Implementing I-CORT during AI-Enhanced Teaching and Learning: A Relational Framework for Educational Efficacy and Student-Teacher Trust-building

 

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into education presents professional educators and educational leaders with an opportunity that extends beyond technological innovation. It challenges educational institutions to reconsider the fundamental nature of teaching, learning, assessment, human relationships, and professional responsibility. One consideration for this evolving new frontier of teaching and learning was discussed by Prothero in her article: “How AI Suspicions Are Undermining Student-Teacher Relationships” (Education Week, September 30, 2026), which drew further attention to research conducted at Harvard University's Center for Digital Thriving  by Tench, Weinstein, James, Starks and Konrath (2026).

Inspired by both, this treatise will seek to further address the realistic concern resulting in institutional preoccupation with detecting AI-assisted cheating, which may unintentionally undermine the very relationships that make effective teaching and learning possible. Let’s begin with highlighting an important distinction: AI implementation should strengthen the conditions for learning rather than weaken the relationships through which learning effectively occurs. The 2026 report, “An AI Policy Isn't a Playbook: Educators Need Agency, Not Just New Rules (Tench et al), provides a foundation for reconsidering how schools approach AI. Essentially, this advocate for Invitation Education Theory believes those researchers’ findings and recommendations can be further connected with the Intentionality, Care, Optimism, Respect, and Trust (I-CORT) assumptions identified in the work of Purkey, Novak, and Fretz (2020) and Anderson (2021).

Therefore, let’s examine how exhibition of an I-CORT mindset can serve as an ethical and relational framework for AI integration. Rather than treating these principles as supplementary dispositions, educational leaders should position them as essential conditions for maximizing AI's instructional potential.

Let’s begin by recognizing the research implications of the Tench et al (2026) study as highlighted by Prothero (2026):

• 74% of teachers and 69% of principals identified cheating-related concerns when describing an AI dilemma they were experiencing.
• Researchers interviewed 31 adolescents, ages 15–19, between April and June 2026.
• Students described anxiety about being falsely accused of using AI, pressure to use AI to keep pace with peers, and deliberately underperforming to avoid suspicion.
• The report identifies a growing problem of students concealing their AI use and teachers losing visibility into students' thinking and learning processes.

These findings crucially suggest that the problem is not simply whether students use AI appropriately. It is also whether the institutional response to AI creates an environment whereby students feel safe enough to disclose, question, experiment, and learn. An especially significant distinction in the report is between students allowing AI to do the thinking and intellectual work that they should be developing themselves, designated as Cognitive Surrender; compared to students concealing their capabilities or intentionally limiting their performance because they fear being accused of inappropriate AI use, which was designated as Cognitive Withholding.

Both phenomena deserve attention. However, addressing cognitive surrender through excessive surveillance or suspicion may inadvertently intensify cognitive withholding. Therefore, the researchers encourage educators to move from being AI referees to AI coaches. This means cultivating students' capacity to make informed decisions about AI rather than relying primarily on punitive controls.

The evolved I-CORT framework originated through the foundational work of Invitational Education Theory (Purkey & Novak, 2015) and further developed through Purkey, Novak, and Fretz (2020) as well as Anderson, (2021).  As either institutional culture assumptions or as a pedagogical mindset, I-CORT offers a philosophical and practical approach to creating educational environments whereby all individuals are intentionally invited to develop their potential. To further clarify, I-CORT is not simply a collection of desirable teacher characteristics. Rather, it represents an interconnected set of assumptions that should inform relationships, instructional practices, leadership decisions, and institutional culture.

While Purkey, Novak, and Fretz (2020) provide the foundation for applying these principles to school environments. Anderson's previous work extends their application to educator preparation, emotional intelligence, and AI integration. Anderson's research is particularly relevant because it connects the instructor's demonstrated I-CORT dispositions with teacher candidates' emotional intelligence and professional development. His 2025 article, Embracing Invitational Education Principles and AI to Help Teachers and Learners Ethically Utilize Generative Artificial Intelligence, explicitly addresses the relationship between I-CORT, professional learning communities, and ethical AI integration.

Following, for each area: Intentionality, Care, Optimism, Respect, and Trust, five scholarly recommendations will be provided to demonstrate the potential for translating the five I-CORT assumptions into actionable AI best-practices for potential instructional integration.

Be Intentional: Establishing purposeful and pedagogically sound AI integration

Guiding principle: AI should be employed because it advances an identified instructional purpose, not simply because the technology is available. Intentionality requires educators to make deliberate decisions about when, why, and how AI should support teaching and learning. Implementation of this guiding principle aligns with an emphasis on promotion of agency: providing meaningful choice, intentionality, and control over how technology fits into people's lives (Tench et al, 2026).

Five scholarly recommendations for intentional AI implementation:

1. Begin with learning outcomes rather than AI applications. Educators should identify the knowledge, skills, dispositions, and competencies students are expected to develop before selecting an AI tool.

2. Differentiate productive AI assistance from intellectual substitution. Students should understand the difference between using AI to generate questions, obtain feedback, explore alternative perspectives, or improve an initial draft rather than allowing AI to complete the intellectual work required by an assignment.

3. Develop transparent expectations for AI utilization. Every assignment should communicate whether AI is prohibited, permitted, or encouraged.  Clearly include the specific forms of allowable AI assistance.

4. Design assignments that make thinking visible. Incorporate preliminary drafts, research notes, oral explanations, reflections, demonstrations, and revision histories. These provide opportunities to assess learning rather than attempting to infer authorship from a completed product alone.

5. Establish intentional opportunities for human interaction. AI should support, rather than replace, meaningful conversations. Identify expectations for collaborative problem-solving, teacher feedback, and student reflection.

An example of practical implementation:

In an argumentative writing assignment, students might use AI to identify counterarguments, challenge assumptions, or provide feedback on clarity. However, students would independently establish their positions, evaluate the evidence, determine which suggestions merit consideration, and defend their conclusions.

The teacher evaluates the student's reasoning, decision-making, and ability to synthesize information—not merely the polish of the final essay.

Leadership implication: School leaders should require an instructional rationale for AI adoption. Purchasing or mandating technology without establishing its pedagogical purpose risks prioritizing innovation over educational effectiveness.

Exhibit Care: Preserving the human relationship at the center of learning

Guiding principle: Students must experience the teacher as an advocate for their intellectual, emotional, and social development. In light of Tench et al.'s findings, obviously care is especially important. When educators approach AI primarily through suspicion, students may perceive their teachers as investigators rather than advocates. A caring approach recognizes that students are navigating unfamiliar technologies, competing expectations, academic pressures, and uncertainty about acceptable practices.

Five intentional scholarly recommendations for care-based AI implementation:

1. Replace assumptions with curiosity. When teachers suspect inappropriate AI use, they should initiate respectful conversations rather than immediately assigning blame.

2. Create psychologically safe opportunities for disclosure. Students should be able to explain how they use AI.  This includes ownership of mistakes without automatically fearing humiliation or punitive consequences.

3. Demonstrate interest in the student's learning process. Ask students what they were trying to accomplish. Elicit what AI assistance they received, what they learned, and what they would change.

4. Recognize individual differences in access and experience. Students have unequal access to technology, varying levels of digital literacy, and different learning needs. AI policies should account for these opportunity and proficiency differences.

5. Protect meaningful teacher-student interaction. AI should not become a substitute for the teacher's responsibility.  Therefore, seek to listen, encourage, provide feedback, and recognize individual student needs.

An example of practical implementation:

When a student's assignment appears substantially different from previous work, the teacher might initiate a private conversation, asking:

• What was your approach to completing this assignment?
• Did you use any AI tools?
• What did you find helpful or unhelpful?
• Which parts of the work represent your own thinking?
• What did you learn through the process?

This approach allows the educator to investigate academic concerns while preserving the student's dignity.

Leadership implication: Professional development should include relational communication, emotional intelligence, restorative conversations, and strategies for maintaining student belonging during technological change. Care does not mean abandoning academic standards. Rather, it means maintaining high expectations while communicating that the student's development matters more than catching the student making a mistake.

Demonstrate Optimism: Cultivating an informed and constructive outlook toward AI

Guiding principle: Educators should approach AI with realistic optimism. Recognize the potential of AI while acknowledging its limitations and risks. An excessively negative approach may prevent students from developing the competencies they need to navigate an increasingly AI-integrated world. Conversely, idealistic enthusiasm can encourage dependence, misinformation, and the erosion of independent thinking. Emphasizing agency and critical optimism offers a productive middle ground.

Five intentional scholarly recommendations for optimistic-minded AI implementation:

1. Position AI as an opportunity for intellectual exploration. Encourage students to use AI to generate questions, explore competing explanations, and examine unfamiliar concepts Invite them to extend their curiosity through provided guardrails.

2. Teach students to challenge AI-generated information. Require verification, corroboration, evaluation of sources.  Empower them to identify unsupported claims.

3. Promote a growth mindset toward AI literacy. Teachers and students should acknowledge that they are learning together. Given the power of “not yet” (Dweck 2006), neither should be expected to possess complete expertise.

4. Encourage experimentation within clearly established boundaries. Students should have opportunities to test AI applications. Encourage evaluation of the effectiveness of AI application including discussing ethical concerns.

5. Celebrate human intellectual contributions. Emphasize creativity, judgment, empathy, critical thinking, ethical reasoning, and the ability to make meaning from information. Human potential should be optimized.

An example of practical implementation:

A science teacher might ask students to use an AI tool to generate three possible explanations for an environmental phenomenon. Given the assignment, students then:

• Identify the scientific assumptions behind each explanation.
• Compare the explanations with established scientific evidence.
• Identify errors or unsupported claims.
• Develop and defend their own conclusions.

Therefore, AI becomes a catalyst for deeper inquiry and critical thinking rather than blindly becoming an authority that students readily accept.

Leadership implication: Educational leaders should communicate a balanced institutional vision.  As such, schools are neither required to embrace every AI innovation nor expected to reject technological change. The school’s responsibility is to cultivate informed, ethical, and intellectually capable learners.

Encourage Mutual Respect: Recognizing student agency, equity, and intellectual ownership

Guiding principle: Every student deserves to be treated as a developing intellectual agent whose ideas, experiences, perspectives, and contributions matter. Respect is particularly significant when AI-generated work makes it difficult to distinguish between a student's original thinking and machine-generated content. A respectful educational environment avoids equating a student's use of AI with dishonesty without first understanding the context and applicable expectations.

Five intentional scholarly recommendations for respectful AI implementation:

1. Include students in developing AI policies. Students should participate in conversations about acceptable use.  Empower their understanding of academic integrity, privacy, and the consequences of misuse in an AI age.

2. Acknowledge student perspectives. Teachers should invite students to discuss how AI affects their learning.  Welcome discussions about their motivation, workload, creativity, and sense of academic responsibility.

3. Avoid relying exclusively on AI-detection tools. Automated detection results should not be treated as conclusive evidence of misconduct. Students should have meaningful, formative opportunities to explain and demonstrate their learning.

4. Respect cultural, linguistic, and learning differences. AI may provide valuable support for language development, accessibility, brainstorming, and differentiated instruction. Policies should recognize legitimate diverse educational applications.

5. Protect student privacy and intellectual contributions. Students and educators should understand what information they are sharing with AI systems.  Increased mutual awareness of how that information may be processed, and what institutional safeguards apply.

An example of practical implementation:

At the beginning of a semester, teachers and students collaboratively establish an AI-use agreement. The agreement specifies:

• Acceptable and unacceptable AI applications.
• Requirements for acknowledging AI assistance.
• Expectations for independent thinking.
• Procedures for resolving concerns about academic integrity.
• Privacy and data-protection expectations.

Students can then be intentionally invited to periodically revisit the agreement as their understanding of AI develops.

Leadership implication: Respect requires student participation.  Let the empowerment be substantive rather than symbolic. Policies should reflect the voices of those whose learning experiences are directly affected.

Promote Trust: Making the student-teacher relationship the foundation of AI integration

Guiding principle: Trust is not merely an anticipated outcome of successful AI implementation.  It is a prerequisite for meaningful teaching and learning. Of the five I-CORT principles, trust deserves particular attention because it directly addresses the relational concerns identified by Tench et al. (2026).

When students believe that teachers assume dishonesty, they may become reluctant to disclose their AI use. When teachers cannot see students' thinking, they may become increasingly suspicious of the work students submit. This creates a cycle of mistrust that can undermine both instructional effectiveness and student engagement.

Five trust-building scholarly recommendations for intentional AI implementation:

1. Establish reciprocal transparency. Teachers should disclose their own appropriate AI utilization.  This may range from using AI for lesson planning, assessment development, feedback, and administrative work.

2. Replace surveillance-centered relationships with coaching-centered relationships. Teachers should guide students toward responsible AI utilization.  This shifts the interaction from that of primarily attempting to catch inappropriate use.

3. Develop predictable and equitable procedures. Students should understand how concerns about AI use will be addressed.  Be clear that students empower trust through the provided opportunities to explain their decisions and usage.

4. Assess learning through multiple forms of evidence. Combine written assignments with discussions, conferences, presentations, demonstrations, and reflective explanations. The best formative approaches involve human interaction through a humane communication loop.

5. Maintain professional accountability. Teachers remain responsible for instructional decisions, assessment judgments, and student feedback.  Evaluative veracity requires accurate information provided to students, regardless of AI involvement.

An example of practical implementation:

A teacher might begin an assignment with the following statement: "I want you to become capable of using AI thoughtfully and ethically. I also want to understand your thinking. If you use AI, tell me how you used it, what you accepted or rejected, and what you learned. My responsibility is to help you develop your abilities, not simply to determine whether you used a particular tool."

This communicates both academic expectations and relational commitment.

Leadership implication: Trust should be treated as an institutional responsibility. It cannot be achieved solely by asking individual teachers to build better relationships while school policies simultaneously encourage suspicion and surveillance. An interdependent demonstration of Intentionality, Care, Optimism, Respect, and Trust moves institutional implementation of I-CORT from philosophy to practice.

For I-CORT to influence teaching and learning efficacy, educational leaders must translate the five assumptions into consistent institutional practices. A goal without a plan is just a wish.  Therefore, the following three-level implementation plan incorporates classroom instruction, professional learning, and organizational leadership.

Level 1: Classroom implementation

TEACHERS AND STUDENTS:

• Develop transparent AI-use agreements.
• Design assignments that reveal student thinking.
• Incorporate AI literacy and ethical decision-making.
• Maintain regular teacher-student conferences.
• Encourage reflection on AI-assisted learning.

Level 2: Professional learning

TEACHERS, INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES, AND PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES

• Establish collaborative AI professional learning communities.
• Develop common instructional expectations.
• Share effective AI-enhanced instructional practices.
• Examine the ethical and relational implications of AI.
• Evaluate the quality of student learning.

Level 3: Organizational leadership

PRINCIPALS, SUPERINTENDENTS, AND EDUCATIONAL POLICY LEADERS

• Develop student-inclusive AI policies.
• Establish data privacy and equitable-access safeguards.
• Allocate resources for professional development.
• Evaluate school climate and student-teacher trust.
• Align AI implementation with the institution's educational mission.

Following is a conceptual synthesis and a recommended implementation timeline based on Invitational Education Theory implementation (Anderson, 2025), and agency-building AI policy (Tench et al, 2026):

Phase

Suggested action

Intended outcome

First 30 days

Conduct student, teacher, and administrator listening sessions

Understand existing AI practices and concerns

Days 31–60

Develop an I-CORT-informed AI framework and professional learning plan

Establish shared expectations

Days 61–90

Pilot AI-enhanced instructional practices

Evaluate instructional and relational effects

Following semester

Assess outcomes and revise policies

Establish sustainable implementation

For assessing implementation effectiveness, educational leaders should measure more than quantitative date such as the frequency of AI use or the number of teachers trained. Yes, surveys, classroom observations, student portfolios, interviews, focus groups, and assessment data can provide complementary evidence. However, consider the following five areas of evaluation:

1. Instructional efficacy: How are students demonstrating stronger critical thinking, problem-solving, creativity, and subject-matter understanding?

2. Student agency: How are students explaining when, why, and how they use AI, including when they choose not to use it?

3. Relational trust: How comfortable do students feel discussing AI utilization? Are they asking more questions, acknowledging mistakes, and seeking assistance?

4. Equity and inclusion: Are students receiving equitable opportunities to access AI resources and develop their AI literacy?

5. Professional efficacy: Do teachers feel increasingly capable of integrating AI while maintaining their professional judgment and relationships with students?

An especially valuable measure would be a recurring student Likert-scale survey asking students to rate the level of:

• Exhibited teacher trust that you are making responsible decisions about AI.
• Comfort telling your teacher when you use AI.
• Help provided by the teacher for understanding how to use AI without replacing your own thinking.
• Teacher care about your learning rather than catching you making mistakes.

Note how the draft survey questions above can help make the relational dimension of AI implementation observable.

Educational leaders need to commit their institutions to embedding professional development, instructional supervision, curriculum development, assessment design, and institutional AI policies. Professional learning communities provide a great opportunity to implementing systemic change. Drawing together the research conducted by the Center for Digital Thriving and the I-CORT framework, school and district leaders and instructors as well as faculty at Institutes of Higher Education are invited to establish the following commitments:

I-CORT principle	Institutional commitment
Intentionality	We use AI to advance clearly identified educational purposes.
Care	We prioritize the intellectual, emotional, and social development of students.
Optimism	We approach AI with critical optimism and a commitment to human potential.
Respect	We recognize student voice, dignity, individuality, and intellectual ownership.
Trust	We cultivate transparent, reciprocal, and supportive student-teacher relationships.

Perhaps the most important implication of this discussion is that the efficacy of AI-enhanced education cannot be evaluated exclusively through technological efficiency. AI must not displace the teacher.  AI can generate explanations, provide immediate feedback, summarize information, assist with differentiated instruction, and support student inquiry. However, these capabilities do not eliminate the need for educators who understand their students, recognize their potential, challenge their assumptions, and establish meaningful relationships.

There is an important distinction between personalized instruction and personalized relationships. AI may help personalize instructional content, but it cannot be assumed to provide the same relational experience as a trusted teacher who understands a student's history, aspirations, challenges, and individual circumstances. Similarly, a student may receive technically accurate AI feedback without experiencing the encouragement, accountability, professional judgment, and human connection that an effective teacher provides.

Consequently, educational leaders should adopt the following guiding proposition:

Artificial intelligence should enhance the teacher's capacity to understand, support, challenge, and empower students.  AI should never diminish the teacher's responsibility for cultivating the human relationships that make meaningful learning possible. At the core of this proposition is Tench et al.'s (2026) recommendation that educators move from AI referees to AI coaches. It also reflects the Invitational Education philosophy of doing with students rather than doing to students.

Conclusion: An I-CORT-informed vision for the future of education

The convergence of Invitational Education and the research being conducted by Harvard's Center for Digital Thriving offers educational leaders a timely opportunity to reconsider how AI should be integrated into schools. Tench et al. (2026) challenge educators to recognize that the consequences of AI implementation extend beyond academic integrity and technological competence. AI also influences classroom culture, student agency, motivation, intellectual development, and the quality of student-teacher relationships.

Purkey, Novak, and Fretz (2020) offer a framework for creating educational environments that intentionally invite individuals to realize their potential. Anderson's contributions further establish the relevance of I-CORT to educator preparation, emotional intelligence, professional learning, and ethical AI integration (2021, 2025). Taken together, these perspectives suggest that successful AI implementation requires more than appropriate technology, clear policies, and technical training. It requires an educational culture grounded in intentionality, care, optimism, respect, and trust. For educational leaders, the challenge is to ensure that AI becomes an instrument of human development rather than a substitute for human relationships.

As an advocate for Invitational Education Theory and best practices, my central recommendation is for I-CORT to become an explicit foundation of institutional AI policy and professional practice. When educators intentionally integrate AI while demonstrating care, maintaining optimism, respecting student agency, and cultivating trust, they create conditions whereby students can become more capable, independent, reflective, and ethically responsible learners. Ultimately, the measure of successful AI integration should not be how extensively schools use artificial intelligence, but how effectively they use it to strengthen human intelligence, meaningful learning, and the relationships that sustain educational success.

The framework discussed above acknowledges that AI can expand instructional possibilities.  However, the enduring purpose of education must remain human development. Exhibition of I-CORT assumes a practical ethical invitation for ensuring that technological progress does not come at the expense of student dignity, intellectual independence, or the trustworthy relationships between teachers and students. Presently, the most successful educational environments will not necessarily be those with the most sophisticated AI. Rather, it will be those in which sophisticated technology and intentionally inviting relationships work together to help every student realize her or his human potential.

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (October 31 2026). Implementing I-CORT during AI-enhanced teaching and learning: A relational framework for educational efficacy and student-teacher trust-building. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

References:

Anderson, C. J. (2019). Editorial. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 25 .

Anderson, C. J. (2021). Developing your students' emotional intelligence and philosophical perspective begins with I-CORT. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 27, 36–50.

Anderson, C. J. (2025). Embracing Invitational Education principles and AI to help teachers and learners ethically utilize generative artificial intelligence. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 31, 5.

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

Fretz, J. R. (2015). Creating optimal learning environments through Invitational Education: An alternative to control-oriented school reform. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 21, 23–30. ERIC EJ1163007.

 Prothero, A. (2026, September 30). How AI suspicions are undermining student-teacher relationships. Education Week.

 Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (2015). Fundamentals of invitational education. (2^nd Ed) International Alliance for Invitational Education. Retrieved from: Fundamental of Invitational Education | IAIE

 Purkey, W. W., Novak, J. M., & Fretz, J. R. (2020). Developing inviting schools: A beneficial framework for teaching and leading. Teachers College Press. ISBN: 9780807764725    

 Tench, B., Weinstein, E., & James, C., with Starks, A., & Konrath, S. (2026). An AI policy isn’t a playbook: Educators need agency, not just new rules: Center for Digital Thriving. 

The Potential Impact of IE Theory, an ICORT Mindset, and Emotional Intelligence Upon One's Conception of God

 

Is there a fruitful conceptual connection between Invitational Education Theory (IET), an I-CORT mindset, Emotional Intelligence, and one’s conception of God? Arguably, Invitational Education, an I-CORT mindset, and one’s overall Emotional Intelligence can positively influence one's conception of God by habituating people to relationships characterized by intentionality, care, optimism, respect, and trust, thereby providing an experiential and relational framework through which God may be understood less as a distant or coercive authority and more as a trustworthy, caring presence who respects human dignity and agency while inviting people toward their fuller potential. An I-CORT mindset may contribute to the development of emotional intelligence by encouraging intentional self-awareness, compassionate social awareness, optimistic self-management, respectful interpersonal engagement, and trustworthy relationship management. Increased emotional intelligence may, in turn, contribute to a more differentiated and positive self-concept by enabling individuals to recognize their emotions, regulate their responses, understand others, and develop healthy relationships. Within a theological framework, these relational and emotional capacities may also influence one's conception of God by providing experiential categories: intentionality, care, optimism, respect, and trust, whereby the character and relational posture of God are interpreted. 

The reader is invited to note the author’s emphasis above on "may" and "within a theological framework." This treatise is an interpretive extension of IET rather than a claim that Purkey, Novak, and Fretz (2020), were presenting a theology of God. Their work is educational and relational. Likewise, neither Bradberry and Greaves' EI model (2009) nor Anderson's I-CORT research (2021), by themselves, establishes a causal relationship between emotional intelligence and one's conception of God. Ideally, as considered herein, the concepts will provide a compelling lens for theological reflection.

Invitational Education Theory (IET) begins with a fundamentally positive view of persons.  Given this, IET assumes that people are able, valuable, and responsible and that human potential is greater than what may initially be visible. The educator's task is therefore not primarily to control people but to invite them toward the realization of their potential. The International Alliance for Invitational Education describes this as intentionally creating environments characterized by trust, respect, optimism, and care. If the way we experience human relationships influences how we understand ourselves and others, then consistently practicing intentionality, care, optimism, respect, and trust can provide a relational framework through which we may come to understand God as similarly inviting, caring, hopeful, respectful, and trustworthy. That premise can affect one's conception of God in an important way.

When a person repeatedly encounters the messages: “You are valuable. You are capable. I believe there is more in you than you currently see. I will accompany rather than control you…” then that person may begin to imagine God through a similar relational paradigm. For instance: “God sees value in me even when I cannot see it in myself; God calls me toward becoming rather than merely judging what I have already become…” IET can thereby shift one's conception of God from an exclusively evaluative God to an invitational God.

This does not eliminate judgment, accountability, moral responsibility, or divine authority. Rather, it emphasizes that authority can be understood relationally. In this regard, God calls, summons, invites, and accompanies rather than merely commands.

Can intentionality shape the perception of God as purposeful? Anderson's I-CORT framework emphasized intentionality as an interdependent rather than a discrete element of a caring, optimism, respect, and trust(worthy) mindset. His 2021 study found that teacher candidates' experiences of an instructor demonstrating these qualities were associated with their emotional-intelligence development and their embrace of Invitational Education.

Intentionality is particularly significant for theological reflection. An intentional person does not merely happen to be caring, respectful, optimistic, or trustworthy. Those qualities become deliberate ways of being. Applied metaphorically to one's conception of God, this could lead to seeing God's relationship with humanity as purposeful rather than arbitrary. Experiences of challenge, growth, correction, forgiveness, or opportunity might be interpreted within a larger narrative of formation. An important qualification is that IET cannot establish that God actually acts this way. Rather, I-CORT provides a conceptual vocabulary through which a believer might interpret God's relationship with humanity.

How can a mindset that exhibits care transform God from a distant authority into a relational presence? For IET advocates, care is not simply feeling concern for another person. It is expressed through one's behavior and environment. The theory asks educators to demonstrate that the well-being and potential of another person genuinely matters. IET consequently encourages treating relationships as formative. Intentionally caring messages communicated by people and environments therefore contribute to how individuals understand themselves.

This has potentially profound theological implications. If human beings experience authentic care from others, they may acquire a relational template for understanding divine care. A human experience of care impacts the perception of one's own worth that influences the possibility of experiencing God as caring, which may result in a greater willingness to trust God. In such a conception, God does not merely know me but rather cares about my becoming.

That distinction matters. A person can imagine an omniscient God who knows everything about them while nevertheless believing that God is disappointed, distant, or punitive. I-CORT introduces a different relational possibility whereby one is fully known and nevertheless treated with dignity and care.

How can optimism cultivate hope in God's intentions? An IE advocate’s optimism is not merely positive thinking. It is grounded in the assumption that human potential exists even when it is not immediately apparent. Invitational Education Theory consequently encourages people to look beyond present circumstances toward possible growth. This provides an interesting bridge to faith. For instance, an I-CORT-informed conception of God might emphasize:

• possibility rather than finality,
• growth rather than stagnation,
• redemption rather than being unredeemable,
• hope rather than despair,
• becoming rather than merely being judged according to one's present condition.

From a theological perspective, one could thereby say that God becomes understood as the One who sees possibilities in people that they cannot yet see in themselves. That is remarkably compatible with an Invitational Education premise: Human potential may be present even when it is not yet visible.

How can intentionally exhibiting respect encourage a conception of God that honors human agency? One of IET's distinctive characteristics is its emphasis on inviting rather than coercing. Dr. William Purkey's account of IE Theory emerged partly from his rejection of an educational model based on doing things to people in favor of a culture that invites doing things with people. Let’s extend this distinction to theology:

A.      God doing to humanity whereby humanity is primarily an object of divine action.

B.      God doing with humanity whereby humanity is a participant in a relational and developmental process.

An I-CORT mindset therefore creates space for a conception of God that respects human agency. God's invitation does not necessarily remove the possibility of saying no. Indeed, an invitation has meaning precisely because the recipient possesses some degree of freedom to accept or decline it. This corresponds well with the IET advocate's understanding that teachers invite autonomy rather than simply imposing compliance. Consequently, someone positively influenced by IET might begin feeling empowered to ask, “If I believe that genuinely respectful relationships preserve another person's agency, what might it mean to understand God as respecting human agency?”

Does that question not produce a substantially different conception of the divine-human relationship than one based exclusively on obedience and control?

How can intentional exhibition or perception of trust change the emotional character of one's relationship with God?  Trust is perhaps the most direct connection between being human and seeking the divine. IET understands trust as something that develops through repeated experiences of reliability, consistency, authenticity, and honesty. Through positive and beneficial experiences trust is accumulated and thereby more possible.

This suggests an interesting reciprocal process whereby experiencing trustworthy relationships leads to further learning what trust feels like and then developing greater capacity to trust that potentially increases understanding God through a relational model of trustworthiness. By contrast, relationships characterized by manipulation, inconsistency, rejection, or coercion can make it difficult for someone to imagine God as trustworthy.

This is one reason the practice of I-CORT may be as important as its intellectual content. For instance, in the 2021 study, Anderson did not simply ask teacher candidates to learn the vocabulary of I-CORT.  Rather, it examined their responses to an instructor who demonstrated intentionality, care, optimism, respect, and trust. Those experiences were associated with changes in the candidates’ emotional-intelligence skills and engagement with Invitational Education. Thus, experiencing I-CORT may be more influential than merely being taught about I-CORT.

How can an educator become a "window" through which God is imagined?  Indeed, this endeavors development of the deepest type of connection. A foundational premise of IET is that people partly develop their self-concepts through the messages communicated by significant others.  Given that, then the behavior of a teacher, parent, mentor, pastor, or other trusted person can become an experiential model for how relationships work. IET practices explicitly emphasize that people's words and actions communicate messages about another person's worth and ability.

Consequently, an educator who consistently embodies I-CORT may communicate something beyond, "This is how an educator should behave." As a result, the person may also experience, "This is what it feels like to be valued." Therefore, within a religious framework, that experience can become, "Perhaps this is something of what God's relationship with me is like."

In no way does the educator become God.  In itself, neither does I-CORT prove anything about God's character. Rather, the educator's relationship can function as an experiential analogy through which abstract theological claims become relationally intelligible.

How may exhibition of I-CORT influence both one's self-concept and one's God-concept?  A useful way to conceptualize the relationship is as a three-part developmental process:

1.       Willingness to develop and exhibit an I-CORT mindset

2.       Increased emotional intelligence

3.       Forming of a healthier self-concept and potentially a more positive, relational concept God.

Bradberry and Greaves (2009) conceptualize emotional intelligence (EI) through four competencies: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, and relationship management. One premise of the concept is that when people understand their emotions and use them intentionally, they think more clearly, collaborate more effectively, and stay grounded through change and uncertainty (Sass, 2025). While feeling respected is often mentioned in the EI literature, the role emotions play in achieving a feeling of respect is not well understood or discussed. As noted in the following chart, EI competencies provide a particularly useful bridge between Anderson's I-CORT framework and conceptions of self and God. 

I-CORT dimension	Emotional-intelligence connection	Influence on self-concept	Possible influence on one’s concept of God
Intentionality	Self-awareness & self-management	I become more conscious of my emotions, motives, strengths, limitations, and choices. I begin to see myself as capable of intentional growth rather than merely reacting to circumstances.	God may be understood as intentional and purposeful, while the individual becomes more receptive to God's purposes rather than experiencing life as arbitrary.
Care	Social awareness & relationship management	Experiencing and extending care communicates, "I am worthy of care, and I can care for others." This can strengthen a sense of relational worth and belonging.	God may increasingly be conceived as relational, compassionate, and attentive rather than distant or merely evaluative.
Optimism	Self-management	I develop the capacity to regulate discouragement and maintain hope without denying difficulties. My identity becomes less defined by present failure or circumstance.	God can be understood as a source of hope and possibility—the One who sees potential beyond present circumstances.
Respect	Social awareness & relationship management	Respect from others reinforces dignity, while respecting others strengthens the perception that human worth is intrinsic rather than conditional.	God may be conceptualized as one who honors human dignity and agency and invites rather than simply coerces.
Trust	Relationship management & self-awareness	Healthy trust can produce greater relational security and confidence in one's ability to form meaningful relationships.	God may become more readily understood as trustworthy, faithful, and relationally dependable.

How might exhibition of I-CORT strengthen self-awareness, which changes self-concept?  The first connection suggests increased intentionality leads to more self-awareness, which influences self-concept.

Bradberry and Greaves (2009) identify self-awareness as the foundation of emotional intelligence: recognizing one's emotions and understanding how those emotions influence thoughts and behavior. When a person develops this awareness, the self becomes something that can be observed, understood, and intentionally developed, rather than something experienced as fixed.

Exhibited I-CORT complements this process because intentionality requires asking questions such as:

• What am I communicating to others?
• Why am I responding this way?
• What emotions are influencing my behavior?
• Am I acting consistently with the person I want to become?
• What message am I communicating about another person's worth?

Thus, I-CORT can move one’s self-concept from "This is simply who I am" toward "I can become more aware of who I am and intentionally develop who I am becoming."

That is an important distinction for both education and theology.

How might intentional care connect emotional intelligence with perceived worth? This connection suggests care leads to increased social awareness, which positively impacts relational self-concept. An emotionally intelligent person becomes increasingly capable of recognizing the emotions and needs of other people. Bradberry and Greaves' concept of social awareness involves understanding others and accurately reading interpersonal situations.

Exhibited I-CORT adds an ethical and relational orientation to that awareness: What I perceive in another person matters, and how I respond communicates something about that person's worth. This has a reciprocal effect on self-concept. Therefore, when individuals consistently experience relationships in which they are treated with care, they receive a repeated relational message: I matter.

People can learn to intentionally extend care to others.  Exhibiting care empowers a person to simultaneously develop another message: I am capable of contributing to the well-being of others. Consequently, care can contribute to a self-concept characterized by worth, belonging, relational competence, and agency.

How might intentional optimism make self-concept developmental rather than deterministic? Bradberry and Greaves' self-management dimension is particularly relevant to optimism. This connection suggests optimism can extend one’s capacity by encouraging an orientation toward possibility. Given that Emotional Intelligence (EI) involves regulating emotional responses rather than being controlled by them, then an I-CORT advocate's optimism can extend that capacity by encouraging an orientation toward possibility. The resulting development is in naming the emotion, awareness of its potential, connection to regulation strategies, and increased hopefulness, which results in intentional right actions.

Relative to development of a healthier self-concept, this means a person is less likely to define the self exclusively through past mistakes, current limitations, or negative feedback. Self-talk evolves. So, "I failed" does not necessarily become "I am a failure." "I am struggling" does not necessarily become "I am incapable." Crucially, "I have not yet developed this ability" leaves open "I can grow." Those distinctions are particularly consistent with Invitational Education's emphasis on human potential.

How might intentional respect integrate emotional intelligence and human dignity?  Intentionally exhibiting respect has a particularly interesting relationship with self-awareness and social awareness. The development of Emotional Intelligence helps an individual recognize that other people's emotions, perspectives, and experiences are real and significant. Through exhibition of I-CORT, respect adds the recognition that those experiences deserve to be treated with dignity. This certainly can alter one's self-concept as well.

By learning to treat others as inherently worthy of respect, I can also begin to understand my own worth as something deeper than achievement, status, approval, or performance. This is how an I-CORT mindset potentially provides an important corrective to performance-based self-concepts. Rather than, "I am valuable because I succeed," the relational message becomes: "I possess worth, and my behavior is an opportunity to express that worth through responsible relationships."

How might trust provide a bridge from Emotional Intelligence to one’s concept of God? Arguably, the strongest connection to one's concept of God may be in the willingness to trust and the ability to be trustworthy. Bradberry and Greaves' relationship-management competency involves using emotional awareness to manage interactions effectively and develop positive relationships. Trust is fundamental to those relationships. However, trust also has a theological dimension.

Let’s agree that a person's capacity to trust can be influenced by repeated relational experiences. When significant relationships communicate consistency, care, respect, honesty, reliability, forgiveness, and psychological safety, the individual thereby acquires an experiential understanding of what trustworthiness feels like and how it should be exhibited. Thus, that positive experience can become a relational framework through which theological language about God is interpreted. So, trustworthy human relationships increase emotional security that builds relational trust and potentially increases understanding of God as trustworthy.

However, the reverse can also occur. If a person's relational experiences have consistently involved betrayal, manipulation, rejection, or conditional acceptance, then the person may emotionally have difficulty apprehending theological claims about a loving or trustworthy God despite being able to intellectually affirm those claims. This suggests that one’s concept of God is not merely cognitive. Rather, it can have an important, profound emotional and relational component.

Does this mean Emotional Intelligence should function as the mediating variable?  We are not trying to suggest herein that embracing and exhibiting an I-CORT mindset directly produces a healthier concept of God. Rather, the argument is that I-CORT practitioners can cultivate emotionally intelligent ways of perceiving and managing oneself and one's relationships, which can contribute to the development of a healthier self-concept and provide relational experiences through which one's conception of God may be interpreted.  A self-concept and a conception of God may be related but they have distinct outcomes.  One does not cause the other. 

"How do I experience myself" and "How do I experience God," are interesting theological questions.  If emotional intelligence increases one’s capacity to recognize and regulate emotions, understand others, and form healthy relationships, then the person may also increase the ability to distinguish between what is felt about his or herself and what is believed about God. That distinction is important because one's conception of God can sometimes become intertwined with one's self-concept. As an example, if feeling unworthy, then believing God must therefore be disappointed.  Similarly, if feeling incapable of change, one may believe God probably sees me as incapable of change.

How can an I-CORT-informed development of emotional intelligence (EI) interrupt the process noted above?  Let’s consider the following application of EI in the self-talk process that can positively influence a revised self-concept:

·       Self-awareness: "I recognize that I feel inadequate."

·       Self-management: "I can regulate that feeling rather than allowing it to define me."

·       Social awareness: "I can recognize how other people's responses affect my interpretation of myself."

·       Relationship management: "I can develop relationships characterized by trust, respect, and care."

This process creates the possibility of a revised self-concept whereby self-talk may be, "I am a person of worth who is capable of growth and meaningful relationship."

Within a theological framework, that revised self-understanding may make it possible to correspondingly conceptualize God whereby "God is one who sees my worth, invites my growth, and desires relationship with me."

This discussion invited the reader to consider intentionality, care, optimism, respect, and trust to operate both as I-CORT dispositions and as the relational qualities through which the person experiences self, others, and potentially God. This compelling model embracing the interdependence of Invitational Education Theory (IET), an I-CORT mindset, and Emotional Intelligence for influencing one’s conception of God suggests there is an important I-CORT -driven sequence whereby a person:

·       feels intentionally seen and cared for

·       experiences her or himself as valuable and worthy of respect

·       develops greater trust and hope

·       becomes more open to relationships characterized by trust, care, respect, and hope

·       begins to conceptualize God through those same relational categories

The model is consistent with the broader premise of Invitational Education Theory (IET) that suggests people and environments are never entirely neutral as they communicate messages that can either invite or disinvite human development. As noted in the chart below, this leads to a particularly important theological implication whereby the practice of IET does not merely change what someone thinks about God; rather, it can change the relational posture with which someone approaches God. 

I-CORT principle	Relational experience	Possible implication for one's conception of God
Intentionality	"I am deliberately attended to."	God is experienced as purposeful rather than arbitrary.
Care	"My well-being matters."	God is conceived as compassionate and relational.
Optimism	"My present condition is not my final possibility."	God is associated with hope, growth, and redemption.
Respect	"I have dignity and agency."	God is understood as inviting rather than merely coercing.
Trust	"You are reliable and will not abandon me."	God becomes more readily understood as trustworthy.

The resulting conception could be summarized as an invitational God whereby God sees human potential, communicates worth, offers relationship, respects agency, cultivates hope, and invites people toward their fullest human potential. There is also a potential danger in making this connection too quickly as exhibition of I-CORT should not be used to project human preferences onto God. IET is not an inherently Christian theory nor does Anderson's 2021 research demonstrate anything about God.  A person's experience of a caring or trustworthy teacher does not establish that God possesses precisely the same characteristics or behaves in precisely the same manner. Instead, the relationship is best described as hermeneutical and formative whereby exhibited I-CORT can provide a relational framework through which people interpret their experiences of God, while one's theological tradition provides the theological claims by which that interpretation is evaluated.

 

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (September 30 2026). The Potential Impact of IE Theory and an ICORT Mindset Upon One's Conception of God. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

References:

Anderson, C. J. (2021). Developing your students' emotional intelligence and philosophical  perspective begins with I-CORT. Journal of Invitational Theory and Practice, 27, 36-50.

 Bradberry, T., & Greaves, J. (2009). Emotional intelligence 2.0. TalentSmart.

Bradberry, T. (2022, June 20). Emotional intelligence 2.0 step by step. TalentSmartEQ. https://www.talentsmarteq.com/emotional-intelligence-2-0-step-by-step

CAST. (2024). CAST Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 3.0. CAST UDL Guidelines 3.0

Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (2015). Fundamentals of invitational education. (2^nd Ed) International Alliance for Invitational Education. Retrieved from: Fundamental of Invitational Education | IAIE

 Purkey, W.W., Novak, J.M., & Fretz, J.R. (2020). Developing inviting schools: A beneficial framework for teaching. Teachers College Press.

Sass, M. (2025, December 29). The EQ effect: How human skills (still) drive measurable results. TalentSmartEQ. https://www.talentsmarteq.com/the-eq-effect-how-human-skills-still-drive-measurable-results/

TalentSmartEQ. (2021). The science of emotional intelligence. https://www.talentsmarteq.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/TS_EQResearchReport_r7.pdf