, students who submitted the fewest assignments out of order had average final course scores as much as a full letter grade higher than students who had the greatest number of assignments submitted out of order. 

You mentioned that the first study in this series looked at assignment sequencing in online STEM courses. Were there any notable differences between that study and this one? Did you see any patterns across these two studies?

The general pattern of results was similar across the two studies in that students’ assignment submission patterns had a relationship with final course scores. The biggest difference, however, was in the percentage of students who went out of order in each subject area. While both studies showed high rates of out-of-sequence behavior, 93% of students went out of order in the STEM study compared to 97% in World Languages. Across both studies, course scores steadily declined as students submitted a greater percentage of assignments out of order and strayed further from the intended assignment sequence. In STEM courses, there was a 9.5 point difference in average final course scores between students with the fewest and greatest number of assignments submitted out of order, whereas in World Language courses, there was a 9.6 point difference. The relationship between assignment sequencing and final course scores was really similar across the two studies, which suggests that monitoring and encouraging proper pacing is important for student performance in both subject areas.

Based on your findings across these two studies, what recommendations do you have for online instructors and mentors?

Our findings indicate that it is common for students to deviate from course pacing guides at least once during their time enrolled in MV online asynchronous courses. Some deviation is to be expected and is unlikely to negatively impact student performance, especially if that deviation is infrequent or small (e.g., within a unit). However, if students are consistently moving between units or submitting a high volume (more than 25%) of their assignments out of order, online instructors may want to flag these behaviors (and students) and monitor for performance declines. 

In general, adhering to best practices for online teaching and mentoring is recommended to help online learners be as successful as possible. Communicating course expectations early on (informing students of the structure, workload, pacing, and demands of self-paced online learning) may help students adjust their expectations and approach to their course(s). Regularly checking the gradebook and benchmarking student progress against course pacing guides can help teachers and mentors identify students who may be struggling with course pacing. Mentors and instructors should also communicate regularly about students’ progress and work collaboratively to address pacing issues.

It is also possible that submitting assignments out of order may have a greater impact on some students’ performance than others. For example, students with less content knowledge may miss key benefits of built-in scaffolding when submitting assignments out of order, which may negatively impact course performance. Further, because the design of these studies limits our ability to make cause-and-effect statements, it is likely that other factors interact with pacing to affect student performance. In particular, encouraging the development of metacognitive, time management, and self-regulated learning skills may help students reflect and make adjustments to their own learning behaviors. In this regard, providing students with personalized feedback may be useful.

Final Thoughts

Across two reports, the relationship between pacing and final course scores has consistently shown that final course scores decline as students become increasingly out of alignment with their course pacing guides. Instructors and mentors can help students succeed by paying particular attention to students’ pacing within their online courses. 

You can check out the full reports below: 

Out of Order, Out of Reach: Navigating Assignment Sequences for STEM Success

Out of Order, Still Out of Reach: Navigating Assignment Sequences for Michigan Virtual World Language Courses

In addition, this blog is part of a blog series exploring the impact of student assignment submission patterns.

Leadership in movies takes many forms; sometimes loud and inspiring, sometimes subtle and behind the scenes, but it’s always evolving. Now, imagine how some iconic characters’ stories might have changed if they had access to Leadership Coaching for Innovation, like the kind offered by Michigan Virtual.

This unique coaching model develops transformational leaders by helping them know, do, and be the change agents their systems need, especially in complex, shifting environments hungry for innovation. Let’s explore how coaching could have reshaped their journeys!

🎓 Tony Stark (Iron Man): Coaching for an Innovator’s Mindset

In Iron Man 2, Tony Stark spirals. He’s reckless, secretive, and resistant to help. Faced with his mortality and legacy, he makes unilateral decisions that strain relationships and destabilize his company. He’s brilliant but reactive, solving problems in isolation and letting ego drive his leadership.

Leadership Coaching for Innovation could have helped Tony reframe innovation from being about individual genius to a shared vision. A coach might prompt reflective questions like:

• Who else should be at the table?
• What assumptions are you making about your role as a leader?
• How might your innovations be more inclusive and sustainable?

Over time, Tony could build psychological safety within his team, allowing diverse perspectives to surface and grow. He might have shifted from burnout-fueled heroics to empowerment and succession planning, as we eventually see with Peter Parker. With coaching, his arc could accelerate from tech-obsessed soloist to a systemic change agent who fosters a culture of curiosity and capacity-building.

💡 Princess Leia (Star Wars): Coaching for Strategic Innovation

Leia Organa continually led through unprecedented challenges, uniting a fragmented Rebel Alliance, coordinating the complex evacuation of Echo Base, and nurturing the next generation of leaders within the Resistance. Leadership Coaching for Innovation would specifically have helped Leia cultivate innovative strategies rather than reacting to immediate threats. Reflective coaching questions might have included:

• How can we leverage collective intelligence to foster innovative solutions across Rebel factions?
• What innovative rapid-response frameworks can we prototype to enhance resilience?
• How might we intentionally build innovation capacity within emerging Resistance leaders?

Through innovation-focused coaching, Leia would move from managing crises to proactively developing resilient, creative, and strategically agile systems, ensuring the long-term strength and adaptability of the Alliance and Resistance alike.

🧠 John Keating (Dead Poets Society): Coaching for Inclusive Innovation

Clearly, Keating was a bold, passionate educator urging students to “seize the day,” to break free from outdated norms and rediscover their voices. He fostered curiosity, inspired creativity, and ignited a love for learning, but within a system that didn’t always recognize or reward risk-taking and was unprepared for his methods, he’s perceived as disruptive.

He knew change was needed, but the path forward seemed lonely, even perilous. What if a coach had been there to ask:

• How might you extend your impact beyond one classroom, without losing your voice or your values?
• What structures or allies could help you protect creativity in an environment built for compliance? Can we co-construct change rather than work around others or exclude them?
• How can you lead innovation in ways that invite others to explore, rather than defend?

A coach wouldn’t have told Keating what to do; they would have held space for the big questions, helped him move from intuition to intentional strategy, and supported him in designing change that inspires without isolating. With a true thought partner, Keating could have shifted from being a solo act of rebellion to a catalyst for collective transformation, rooted in reflection, guided by values, and amplified through strategy and design. This Leadership Coaching for Innovation approach not only sparks imagination but also builds durable innovation networks, so the work doesn’t leave with Keating. It accelerates sparks of vision into concrete, systemic influence.

🌊 Moana (Moana): Coaching for Collaborative Inquiry

In Moana, the eponymous heroine faces ecological decline, cultural inertia, and the burden of leadership, all without formal preparation. She knows the way forward lies in reclaiming her ancestors’ voyaging legacy, but her efforts are initially met with fear and resistance. Leadership Coaching for Innovation would support Moana in navigating adaptive challenges, rather than just technical ones. A coach might help her:

• Map the system she’s trying to influence (elders, youth, family traditions)
• Use collaborative inquiry cycles to surface community wisdom
• Build coalitions of support that anchor change in shared identity

Imagine Moana co-facilitating intergenerational story circles to reconnect the village to its seafaring past. Or co-designing exploratory journeys with her peers, embedding shared leadership and distributed responsibility from the start. Coaching turns her lone quest into community-powered transformation, showing that courage plus systems thinking equals sustainable impact.

🕊️ T’Challa (Black Panther): Coaching for ‘Next-Horizon’ Innovation

Wakanda is a highly advanced, hidden African nation, possessing extraordinary technological advancements due to its exclusive access to the precious metal Vibranium. Historically, Wakanda maintained secrecy and isolation, deliberately hiding its technological superiority to avoid exploitation or conflict. King T’Challa wrestles with Wakanda’s tradition of isolation versus the ethical imperative to aid global communities and share their advancements. Coaching with an embedded element of collaborative inquiry could have provided structured support for him to:

• Strategically engage diverse internal groups (tribal elders, council members, Wakandan citizens) and external international communities
• Use collaborative inquiry methods to ensure inclusivity and shared ownership of the transformative vision

Beyond that, a coach could have challenged T’Challa one-on-one with questions like:

• What might you need to consider (or do) if Vibranium is no longer Wakanda’s greatest advantage? How might you future-proof your leadership and nation beyond your current strengths?
• If success means more than security, what new metrics or milestones might you use to measure Wakanda’s progress in becoming a global force for good?
• What adaptive challenges do you anticipate as you shift from secrecy to openness, and how will you prepare yourself and others to lead through that uncertainty?

Leadership Coaching for Innovation takes leaders from good to GREAT. By leaning into the power of collective intelligence and future-focused journeys, T’Challa would be seen as that “next level” leader that Wakanda needs for generations to come.

🎬 What These Stories Teach Us

While these characters (mostly) aren’t educators, their challenges mirror those of real-life school and district leaders: navigating complex systems, inspiring others, managing change with adaptive approaches, and building sustainable innovation. Transformational leadership doesn’t happen in a vacuum; it grows from intentional reflection, collaborative problem-solving, and strategic risk-taking.

Michigan Virtual’s Leadership Coaching for Innovation equips leaders to meet the moment with clarity and courage as well as make the moments that matter. Through personalized, systemic, and reflective coaching, we help leaders:

• Be curious, uncover, and envision the possibilities
• Reflect deeply on their practice
• Navigate uncertainty with confidence
• Co-create meaningful change within their systems
• Champion innovation that not only advances education into the 21st century but also creates a joyful, purposeful future

Leadership isn’t about having all the answers or being the hero—it’s about asking the right questions, making space for others, and creating conditions where everyone can thrive. Movie magic aside, that’s the kind of leadership that truly changes the world.

✏️ Ready to Lead Your Own Sequel?

You don’t need a movie moment to become a transformational leader. You need a thought partner, an intentional coaching process, and a system that believes in your growth. Michigan Virtual’s Leadership Coaching for Innovation is ready to walk with you; one conversation, one cycle, one courageous act at a time.

👉 Start your coaching journey today.

If you’ve made it this far in the series, chances are something about Leadership Coaching for Innovation has sparked your curiosity—or maybe even your courage. You’ve seen how it works, who it’s for, and why it stands apart from traditional PD. So now what?

The next step is simple—but meaningful: act on that spark.

Whether you already have an idea you’re chasing, a challenge you’re navigating, or just a feeling that there’s something more you could do to serve students, this is your invitation to take the leap.

Because here’s the truth: innovation rarely comes from a lightning bolt. It comes from small, intentional steps—shifting your thinking, testing an idea, reflecting deeply, and trying again. And that kind of work doesn’t happen in isolation. It happens in conversation. In partnership. In practice.

That’s what Leadership Coaching for Innovation offers: not a prescription or a playbook, but a trusted thought partner to help you navigate the messiness of change and discover what’s possible in your own context.

In the MiSoundBoard podcast, Don Wotruba and I talked about how lonely leadership can be—and often innovation can feel even lonelier unless you intentionally reach out. So many leaders are doing heroic work behind the scenes, but without anyone to think with, push them, or hold space for their learning. That’s the gap this coaching service is designed to fill.

So, whether you’re ready to define your next move—or just wondering what’s possible—know this: you don’t have to do it alone.

Reach out. Start the conversation. Let’s explore what Leadership Coaching for Innovation could look like for you.

We’re all familiar with the typical rhythms of professional development: workshops, webinars, maybe a conference or two. While these experiences can spark ideas, they often fall short when it comes to real, lasting transformation. That’s because true change doesn’t happen in a single day. It happens over time, in context, and through trusted relationships.

That’s where Leadership Coaching for Innovation stands apart.

This service isn’t confined to a training calendar or a specific time of year. It’s designed to be timely, responsive, and completely flexible to meet your needs. Whether you’re preparing to launch a new initiative, struggling with implementation, or still brainstorming your vision, the coaching adapts to your pace, not the other way around.

You choose the cadence. Some leaders engage in weekly or bi-weekly conversations during high-stakes moments. Others check in monthly as they build toward a bigger shift. What matters most is that it’s ongoing, not a one-and-done session. The work evolves alongside you.

And where does it happen? Wherever you are. Leadership Coaching for Innovation can be delivered virtually, one-on-one, so your coach can meet with you in your space and schedule. No travel. Or, we can come to you, wherever you feel comfortable. Again, make the best out of your time and resources, and just how you like it.

In my conversation with MASB’s Don Wotruba on the MiSoundBoard podcast, we talked about how this coaching model offers something that traditional PD simply can’t: internal accountability and external sustainability. It helps you think through problems, generate new ideas, and—most importantly—stick with it. The coaching relationship provides a space for honest reflection, real-time course correction, and a rhythm of learning that supports long-term transformation.

When you’re leading change, timing matters. Support matters. Having someone who’s just for you, at just the right time, matters most.

When people hear the phrase “Leadership Coaching for Innovation,” they often assume it’s just for superintendents or central office leaders navigating large-scale transformation. And yes, those roles are an ideal match—but this kind of coaching is so much broader than a job title.

Leadership Coaching for Innovation is for any educator or leader who sees potential in people and processes and is ready to take action to shape the future of their school, district, or organization. Whether you’re an assistant superintendent designing a new instructional model, a building principal with a bold idea for student engagement, or an emerging leader simply looking to grow, this service is for you.

As I shared in the recent MiSoundBoard podcast with MASB’s Don Wotruba, innovation isn’t about waiting until your schedule clears or until you have the “perfect” role. It’s about having the courage to ask, What if…? and the commitment to explore what’s possible now.

And because every leader’s context, goals, and experiences are unique, the right-fit coach matters more than anything.

At Michigan Virtual, our Leadership Coaching for Innovation team is intentional about match-making. We take time to listen deeply through a discovery process to understand your innovation goals, leadership style, and personal strengths and constraints. From there, we help pair you with a coach who has the right experience and gets you. Someone who knows how to listen, challenge, support, and walk alongside you with no side agenda—just the goal of helping you lead with impact.

And when the fit is right? Everything changes. Conversations deepen. Confidence grows. Ideas evolve. Action takes root.

So if you’ve been wondering whether Leadership Coaching for Innovation is “for you,” the answer might be simpler than you think: Do you want to grow? Do you want to lead change, not just manage it? Then yes—it’s for you.

This is part one of a four-part series about Leadership Coaching for Innovation.

If you’ve worked in education for any amount of time, you’ve probably felt that tension between what we know is possible for students and the realities of the systems we lead. The truth is, schools weren’t built for the world we live in today, and meaningful change can feel hard, messy, and even lonely.

That’s exactly why Leadership Coaching for Innovation exists.

Leadership Coaching for Innovation isn’t just another leadership program. In fact, it’s not a program at all; it’s a personalized, one-on-one service, and more than that, it’s a way of thinking, learning, and leading. It’s built on authentic relationships, trust, and deep, context-driven support that meets leaders exactly where they are.

Innovation doesn’t always mean massive disruption or overhauling huge systems.

Sometimes, it’s as simple as shifting your own perspective and being inspired by new ideas, testing a new instructional approach, or designing opportunities to think differently about what’s possible for your school or district. At Michigan Virtual, we define innovation across a spectrum—from generating new ideas, combining existing practices in unique ways, and making space for curiosity, creativity, and what’s possible.

In the latest episode of the MiSoundBoard podcast, I had the chance to talk with Don Wotruba of MASB about this work. We explored how Leadership Coaching for Innovation equips education leaders with the mindset, competencies, tools, and trusted thought partnership they need to move from ideas to action AND from action to sustainable change.

Leadership Coaching for Innovation isn’t a static model or a fixed set of steps. It’s a flexible, responsive learning experience that evolves with you, your context, and your vision for transformation. Whether you’re trying to define an innovation, design a new approach, or lead your team through complex implementation, this kind of coaching meets you and the moment.

So, why now?

Because change is already happening. The question is whether we’ll shape it, or just react to it. Leadership Coaching for Innovation offers the clarity, courage, and community needed to lead with intention and impact.

Introduction

Michigan’s Top Ten Strategic Education Plan was adopted in August 2020 to guide K-12 education stakeholders in working toward a common set of goals. The second goal on the list is to “Improve early literacy achievement” (Michigan Department of Education, n.d.). In recent years, small declines in Michigan students’ performance on the reading portion of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (The Nation’s Report Card, n.d.) have emphasized the need for this goal, as well as the need for new interventions that will boost students’ literacy skills. In Fall 2024, Michigan Virtual, a key stakeholder in the education success of K-12 students in Michigan, partnered with Shoelace Learning to run a pilot aimed directly at tackling this goal.

Shoelace Learning is an educational technology company focused on building students’ reading comprehension skills through video games. Michigan Virtual worked with Shoelace Learning to implement their games in 13 elementary classrooms across Michigan to study whether these games would improve students’ confidence and literacy skills.

Literacy in the US

Literacy is an important skill with wide-reaching implications for all ages. A study by the Annie E. Casey Foundation noted that children who were not proficient in reading by the end of third grade were four times more likely to drop out of high school than reading-proficient peers (Hernandez, 2011). Those who continue to have poor literacy levels in secondary school often experience difficulty throughout and beyond school (Hakkarainen et al., 2016; The Children’s Reading Foundation, n.d.). Indeed, insufficient literacy skills in adulthood can have financial impacts, as adults with low literacy skills are more likely to be unemployed than adults with high literacy skills (The National School Boards Association, 2014). Educators and policymakers have recognized literacy’s importance and the need to help students develop strong skills early (Michigan Department of Education, 2024).

Over the years, many reading interventions have been implemented with the hopes of improving K-12 literacy with varied success. Interventions, such as small-group and motivational reading have been shown to positively impact students’ reading abilities (Hall & Burns, 2018; McBreen & Savage, 2021). Unrau et al. (2018) and Moon et al. (2017) have also highlighted that increasing reading enjoyment and self-efficacy may also help students to engage and persist in reading. But, most importantly, early interventions seem to be crucial for struggling readers (Wanzek et al., 2018).

Gamification

Gamification in education, creating game-like experiences to engage learners with content and help them progress toward a goal, has become a popular intervention strategy in recent years (Dehghanzadeh et al., 2024). Gamification has shown promise in improving behavioral, affective, and cognitive/learning outcomes in K-12 settings, and this may, in part, be attributed to its ability to engage and motivate students (Dehghanzadeh et al., 2024; Huang et al., 2020; Prados Sánchez et al., 2021; Sailer & Homer, 2020). While gamification has been shown to engage students in the task at hand, its ability to improve student outcomes has been mixed and can hinge on various factors related to game design, the context in which it is delivered, and learner characteristics (Dehghanzadeh et al., 2024). For this reason, this pilot was conducted to examine Shoelace Learning’s reading comprehension games to evaluate them both on their ability to engage and motivate students and, even more importantly, on their ability to impact student learning.

Study

Given the promise of gamification for engaging students, the goal was to examine the impact that providing teachers with games designed to engage students in reading comprehension could have on literacy rates. The current study was designed to assess teachers’ perceptions of Shoelace (both in terms of the impact on their students and the ease of use in their classrooms), student engagement with the platform, and the efficacy of the games in improving literacy skills. The pilot lasted for eight weeks and consisted of 13 teachers and their classes, all from Michigan.

Design

The main component of the pilot was the eight-week period of play for the students. However, the teachers started their participation a couple of weeks in advance by first participating in a 60-minute orientation and introduction to Shoelace Learning. During this orientation, teachers were provided with an overview of the Shoelace platform and teacher dashboard, including examples of gameplay, assessments, reporting, and assignments.

While teachers had considerable autonomy over how they implemented Shoelace in their classrooms, they were asked to have their students play for a minimum of 30 minutes each week for the eight weeks. During this play period, Michigan Virtual researchers conducted roundtable discussions with many of the teachers and students, and Shoelace employees also did in-class visits with a number of the classrooms. 

Following the eight weeks of play, gameplay data was collected, and the teachers received a survey that assessed their perceptions of students’ reading comprehension, enjoyment, and confidence, and the usability of Shoelace in the classroom.

Participants

Thirteen participants were recruited through the Michigan Elementary and Middle School Principals Association (MEMSPA). They came from six school districts with which Michigan Virtual had existing relationships. In return for participating, Michigan Virtual provided teachers with Shoelace access for two years, from September 2024 to June 2026, and a $150 stipend upon completing the pilot.

Table 1 provides an overview of the 13 classes that participated. 

Table 1 – Grade level and number of students for each participating class.

Shoelace

Shoelace is an online platform that provides reading comprehension practice through game-based delivery and is intended for students in grades 3-8. In order to progress in the games, students must correctly answer reading comprehension questions. The reading comprehension questions cover over 100 different reading skills and are each assigned a grade and difficulty level. The questions may be delivered in conjunction with a short reading passage. These bundles (questions + passage) are used to evaluate students’ overall Reading Comprehension Level (RCL). Students also encounter standalone questions, which are questions that do not have a corresponding passage and instead focus on specific skill development.

There are two games that students can choose to play: Dreamscape or Dreamseeker Drift. Dreamscape is a strategy game that is similar to Clash of Clans and is built around a central “vision core,” a diamond-like structure that players must protect and level up to progress. Dreamseeker Drift is an endless runner in a similar vein to Subway Surfers, where players aim to achieve the longest “run” possible by avoiding obstacles. In both games, in order to engage with the game elements (for example, buy new avatars and skins, compete in challenges, or start new runs) students must correctly answer reading comprehension questions.

Gameplay data reported by Shoelace:

• Learning Moments Delivered (LMD): The number of questions a player answered (regardless of correctness). 
• Reading Comprehension Level (RCL): A leveling system based on passage (e.g., sentence structure, vocabulary) and question difficulty. The scale ranges from 1.0 to 8.9, with the first number representing grade level (e.g., 3.4 is grade 3) and the second indicating progress towards the next grade level (e.g., 0.4 indicates approximately halfway through the level).

Results

Participating classrooms were expected to have students use Shoelace for 30 minutes per week for eight weeks. As time data was not available, prior Shoelace data showing that 30 minutes of quality play was equivalent to approximately 25 LMD was used instead. For the purpose of our evaluation, student fidelity is defined as students who played a minimum of seven weeks (to provide flexibility for absences) with an average of 25 LMD per week. As Table 2 shows, fidelity varied across participating classrooms. For classroom fidelity, we modified this definition to be that 80% of the students in the class played with fidelity. As shown in the next section, a class or student who did not meet the fidelity benchmarks should not be interpreted as the class or student did not play (or even that they played very little). While 58.7% of students played with fidelity, 91% of students had a minimum of five weeks of participation.

Table 2 – Participation and fidelity levels by class. Classes marked with an * achieved class level fidelity.

Student and Class Participation

A student was considered to have participated in a given week if they answered a minimum of one LMD. Total class participation (active # of students / total students in class * 100) provided insight into what percentage of a class played. Students were free to play either game during the eight-week pilot period so the following discussion will be agnostic as to which game they played. Of the 300 students across the 13 classes, 299 of them (or 99.7%) played at least once. 

Figure 1 shows the average percentage of active students per week. From week to week, participation ranged from about 71% to 91%. There was no clear trend, with participation fluctuating from week to week but overall staying relatively high between approximately 80 and 90%. The largest gain was seen from weeks 2 to 3 of 9.7%, while the largest loss happened between weeks 5 and 6 of about 6.7%.

Figure 1 – Percent of students who played by week.

At the class level, as seen in Table 3, participation fluctuated more widely from week to week, as most weeks’ classes either had most everyone play or no one play. Class 3 was the main outlier, as max participation never surpassed 60% in a given week.

Table 3 – Min, max, and average participation levels by class.

Learning Moments Delivered (LMD), Accuracy and Guessing

Learning Moments Delivered (LMD) represents a single question attempted by a student (regardless of whether they got it right or wrong). On average, students attempted 721 LMD over the eight-week period. Excluding the one student who did not participate, the number of LMD earned over the period showed large variation, as they ranged from a low of 3 to a max of 6,858. Similarly, when looked at by weekly averages, students ranged from a low of 1 to a high of 859. Figure 2 highlights the variation in student data.

Figure 2 – Percent of students grouped by their average weekly LMD counts. Target was ≥25 LMD/week.

In addition to looking at the total number of LMD, student accuracy was also examined. Accuracy was calculated by dividing the number of correctly answered questions by the total number of questions students attempted. Table 4 shows the min, max, and average accuracy by class and overall. Students averaged an accuracy rate of 50.2%, with a minimum of 26.7% and a maximum of 94.7%.

Table 4 – Min, max, average accuracy by class over the eight-week period. 

Prior Shoelace data shows that maintaining an accuracy rate of 50% or higher from their learning engine is suggestive of positive use and learning results. Because the learning engine will periodically introduce incrementally more difficult content to determine if students are ready to engage with it, student accuracy rates will not be akin to, nor should they be compared to, those produced from summative assessments. Accuracy rates between 40-50% usually indicate students are struggling more with the content and may be turning to guessing (something often seen with students whose reading comprehension is too low for the program). Accuracy rates that fall below 40% are generally indicative of students who have primarily turned to guessing.

Reading Comprehension Levels (RCL)

Reading Comprehension Level (RCL) is Shoelace’s leveling system based on passage and question difficulty. RCL, thus, provides important information about students’ progress and reading abilities over the course of their engagement with Shoelace. A student’s RCL can range from 1.0 to 8.9. The first digit represents the grade, and the value after the decimal represents progress towards the next grade. An RCL of 3.4 would mean the student is reading at a grade 3 level and approximately 40% of the way to grade 4. Most students in a class had RCL data available (97.9%, SD = 0.04). 

The first RCL value that students receive is set by the placement test that is initiated upon a student’s first play session. The placement test is a quick assessment designed to adjust the starting point for the learning engine. The placement test results in a value between 1.0 and 8.5 in increments of 0.5. At the start of the pilot, the average RCL after the placement test was 2.0, with a range from 1.0 to 6.5. By the end of the 8 weeks, the average RCL value was 2.1, with a range of 1.0 to 6.6. 

Figure 3 shows the average change by class. On average, classes showed an increase of 0.13 RCL, with a range of -0.1 to 0.4.

Figure 3 – Average start vs end RCL by class.

Table 5 shows how many students fall into specific RCL Change groupings based on whether they played with fidelity. RCL Change data was available for 295 out of 299 (98.7%) students. One hundred and seventy-five students played with fidelity, while 120 did not. Of the 175 students (59.3%) who played with fidelity, 97 (55.4%) saw an RCL Change of greater than 0.0, and 75.4% of those had an RCL Change value greater than 0.2. Taking a look at the 120 students who did not play with fidelity (40.7%), 40 (33.3%) saw an RCL Change of greater than 0.0 while 20 (50.0%) saw RCL Change values of greater than 0.2.

Table 5 – RCL changes by student based on fidelity of play.

Teacher Perceptions

At the end of the eight-week play period, the 13 teachers filled out a survey about their perceptions of how playing Shoelace games impacted students’ reading confidence, comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, and enjoyment. The vast majority of the teachers reported that they believed using Shoelace increased or significantly increased their students’ confidence in reading (n=10), reading comprehension (n=10), fluency (n=10), vocabulary development (n=12), and enjoyment of reading (n=12). Of those teachers who did not report an increase, they all reported no changes (n=1-3). Table 6 provides a closer look at teachers’ ratings of student outcomes.

Table 6 – Teacher ratings of student growth.

Teachers were also asked about how easy or difficult they found it to include Shoelace in their classroom and how well it aligned to their curriculum and their daily teaching. Table 7 shows that the vast majority of teachers were satisfied or very satisfied with all aspects of Shoelace usability (n=11-12).

Table 7 – Teacher perceptions of Shoelace usability

Discussion

Class Participation and Engagement

Class-level engagement patterns appear consistent with teachers’ self-reported data about the usability and impact of Dreamseeker Drift and Dreamscape. Survey data collected from teachers indicated a positive experience overall, with 11 of the 13 teachers satisfied or very satisfied with integrating Shoelace into the curriculum, their daily teaching, and its use as a teaching tool. There was, however, considerable variation in engagement levels across classes and fluctuations in both the percentage of active students and average LMD over the eight-week pilot period. While only five of the classes were identified as having reached the benchmark for class-level fidelity, and while a few of the classes had very few students who hit the individual student benchmark for fidelity, overall, 58.7% of students played with fidelity. This percentage of player fidelity can be deemed as highly positive, as research by Stanhope and Rectanus (2015) has shown that for most products, on average only 5.2% of student licenses reach full dosage amounts.

The LMD values across the pilot at both the individual student and class level revealed substantial variability, which also likely points to both between- and within-class differences in-game use. From the survey results and the roundtable discussions with the teachers, this may also be a result of the learning curve the teachers identified in implementing the games in their classrooms. Given this, along with the autonomy they were given over their individual implementations, these results are not surprising. Similarly, the differences in weekly LMD averages and accuracy are also likely impacted by factors such as class time, other commitments, how teachers chose to implement Shoelace, ease of implementation, student perceptions, or students’ reading abilities. 

The overall activation rate (students who played at least once) of 99.7% significantly exceeded the industry standard of an average student license activation rate of 63.4% across school and district sites (Stanhope & Rectanus, 2015). This exceptionally high activation rate may reflect positive teacher perceptions of the platform’s curricular alignment and/or teacher commitment to implementation fidelity, given that they were taking part in a paid research pilot period. While outside motivators may have influenced activation and the continual engagement with the platform, the volume of students who answered large numbers of LMD (71.3% attempted ≥200 LMD) show that the games did engage the vast majority of the classes’ and students’ interest over the entire pilot period.

Impact on Literacy Skills

Shoelace assigns students their first Reading Comprehension Level (RCL) at the end of the initial placement test. After that, their RCL value is updated each time a student completes a passage and question bundle. How it changes (increasing, decreasing, or staying the same) depends on how the student performs (accuracy over the entire bundle), the difficulty of the passage, and the students’ current RCL. RCL values range from 1.0 to 8.9. For this study, changes to students’ RCL over the eight-week period were used as a proxy for the improvement of their literacy skills. 

While the classes in the study ranged from grades 2 through 5, the students’ initial placement test results revealed that the students’ abilities covered a much larger range from a 1.0 (equivalent to the start of grade 1) to 6.5 (equivalent to about halfway through grade 6) with an average value of 2.0. This distribution of grades reflects the challenge of trying to teach students with a wide variation of skill level, which teachers frequently encounter in their classrooms.

By the end of the eight weeks, the range had widened slightly (1.0 to 6.6) but more interesting was the increase to the average RCL to 2.1. While a 0.1 increase may sound minor, each 0.1 step on the RCL scale can be viewed as roughly equivalent to a month’s progress (given a 10-month school year). When the data was dug into further, of the students who played with fidelity, 55.4% had at least a 0.1 increase and 42% had an increase of at least 0.3, or three or more months’ worth of growth in 8 weeks. Of the students who didn’t reach fidelity with their play, 33.3% had an increase of at least 0.1 and 16.7% of them showed 3 or more months of growth. These values demonstrated the relationship between consistent gameplay and positive change in RCL. 

In addition to these results, the survey and conversations with teachers showed that the teachers were also seeing positive literacy growth. From the survey results, a minimum of 76.9% of the teachers (or 10 of the 13) saw increases in students’ confidence, comprehension, fluency, vocabulary and enjoyment.

Limitations of the Study

Classrooms were expected to play either of the Shoelace games for a minimum of 30 minutes a week for each of the eight weeks of the pilot. At the class level, a class was considered to have met this goal and to have played with fidelity if a minimum of 80% of their students played with fidelity (reduced to provide flexibility). Even with this reduced benchmark, only 38.5% (or 5 of the 13) classes that participated met the fidelity threshold. At the individual level, students did slightly better, with 58.7% of them meeting their fidelity definition of a minimum of seven weeks played and answering a minimum average of 25 LMD per week. 

There are many reasons for students and classes not to have hit the benchmark for fidelity, including (but not limited to) time limitations, unknown barriers to implementation (i.e. confusion around gameplay), and student (or teacher) absences. Overall, while the number of classes that achieved fidelity was low, as the data above has shown, there is a good reason to set the bar for fidelity high and to push for this level of usage. 

The irregular usage may also imply barriers to consistent implementation (e.g., time) or perceptions about Shoelace’s usability or impact that were not captured by survey data. Indeed, whole-class conversations revealed that many teachers perceived Shoelace as having somewhat of a learning curve and that it required them to be “hands-on” while their students were engaged with the games. Students had overall positive perceptions of the games, with many talking enthusiastically about them. However, they also noted that more detailed in-game help would be beneficial. While a training session was provided to teachers at the start of the pilot, and additional training material made available, conversations from the teachers who received in-person visits by the Shoelace team revealed that additional face-to-face (vs asynchronous) training was extremely useful, especially once their class had started to play and the teachers had a clearer understanding of where they wanted and needed further information and training. The time and effort required to implement Dreamseeker Drift and Dreamscape may have impacted some teachers’ classroom use.

Conclusion

Students with low literacy skills struggle throughout their entire K-12 educational journey, but the impact does not end there. It will follow them throughout their adult life, affecting everything from the jobs they have to their financial health. Addressing this problem is the second goal of Michigan’s Top Ten Strategic Education Plan. Michigan Virtual and Shoelace Learning partnered together to run an eight-week pilot to examine whether using Shoelace games in Michigan classrooms would improve students’ confidence and literacy skills. 

The results of this study strongly indicate that Shoelace games result in gains in student literacy and confidence, with four important notes:

1. Fidelity of usage is important. The students who played most consistently across the eight weeks showed the greatest gains, with 42% of them seeing the equivalent of at least 3 months of reading growth. 
2. There is a learning curve for teachers, and they need training and support to overcome it. An initial overview and introduction to the platform is not enough, teachers need follow up once their students have started playing to address any questions and concerns that come up in the classroom. 
3. Engagement was high. While the educators who chose to participate did receive a stipend and two-year Shoelace licenses for doing so, that doesn’t discount just how high participation levels remained throughout the pilot and beyond. More than half the students answered over 300 LMD over the eight-week pilots, and more than 80% were still playing more than two months after the conclusion of the pilot.
4. Teachers’ positive perceptions of Shoelace and its impact on students’ skills were high. The vast majority of the teachers indicated that their students improved their confidence, comprehension, fluency, vocabulary, and overall enjoyment. A similar majority found that it met their curriculum and daily teaching needs. 

The combination of the pilot data and the teachers’ positive perceptions points to the overall utility of Shoelace as a tool for teachers looking to improve their students’ reading comprehension.

References

Hakkarainen, A. M., Holopainen, L. K., & Savolainen, H. K. (2016). The impact of learning difficulties and
socioemotional and behavioural problems on transition to postsecondary education or work life in Finland: a five-year follow-up study. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31(2), 171, 186.https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1095058

Hall, M. S., & Burns, M. K. (2018). Meta-analysis of targeted small-group reading interventions. Journal of School Psychology, 66, 54-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.11.002

Hernandez, D. J. (2011). Double jeopardy: How third-grade reading skills and poverty influence high school graduation. Annie E. Casey Foundation. https://www.aecf.org/resources/double-jeopardy

Huang, R., Ritzhaupt, A. D., Sommer, M., & et al. (2020). The impact of gamification in educational settings on student learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68, 1875–1901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09807-z

McBreen, M., & Savage, R. (2021). The impact of motivational reading instruction on the reading achievement and motivation of students: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 33(3), 1125-1163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09584-4

Michigan Department of Education. (2024, September 26). Child Literacy Would Improve Under Bills Passed by Michigan Lawmakers. https://www.michigan.gov/mde/news-and-information/press-releases/2024/09/26/child-literacy-would-improve-under-bills-passed-by-michigan-lawmakers

Michigan Department of Education. (n.d.). Michigan’s Top 10 Strategic Education Plan.
https://www.michigan.gov/mde/-/media/Project/Websites/mde/top10/top_10_mi_strategic_ed_plan_promising_practices_1_pager.pdf?rev=13e8d60cd2be4ab4aa6f3cd86bbcf532&hash=5002C7DD79CA084D872FC3C1053603C2

Moon, A.L., Wold, C.M. & Francom, G.M. Enhancing Reading Comprehension with Student-Centered iPad Applications. TechTrends 61, 187–194 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0153-1

National School Boards Association: Center for Public Education. (2014, October). Beyond fiction: The importance of reading for information. https://cdn-files.nsba.org/s3fs-public/Beyond-Fiction-Full-Report-PDF.pdf

Prados Sánchez, G., Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., del Olmo-Muñoz, J., & González-Calero, J. A. (2021). Impact of a gamified platform in the promotion of reading comprehension and attitudes towards reading in primary education. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(4), 669–693.https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1939388

Sailer, M., & Homner, L. (2020). The gamification of learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology
Review, 32, 77–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09498-w

Stanhope, D. & Rectanus, K. (2015). Current realities of EdTech use: Research brief. Lea(R)n, Inc.
https://www.ikzadvisors.com/wp-content/uploads/CurrentRealitiesOfEdTechUse_Infographic_ResearchBrief.pdf

The Children’s Reading Foundation. What’s The Impact? (n.d.). https://readingfoundation.org/the-impact

The Nation’s Report Card. (n.d.). National achievement-level results.
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/achievement/?grade=8

Unrau, N. J., Rueda, R., Son, E., Polanin, J. R., Lundeen, R. J., & Muraszewski, A. K. (2018). Can reading self-efficacy be modified? A meta-analysis of the impact of interventions on reading self-efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 167-204.

Wanzek, J., Stevens, E. A., Williams, K. J., Scammacca, N., Vaughn, S., & Sargent, K. (2018). Current Evidence on the Effects of Intensive Early Reading Interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 51(6), 612–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219418775110

How AI Makes Instructional Design Easier 

Automate Tasks and Spark Creativity 

AI can take on a lot of the heavy lifting, helping IDs work smarter, not harder. When creativity stalls, text-based LLMs (Large Language Models) like ChatGPT or Claude can jump in with fresh ideas for lessons or visuals, helping bring concepts to life. Beyond brainstorming, these AI models are trained to understand and generate human-like text, making them ideal for simplifying time-consuming tasks like drafting course outlines, generating quizzes, and summarizing complex materials.  This allows IDs to focus on making the content engaging and relevant for learners.  

Improve Collaboration with Experts 

AI doesn’t just benefit IDs; it also helps subject matter experts (SMEs) make the most of their time. By handling initial drafts of lesson scripts, course descriptions, or assessments, AI enables SMEs to focus on reviewing and refining content instead of starting from scratch. This streamlined process reduces the back-and-forth between SMEs and IDs, making it easier to move from a concept to a polished course. 

Keep Clients in the Loop 

AI also makes it easier to communicate ideas early in the design process. Quick content drafts or short avatar videos created with D-ID or HeyGen allow clients to see the vision and provide feedback sooner. This is a big shift from relying only on course outlines, giving designers a more dynamic way to ensure everyone is on the same page from the start. 

The Power of a Great Prompt Library 

Using AI to spark creativity, automate tasks, and improve communication is made easier by a well-developed prompt library. A prompt library is a set of clear instructions that records ready-made prompts that IDs, SMEs, and other content developers can use to quickly generate well-structured quizzes, engaging and educational scripts, or to summarize the notes or transcript from a recent meeting.  

Creating a good library involves determining content types, crafting precise prompts that capture all the elements needed for the deliverable, and then testing and tweaking until they deliver consistent results. This sometimes requires testing across multiple LLMs to get the output you desire. The key is to share the prompt library with all team members so that each person is using the most up-to-date prompt. Team members should record: 

• The prompts they are using, 
• The tool or LLM they used, 
• The last date of use  

A well-developed prompt library speeds up design and ensures consistent style and tone across all content (regardless of who creates it), allowing instructional designers to focus on developing impactful, learner-centered experiences that align with educational objectives.

For teams further along in AI integration, custom GPTs or tools like CreatorUp’s Daisy with pre-engineered prompts streamline workflows even more. These tools apply the latest engines and prompts automatically, reducing the need for manual prompt referencing and delivering optimal results with ease.

How Generative AI Brings Multimedia and Stories to Life 

AI’s impact goes beyond just saving time. It’s also a powerful tool for storytelling and multimedia creation. It can transform dry lessons into interactive adventures, using videos, animations, and dynamic visuals to bring complex ideas to life. Imagine turning a history lesson into a virtual journey where learners are guided through major events, transforming what was once a boring lecture into an engaging story. With the right prompts and tools, AI helps IDs create learning experiences that connect with learners, making abstract concepts more accessible and memorable. 

AI Storytelling Workflows that Work 

To get the most out of AI storytelling, workflows like the one below provide a step-by-step framework, whether you are combining multiple tools or using all-in-one solutions. 

Beyond the workflow, below are some specific use cases IDs can use as a starting point to make storytelling efforts more efficient. 

Use Case #1 – Create Consistent Characters

With Midjourney or Figma, you can create a character for a course.  Then, tweak prompts or work with a graphic designer to adjust facial expressions and positions for that character to appear across different lessons in the course, keeping visuals consistent. 

Use Case #2 – Quick Video Production

If you are taking the DIY approach, tools like Open AI’s ChatGPT or Anthropic’s Claude, can easily handle script-writing based on learning objectives. While tools like HeyGen add visual magic, creating a streamlined way to produce educational videos.  

If you’ve got an all-in-one AI tool aggregator like Daisy from CreatorUp, you can create a pipeline to have the output from one step automatically become the input to the next.   

Regardless of which tool you choose, IDs and content developers can create engaging content quickly without sacrificing quality. 

Watch Video 

Use Case #3 – Building Scenarios

If you are using a mix of tools, you might start with a text-based LLM to draft a script and storyboard, then use visual tools like Midjourney to create graphics and plug them all into Runway to create interactive video.  While this use case does require an editor, the resulting interactive simulations offer a space where learners can test their knowledge in lifelike scenarios, creating a more immersive and impactful learning experience. 

Picking the Right Tools for the Job 

Choosing the right AI tools depends on your project’s needs. For quick drafts and brainstorming, widely available AI tools – like Midjourney, HeyGen, ChatGPT, and more – can be a great starting point. They’re flexible and easy to access, making them ideal for projects where speed is a priority.  

For teams that require more control and privacy, specialized AI tools like Daisy offer a balance of pre-built prompts and stronger privacy features, making them better suited for teams where privacy and confidentiality are paramount.  

For those who want the most customized experience, combining specialized tools with custom-built AI solutions can automate tasks like creating quizzes or interactive scenarios and deliver them to your brand and editorial standards, saving even more time. While it takes more time to set up, this approach provides a tailored experience that can adapt to unique project requirements. 

Navigating AI’s Challenges 

While AI can speed up content creation, there are still challenges to overcome: 

Challenge #1: Getting It Right 

AI might be fast, but it still requires a human touch to ensure accuracy and alignment with learning goals.  AI can struggle with seemingly simple details, from getting hands right in visuals and capturing the exact tone needed to more complex elements, like ensuring learning goals are actually met. 

This is where subject matter experts, instructional designers, and creative professionals like scriptwriters, producers, and editors come in. They help refine AI-generated content, making sure it reads well, looks polished, and captures the right tone. More importantly, a skilled human review of the full body of generated content ensures that client goals are achieved and that educational standards are satisfied in a way that makes the learning journey logical, effective, and engaging. Effective human and AI collaboration can create high-quality content that is coherent, meaningful, and truly hits home. 

Challenge #2: Staying Fair, Inclusive, and Accessible 

AI can sometimes reflect biases from the data it learns from, making it essential for IDs to review outputs for fairness and accessibility. This means double-checking AI-generated content to ensure it is balanced, accurate, and respectful while considering the needs of all learners. For accessibility, content developers should ensure that videos include accurate captions, text content is screen reader-friendly, and visuals are clearly labeled with alt-text for those with visual impairments. While automated tools like voice-to-text can help, we still need a human to review and maintain accuracy. By doing this, educators can ensure that the content is inclusive and accessible to all, providing a better experience for everyone. 

Challenge #3: Bringing Educators Onboard 

While the benefits of AI are easy to articulate and almost feel magical at times,  there are also valid concerns for educators and instructional designers alike. Just as any change can feel like a threat, AI must be introduced, modeled, and supported from the top down. This applies to administrators and leaders in the workplace, as well as teachers in the classroom. There is no doubt that AI will continue to evolve and be integrated even further into the day-to-day technology in use at work, school, and home. As educators, it is our job to help prepare students to leverage the best parts of AI to understand the potential risks to privacy and academic integrity and to manage other issues we’ve yet to uncover.

The issues around integrity are especially sensitive to educators. In other industries, using AI to help compose (for example) marketing copy or an email isn’t necessarily frowned upon. However, using AI to compose an assignment definitely is. It’s important for educators to realize that AI can be used for so many other things to lighten their load. For example,  AI translation tools can instantly create identical but translated materials to support students from diverse linguistic backgrounds, creating a more inclusive classroom environment.  AI tools can be used to quickly generate individualized makeup work, supplemental worksheets, review packets, or generate assignments tailored to meet different learner needs. Ultimately, when used thoughtfully, AI has the potential to augment and enhance the teaching profession, freeing up instructors to focus on high-touch, high-value tasks that require human empathy and creativity.

The Future of AI in Instructional Design: What’s Next?  

As AI continues to evolve, the future of instructional design holds even greater potential. The next wave of AI innovations will likely focus on more personalized learning experiences, allowing educators to tailor content to individual learner needs in real time. Enhanced AI-driven analytics could provide deeper insights into learner engagement and progress, enabling designers to adjust courses dynamically. AI could further simplify multimedia creation, making it easier to produce immersive, interactive learning environments. The challenge ahead lies in balancing this powerful technology with ethical considerations, ensuring that AI serves as a tool to support everyone involved in education—from instructional designers and administrators to teachers and support staff—while enhancing learning for students. It’s about harnessing AI to enrich the educational experience without losing the essential human touch.