The inspiration for what follows is drawn from Big Questions, Worthy Dreams by Sharon Daloz Parks. In chapter 7, "Imagination: The Core of Learning and the Heart of Leadership," Parks quotes James Loder's five elements of imagination and applies them to adaptive leadership. What I'd like to do here is adapt these five elements and apply them to teaching something as basic as College Composition.

 

Here are the five elements:

1. Conscious Conflict

2. Pause

3. Image or Insight

4. Repatterning

5. Interpretation

​​

Conscious Conflict is "paradoxical curiosity" (Park, p. 156).

 

I encounter something that does not fit my current meaning-making framework (paradigm). Instead of fleeing from this (avoidance, distraction) or rushing to the safety of a rigid binary (right/wrong, us/them), I let myself feel the tension. I let my assumptions collapse. I articulate the conflict as I understand it.

 

Pause is "contemplation" (Parks, p. 162).

 

I let the conflict incubate. I "sit with it," to use a contemporary phrase. I don't look at it directly all the time. Sometimes, I let it hover in the back of my mind while I go about my other activities. I let my unconscious mind work on the problem. Other times, I "sit with it" more literally, and I focus my attention on it, patiently thinking it over.

 

Image or Insight is a "eureka!" breakthrough (Parks, p. 163).

 

A moment will come when I am (perhaps suddenly) struck with a new idea, which enables me to think about the conflict in a new way. This new idea might come in the form of a change in metaphor (image), which casts the problem in a new light. Or, it may come in the form of an insight, perspective, or means of reconciling tension that I did not see before. I am now able to see the conflict in a new way and imagine different ways forward in addressing it.

​

Repatterning is "connecting the dots" (Park, p. 168).

 

Now I must undergo what some have called a "paradigm shift." I need to rearrange my thinking to align with this new insight. I have to make room for the new perspective and I have to get rid of things that are no longer "true" in this new reality.

 

Interpretation is "testimony and confirmation" (Parks, p. 169).

 

An important part of the process is "testing" my new paradigm in conversation with a curious learning community. I need to subject my ideas to questions, critique, feedback, and pushback. I need to see if my paradigm rings true to others. I need to see if it's translatable into common experience.

​

English Composition -- A Mentoring Lesson Plan

 

I'll use a current "Hot Topic" that hits close to home for educators as an example of how this process plays out. In fact, an English teacher might do this exercise along with their students to model the process as they mentor!

 

Conscious Conflict is "paradoxical curiosity" (Park, p. 156).

 

The sudden arrival of ChatGPT in November of 2022 caught us all unawares. The first reaction of educators was, "This marks the death of the college essay" -- the end of writing as a means of assessment. Some catastrophized that it would also be the end of critical thinking because "we teach students how to think by teaching them how to write." Others downplayed it, comparing text-generative AI to a calculator. "Everyone thought the calculator was the end of teaching math," they reason. "Instead it just saved time and opened the way for teaching more complex concepts to students."

 

In responding to this conflict, I can't pretend this technology doesn't exist. Nor can I pretend my students are not already using it. I also can't oversimplify this issue by declaring it "bad" and banning it from my classroom, which will quickly devolve into an AI-detection Police State instead of a hospitable learning community. Instead, I have to sit with the tension, which I articulate as this:

• I have always assumed writing and thinking are inextricably connected because I think through writing myself into clarity.

• I have always assumed teaching students both the grammar and the craftsmanship of writing is my chief responsibility as an English teacher.

• My first inclination is to view AI as an enemy to be outwitted, not a tool to be embraced.

• I suspect that the "tool" (calculator) analogy is not at all adequate.

• I need to think about this…

 

Pause is "contemplation" (Parks, p. 162).

 

Over the next week or so, I "sit with" my fears and discomfort. I notice where AI is popping up around me. I listen to other people talk about it. I recognize situations where I might find it useful or convenient. But I also ponder the bigger issue - the real concern. Is it possible to think without words? Is it possible to teaching critical thinking and analysis without relying on the writing process? Would I even know where to begin in doing this myself not to mention teaching it to students? I think about thinking, noticing my thoughts.

 

Image or Insight is a "eureka!" breakthrough (Parks, p. 163).

​

Through a combination of my own thinking, listening, eavesdropping, and reading, something strikes me as "true." It's the image of AI not as a calculator but as a conversation partner. A collaborator, sounding board, brainstorming buddy…

 

Repatterning is "connecting the dots" (Park, p. 168).

 

Calculator didn't work as a metaphor because it's too simplistic and mechanical. Input, output. It is 100% predictable and reliable. On the other hand, a dialogue partner is useful, but not 100% predictable or reliable. A sounding board is extremely helpful in drawing out and honing my own thoughts, but a sounding board needs boundaries. If the partner talks too much, my own thoughts get muddled and lost. In the same way, overreliance on AI short circuits my thoughts. Whereas, a back-and-forth with clearly defined boundaries -- both in the AI prompt and in my own personal "ethic" -- could be extremely useful! My mind was off and running with this new metaphor and its implications for formulating a "personal philosophy of AI engagement."

 

Interpretation is "testimony and confirmation" (Parks, p. 169).

 

The final step is to share this metaphor and this approach with my students (and also with you) and let them (and you) "try it on." What works? What doesn't? What am I overlooking? As AI continues to develop, is my metaphor still accurate and adequate? How might it grow with the technology?

​

Assignments as Mentorship

 

Students could use this approach to any English Composition argument or problem/solution essay. Consider how this approach might be useful in mentoring students through paradigm shifts, where their preconceptions about these controversial topics are challenged by new information. I'll choose the "top five" that my students often tackle in composition classes:

 

• Reproductive Rights & Abortion

• Gun Violence & Legislation

• Transgender Rights & Participation in Sports

• Social Media Censorship & Regulation

• Banning Books in Schools

 

Keeping in mind, mentoring does not mean cranking out students who duplicate our worldviews or stances on these issues. Mentoring means teaching students a PROCESS they can apply to deciding what their position is on key issues. College is when students move beyond their parents' views and choose their own -- which may or may not be the same as their parents'. Even if they land back where they started on an issue, their opinion will now be their own, chosen with integrity, not inherited or adopted.

 

Also, consider the tone that would be set by using a contemplative approach to "hot topics" in a class. Consider how conducive this is to openness and a respectful hearing of other perspectives.

​

​