I feel that any educational offering can be posited on a continuum whereby the multidimensional axes that span the space are individual educational paradigms. It is helpful, though, to know the – sometimes clear-cut, at other times subtle – differences in order to be more aware of their implications for the learner as well as for oneself. For example, one may ask the question: Am I prepared to let myself influence by students in how the course will be conducted? Can I trust them to be self-directing or should I better guide them to reach the learning outcomes? Overall, when comparing constructivist and person-centered “philosophies” I get the impression that their focus is complementary: Constructivism emphasizes knowledge construction and appropriate cognitive methods and tools. The Person-Centered Approach, however, concentrates on the (pre)conditions under which deep or significant learning is most likely to take place and consequently emphasizes the unfolding of a constructive learning climate, growing from facilitative interpersonal relationships. The integration of the two paradigms is likely to add value to both. Still, further research is necessary to confirm this hypothesis and to explore specific conditions for the blend to be most effective. Learning technology is likely to support either paradigm, since it facilitates personalized activities, networking, and almost continuous communication and contact, even though through a restricted electronic “channel” only.

Last but not least, we need to find out, how constructivist coaches and person-centered facilitators best can be “trained” or developed to fulfill the high demands posited on their professional action, “personhood”, and interpersonal presence.