Towards a Person-Centered Model of Instruction: Can an Emphasis on the Personal Enhance Instruction in Cyberspace?

Virtual, Web-based environments, while attractive in their potential to widen the scope of users’ experiences for communication, collaboration, and access to resources, can also create artificial and possibly depersonalizing social circumstances. A person-centered model of instruction has been developed for use in designing instruction in virtual, Webbased environments. This model, grounded in the person-centered theory of Carl Rogers (1961), attempts to address several issues raised in the literature regarding the changing role of instructors and students, the broadening of the notion of learning outcomes, the isolation and dissatisfaction of students in dispersed locations, and problems with authenticity and individualization of experience. How should instructional designers confront these issues that arise in distributed, virtual instructional environments?

We posit that Rogers’ work can be used as a basis to design instruction for virtual Webbased environments and we offer a conceptual analysis upon which to base this claim. A person-centered instructional model is described and contrasted with instructionalist (Dick & Carey, 1996) and constructivist (Jonassen, 1999) approaches. A discussion of theoretical and practical issues of the person-centered model concludes the article.

As with any new technology, definitions that are complementary, mutually exclusive, subsuming, and directly contradictory seem to proliferate as fast as the innovation itself. Virtual reality and its many applications are no exception. In this section, we give an overview of prominent definitions and select one to be used for purposes of analysis in this article.

Virtual reality (VR) is, quite literally, an analogous reality to our own but with one significant difference—it occurs in a computerized and/or networked electronic environment. Definitions of VR range from “one part computer simulation and one part consensual hallucination” (Biocca & Levy, 1995; Gibson, 1984 p. 54) to a computer-created sensory experience that completely engulfs participants so they believe and barely distinguish a “virtual” experience from a real one (Franchi, 1994).

Types of VR applications tend to fall into two general categories: immersion and simulated environments. VR immersion environments use specially designed computer hardware, worn by a user as a data glove or head-mounted display, for example, that creates digital versions of external optics and haptics (Biocca, 1992a). These sensory stimuli are chimera, but are processed by the brain as input that makes the person feel as if they are located spatially and temporally in the illusory environment—in a cyberspace¹ (Biocca, 1992b; McCauley & Sharkey, 1992). In contrast, in VR simulated environments, the user experiences a particular context or situation in a much less sensory and more cognitive way, by accessing software applications on a networked hyperspace—such as the World Wide Web. These simulated types of Web virtual environments depict qualities of the actual place or situation using computer graphics, audio, or video as stimuli that mimic the physical or conceptual dimensions of a representative environment. They can be cognitively distinguished from an actual sensory experience. Users can take simulated tours of on-line museums or other remote locations such as strolling around virtual parks or navigating to selected locations via a virtual map of particular areas. Another common VR simulation environment—the chat room—provides tools for participants to talk with people at geographically dispersed locations in real-time conversations in “rooms” graphically represented as space on a computer screen. These kinds of simulated virtual spaces have been adapted for use in instructional settings. According to Mason (1996), the many virtual classrooms and universities can be characterized by three broad categories of delivery systems:

1. Text-based systems wherein the learning environment includes electronic mail, computer conferencing, real-time chat systems, MUDs/MOOs², and other Web applications;

2. Audio conferencing wherein the learning environment includes audiographics and real-time audio over the Internet; and

3. Videoconferencing, wherein the learning environment includes one-way and twoway, software driven videoconferencing and other Web-based visual media.

Because simulated types of VR environments require less hardware and technical commitment, they are more practical for widespread use and have begun to flourish in educational settings. Thus, in the present discussion, it is this latter definition of a virtual environment we use to discuss a person-centered model of instruction.

Virtual education purportedly differs from traditional education in less obvious ways than the presentation mode. Chalmers (1997) asserted that a virtual educational space can offer increased levels of interactivity and the development of learning communities because of the use of a particular learning environment delivery system as described by Mason. One example of this increased activity level is apparent in a text-based interactive learning environment: PuebloMOO (http://www.pc.maricopa.edu/community/pueblo/). This is a multi-layered environment where the students are free to explore a world created completely in the computer, to interact with other people, and to make choices regarding their virtual identity (called an avatar) in the simulated environment.

Potentially, the opportunity to personalize one’s role in a virtual environment could be beneficial because the learner can meld learning with recreation, socialization, and personal development activities in a single interactive experience. However, virtual environments, while attractive in their potential to support a variety of users’ interactions, also have the potential to create artificial and possibly depersonalizing social circumstances.

Concerns associated with the dehumanizing effects of mass-produced, one-size-fits-all instruction are framed by the largely European debate of Fordist, Neo-Fordist and Post-Ford- ist approaches (Campion, 1995). These three approaches contrast sharply in defining the role of the learner, the instructional context, and valued learning outcomes. However, they share implicit epistemological assumptions that warrant further scrutiny. On a continuum from maximum central control, low skill, and little learner responsibility (Fordism) to less managerial control, high skill, and responsibility for learning (Post-Fordism), each position implies that control emanates from the point of instruction (or the instructor) and is not shaped through negotiations between the instructor and learner. In other words, though the debate addresses issues that arise from the social interaction aspects of learning, the underlying epistemological assumptions of the positions specifically exclude such key principles as the social negotiation of learning (Vygotsky, 1962).

While the Fordist debate is less publicly articulated in the United States, it is important to note how often disgruntled distance education students report feelings of alienation and dissatisfaction with on-line learning (Biner, et al., 1994). Students at the so-called “remote sites” complain of a lack of co-presence with the instructors and other students. In fact, the only consistently reported benefit is “convenience.” American educators claim that students in on-line learning situations particularly value interaction and personalized instruction. (Simonson, et al., 2000, p. 41). In fact, instructors in on-line courses report students expect increased access to instructors and have higher expectations of on-going interactions with the instructor as well as with peers (Harasim, 1990). However, reports of distance learning experiences show these dimensions of instruction are less often achieved in actual practice. What if course designers want to address the problems created by the efficiency approach of delivering mass-produced, homogeneous online instruction? We now have delivery systems and technologies that can support increased levels of interactivity and learner control. However, are the current instructional design models adequate? We contend that current models lack components that specifically incorporate opportunities for learners to participate in ways that address issues related to the kinds of dehumanizating effects highlighted in the Fordist debate. The person-centered model of instruction we propose is designed to begin to address these issues. Prior to articulating the model, we turn first to a discussion of salient concepts related to designing instruction in online settings.

Articulating theoretical concepts that are applicable to the task of designing instruction for virtual environments presents several problems. The literature on distance education is broad and spans a 200-year history of instruction in which the instructor and student were in separate locations (McIssac & Gunawardena, 1996). A recent analysis of distance education research (Anglin & Morrison, 2000) has shown the preponderance of work has been descriptive or survey based research that falls into three categories:

1. conceptual and theoretical papers describing such topics as definitions of terms, cost-benefit analyses, emerging delivery technologies, policies, and specific programs at universities;

2. reviews of the literature focusing on topics such as faculty resistance to professional development, computer based instruction, or instruction in other countries or the military; or

3. evaluation studies that yield “lessons learned” or information regarding student or instructor issues or preferences.

Moore (1989) claimed, and Anglin and Morrison concurred that there is a need for integrated programs of theory-based research that “explore beyond the primary setting” (Anglin & Morrison, 2000). We would add that most models of instruction are not specifically designed for virtual environments. The fact that the models of instruction may be inadequate has the potential to confound the research agenda Morrison and Anglin suggested.

Keegan (1980), in his foundational work on describing the distance education circumstances, discussed six key elements:

1. separation of teacher and learner;

2. influence of educational organization;

3. use of media to link teacher and student (and we would include other students);

4. two-way exchanges of communication;

5. learners as individuals rather than grouped; and

6. education as an industrialized form.

These elements are intended to be descriptive, but they suggest problems that may arise when considering the design of instruction for any distance education setting, and can thus be extended to apply to virtual environments as well. For example, what issues do the separation of teacher and learner create? What issues arise when learners are individuals rather than in a classroom group? In the literature, four issues have been articulated that relate to Keegan’s elements, and they are central to our argument for the need for a person-centered model of instruction. These concepts are transactional distance, interaction, control, social context.

Transactional distance as defined by Moore (1989) and Saba & Shearer (1994), referred to the amount and structure of dialogue between participants in an educational relationship. Clearly, transactional distance has been a problem in distance settings where students feel cut off from either the instructor or other students. The availability of chat rooms or MOOs in simulated virtual environments may affect transactional distance, and the design of instruction needs to take into account how to incorporate these features of virtual systems.

Moore (1989) and Hillman, et al., (1994) characterized four dimensions of interaction.

1. Learner interaction refers to dialogue with the instructor that is a source of motivation.

2. Learner-content interaction is the process of intellectual engagement with materials and subject matter.

3. Learner-learner interaction occurs among students as they exchange information and ideas (Moore, 1989).

4. Finally learner-interface interaction (Hillman et al., 1994) involves the notion that technology is not neutral and its use affects the learning context.

Much dissatisfaction with on-line learning environments relates to the lack of interaction. Instruction needs to be designed to specifically incorporate and capitalize on the potential for various dimensions of interaction in virtual environments. Interactive, two-way environments imply an element of control. Related to the need for interaction is the need for opportunities to control aspects of the interactive environment.

The discussion of control in distance education draws on the extensive literature ranging from the seminal locus of control work done by Rotter (1989) to Baynton’s (1992) model of control based on a factor analysis. Baynton’s analysis revealed that for control to be empowering independence (opportunities for real choice), competence (ability and skill), and support (materials, technology, and human) are required. Many of the issues raised within the Fordist debate and by students who feel powerless and stuck in “remote” locations at distance learning sites relate to perceptions of control. Students often report feeling cut off from the instructor and other students when they are not empowered to participate meaningfully in their own learning experience.

The social context is the milieu of people, relationships, technologies, materials, and interactions that surround the learning experience. Distance education researchers are just now beginning to identify social context factors in cyber-environments. Within these environments, gender, race, and physical features of participants have been identified as contextual demographic factors. In terms of social learning and learner support, the effects of using text-based chats for those whose learning styles are more visual or kinesthetic or, specifically relevant to distributed virtual environments, co-presence or social presence, are among contextual factors recently investigated (Wagner, 1997). Co-presence is defined by reading the sociolinguistic cues in social situations and how immediacy and intimacy are affected. Particularly in computer-mediated situations, co-presence is often affected negatively by the capacity of the delivery system. Technical issues such as bandwidth transmission problems can create situations where audio is out of sync with video or slow download times. Such technical problems are compounded by the fact that many instructors lack skill with the apparatus of instructional delivery (Mazur, 2000). For example, students report that instructors who cannot zoom in on responding students or needlessly pan the classroom in two-way video transmissions create additional distractions and impede the instructional flow.

The challenges of designing instruction to minimize transactional distance, support the four types of interaction, and enable empowering control in the social context of learning in a virtual environment are many. The model of person-centered instruction presented in this paper, derived from the work of Rogers, attempts to address these issues by specifically laying out a series of steps to design instruction to support learning when these problems in a virtual learning context are likely exist.

The introduction of any new interactive technology inevitably affects the learning arrangement. In virtual environments, both the role of the instructor and the form of instruction will change dramatically. A central change will be less control for the instructor, coupled with more opportunities for learner-selected and - controlled exploration and interaction. Indeed, unbeknownst to the instructor at any given time, students may be logging in and participating actively. Directive, didactic forms of instruction will need to be modified in interactive virtual settings to include the learner more actively. Instruction that is shaped and enhanced by facilitation will be key to accommodating increased learner control (Salmon, 2000). Students will clearly need specialized guidance exploring their on-line learning opportunities and the design of instruction will need to take into account the special nature of asynchronous interaction supported by webbased virtual environments. MOOs, MUDS, chats, and threaded discussion lists would be good examples. We hypothesize these shifts in the roles of instructors and learners are radical and signal significant changes in many of the basic assumptions of instructional design for non-cyber venues. Perhaps most significant among these assumptions will be reconceptualizing instruction as primarily facilitation and designing for that condition. The work of Rogers, with its emphasis on facilitation, empowerment, and self-actualization offers many principles upon which to develop a model of instruction that will be suited to the new roles, approaches, and issues that are present in virtual learning situations.

When Rogers wrote Freedom to Learn (1994), he was focused on traditional schools but saw that the person-centered educational approach developed its strongest roots in alternative schools and what he presciently called “universities without walls.” While many instructional theories focused on the learner’s achievement of specific learning objectives, Rogers’ instructional theory focused on the goal of teaching the learner how to learn. It is because of this focus that Rogers felt the learner would become a freely functioning, self-enhancing, self-actualizing, creative, and dependable person.

Rogers revealed that he developed his person-centered learning theory because we live in a constantly changing world and people in such continually evolving contexts needed to be flexible thinkers adapting easily to change. More importantly, he claimed that change is a constant in today’s world and students need to be prepared to adapt. In on-line instructional settings where the roles of students are changing, adaptation means “learning how to learn” within the different types of environments now available. Rogers boldly suggested the facilitator should encourage the learners to charge off in new directions dictated by their own interests and to unleash a student’s sense of inquiry and exploration (Rogers & Freiberg, 1994). How can the design of instruction support such learner-directed activity? What, if any, will be the outcomes of such instruction (how will learning be defined) and how can evaluation take place (how will learning be measured)? Will assessment be mutual or individual? What kinds of performance are desirable? Will learner development and satisfaction lead to outcomes that will be valued personally and publicly?

The strategy in this paper will be to discuss the utility of the person-centered instructional theory, based on Rogers’ work, for designing instruction in virtual environments based on both a conceptual and a comparative analysis. The conceptual analysis focuses on outcomes ascribed to Web-based learning from the literature framed by specific aspects of Rogers’ learning theory. These outcomes, such as personal development and learners’ self-actualization, broaden more traditional notions of learning outcomes as content objectives. Next, we present a model of person-centered instruction synthesized from Roger’s principles and compare it to two prominent instructional approaches. Finally, a discussion of issues related to the use of the model concludes the article.

The foundational conceptual analysis for our investigation of the utility and robustness of Rogers’ work as it may be applied to on-line, virtual learning environments must begin with a sound epistemological analysis of his theoretical perspective. In order to accomplish this goal, we employed the “structure of knowledge” approach developed by Gowin (1981).

This heuristic approach seeks to elucidate underlying epistemological elements and has been used to conceptualize design for interactive learning programs (Gay & Mazur, 1989). Gowin’s framework is particularly appropriate to the task because it is inquiry-based—the analysis proceeds from central questions emanating from a learning event (in our case the event is “instruction in a Web-based environment”). Central “focus questions” are “What are the epistemological elements (world view, principles, concepts) of Rogers’ theory?” and “How can these be applied to instructional design in virtual environments?” Gowin’s heuristic details how the underlying epistemological elements such as world view, core principles, and concepts relate to a specific learning event and the various knowledge claims and value to the learner. A complete explication of this epistemological analysis is detailed elsewhere (Miller & Mazur, 2000), however, a summary of that analysis salient to the present discussion follows.

Rogers developed a system of non-directive psychology called client-centered therapy that allows the client, who knows what hurts, to marshal the resources of personal experiences and discover his or her own meanings. The client learns through such reflective experience and uses it to grow as a person. Rogers hypothesized that core concepts of client-centered psychology could be applied analogously towards a person-centered education.

Rogers theorized that a person emerging from therapy or from a productive educational situation has experienced optimal psychological growth (Rogers & Freiberg, 1994). Specifically, the person is able to function freely—realizing his or her potentials, striving to be self-enhancing, continuing to develop, and always seeking newness in each moment—resulting in a self-actualized person. Maslow (1970), described this self-actualized person as someone who has developed or is developing into the full stature of personal capability. Of importance is that learners continue to learn creatively through life rather than becoming automatons reciting the information provided to them (Patterson, 1973). Rogers himself tied self-actualization to creativity with these words:

Building on Rogers, Davis claims creativity involves developing one’s talents; learning to use one’s abilities; exploring new ideas, places, activities; and developing a sensitivity to problems of others and humankind (Davis, 1992 p. 7). In a person-centered approach, instructional design links self-actualization, freedom, and creativity. By linking these elements, learners will be empowered by the design of instruction to take advantage of the many learner-controlled options in virtual environments in ways that support developing new understandings (self-actualizing activities) rather than random “surfing” for information.

Davis (1992) elaborated on the notion of creativity in terms of what he called the “4- P’s”: The creative person, process, product (Barron, 1988), and press (Isaksen, 1987; Mooney, 1963; Taylor, 1988). Davis further defined the creative person as the individual in the creative environment, moving through the process of creativity, or having developed the creative product. The creative process is the steps taken to solve real problems in ingenious or innovative ways (Davis, 1992). The creative product is the outcome of the creative process. Creative outcomes emphasize originality and multiplicity of viewpoints or approaches and include the development of a sense of value for the newly created idea or product (Davis, 1992). Davis used the rather awkward term “creative press (as in pressure)” to describe the social and psychological factors affecting any other aspect of the creative person or process.

While the development of self-actualized, creative people who are life-long learners is clearly a commendable goal, how can this goal actually be achieved? First, an instructor should realize that self-actualization cannot be taught and that the student reaches the goal of becoming a self-actualized person through his or her own individualized learning experience. Second, the instructor needs to be self-actualized in order to foster these qualities in the students (Patterson, 1973). In fact, when Rogers and Freiberg (1994) talked to students, they found many of the same qualities required to become a facilitator were also wanted by students. They found students want trust and respect, freedom, a caring environment where people are concerned and attentive, choices, and teachers who help them succeed (Rogers, 1961). In a person-centered educational experience, not only will the learner produce a creative product from the learning experience, but the learner’s increased self-actualization is also considered a creative product. As a learner becomes more self-actualized, the learner will be able to perceive reality more accurately; accept him or herself and others; understand varying views and perspectives; and become more spontaneous, independent, and creative (Davis, 1992; Maslow, 1970).

There are several tasks for an instructor wishing to move into a person-centered facilitation role. The facilitator should first set the mood for the environment (the creative press). There should be a sense of cooperation and trust within the group rather than competitive attitudes, which will disrupt the sense of trust and cooperation, thus creating a negative creative press on the experience. The instructor as facilitator becomes one of many resources of information rather than the main source of information for the students. Most importantly though, the instructor as facilitator should be genuine and strive for awareness of personal attitudes, thus developing an authentic relationship with the students (Rogers, 1961).

In Freedom to Learn, Rogers suggested that for clients to have successful learning experiences and become self-actualized, they must largely direct their own experiences. This key tenet in Rogers suggests the primary role of the student in a person-centered model. Not only is the student’s activity the central element as it is in many student-centered approaches (e.g. anchored instruction), but in a person-centered approach the student will actually initiate needs based on his or her own interests and self-determined level of competence (in consultation with the expert/instructor). “Significant learning” was coined by Rogers as the learning outcome of such learner-directed approach. Significant learning is related to the presence of facilitation. In contrast to didactic instructional methods in which the instructor provides information to the learner, the instructor in a person-centered environment becomes a facilitator of a largely student-conducted learning experience. Such a facilitated experience is termed “significant learning” because the individual initiates it, and exerts a high degree of personal control because the element of self-directed learning is built into the whole experience (Sahakian, 1970). The responsibility for defining as well as meeting learning goals shifts primarily to the learner. To monitor the development and achievement of goals Rogers stressed the importance of the contract. The learner clearly and specifically defines and commits to achieving the articulated goals, projects, activities, and assessments. Also, perhaps related to the benefits of group therapy and peer feedback, Rogers also stressed that peer evaluation is as powerful a tool for assessment as is the input of an expert. Rogers stressed that these were not better, but rather different avenues for obtaining credible, useful, and varied information on performance. Moreover, in the course of this self initiated experience, the learner becomes “the creative person” engaged in a creative process.

Based on the previous conceptual analysis, a model of instructional design can be established that includes the following elements:

1. learner analysis with an emphasis on the learners’ interests, personal ability, and prior knowledge of a given topic;

2. formation of tasks based on an integration of the learners’ knowledge and interests, and the principles of content or discipline;

3. selection of a non-competitive environment to support cooperative learning and allow learner control;

4. development of learner goals and objectives based on the learners’ interests and abilities that is contracted by each learner with the instructor;

5. development of individualized forms of self-evaluation;

6. organization of areas to interest in the topic and the sequencing of the topics;

7. identification and selection of resources to enhance the learning experience; and

8. the implementation of the learners’ selfevaluation.

By utilizing these eight elements of the Person-Centered model of instruction, three outcomes can be achieved. The outcomes that would be achieved include the development of an innovative and original creative product; an increase in the self-actualization of the individual learners; and significant learning, which is not only an accumulation of knowledge on a topic but also a sense of satisfaction in the learning; a desire to master the experience; and a greater understanding of the problem and potential resolutions of the problem. As the development of a creative product is an outcome of the person-centered model of instruction, it is important to understand how the creative process operates within the model. Table 1 graphically represents the person-centered model and illustrates how Davis’ “4-Ps” of creativity operate within the model.

There are a variety of instructional design models currently in use for designing instruction, the instructional environment, and the evaluation of instruction. Two prominent approaches, representing dichotomous ends of the design spectrum, can be characterized as instructionalist and constructivist approaches. Paradigm exemplars of each approach have been selected as a basis for comparison to the person-centered model described above. We recognize the inherent issues problematic in such comparisons. One-to-one correspondence of elements is often neither possible nor desirable. Underlying epistemological or axiological issues can exist and confound the viability of the comparative effort. For example, emanating from these foundational differences can be fundamental conceptual discrepancies in the purpose and outcomes of instruction. Moreover, the comparative position of elements is necessarily reductionist and affected by the selection of those elements. Thus the comparative process can (indeed will) leave out nuances, refinements, and complexities within each of the models used for the comparison. With these caveats in mind, we find it useful to compare any new model to existing approaches for two reasons. First, the newly developed model can be situated within the existing norms of the discipline. Secondly, the comparative effort illuminates not only differences between the models but also theoretical and practical issues within the new model for future discussion and explication.

For purposes of this discussion, the Dick and Carey systems approach model (1996) serves as a paradigm case of the instructional- ist approach and Jonassen’s (1999) constructivist model is used as a paradigmatic example of the constructivist approach. In Table 2 we provide a comparison of the person-centered model with these instructionalist and constructivist design approaches.

To what extent can the Person-Centered model presented here address the problems of related to transactional distance, interaction, control and social context described in the distance education literature?

Transactional distance. The person-centered model changes the roles of instructors and students by decreasing the transactional distance through a requirement of high interaction, dialogue and negotiation between learner and instructor in shaping the instructional goals. Goals are based on students’ interests as mediated by the expertise of the instructor in the knowledge domain.

Interaction. Within the person-centered model interaction is not simply increased, it is required along all four dimensions of interaction noted by Hillman et al., (1994) in order for instruction to proceed. Learner interaction occurs through the initial dialogue with the instructor to determine learner interests and goals and provide intrinsic motivation necessary in person-centered situations, which requires responsibility on the part of the learner. In order to continually assess progress and maintain motivation, learner-content interaction is achieved and active learning is facilitated through the thoughtful selection of resources by the facilitator. Self-evaluation, peer review, and contracting provide opportunities for learner-learner interaction. Learner interaction with the interface occurs obviously as a function of utilizing the particular cybertools in the virtual environment that support dialogue, peer interaction and the selection and exploration of resources.

Control.Baynton’s (1992) notion that control is an empowering element if independence (opportunities for real choice), competence (ability and skill), and support (materials, technology and humans) are extant is enabled by the person-centered approach. Primarily this is because the learner is genuinely involved in the design and assessment of the instruction by defining self-initiated goals based on interest and contracting to achieve them. Competence and ability are empowering components that are integral to the negotiation process between knowledgeable facilitator (expert instructor) and the learner in developing learning goals. It is incumbent on the instructor to bring to the negotiation the goals that constitute competence in the knowledge domain, and to shape and customize those goals with the interests and skills of the learner. The learner must honestly assess his or her ability to meet the standards of competence and begin at a point that is reasonable.

Social Context. The social context issues may be most significantly addressed through the use of the person-centered model because the complex of people, relationships, technologies, and materials must all be considered as the learning is designed through negotiation. Indeed, through dialogues with students and facilitators, all parties become aware of the learning issues, the skills required, the technological tools, and the range of materials. The design of instruction requires participation by all parties in defining and carrying out assessments (self, peer, external).

What are the potential benefits and drawbacks of using a person-centered model of instructional design? It is obvious to anyone who has implemented a Web-based course or used these simulated VR tools and/or environments that our students are “out there” independently exploring and shaping their own experiences, sometimes to the detriment, sometimes to the gain, of actual learning and skill acquisition. Web-based instruction is inherently “person-centered” and located at distributed rather than localized classroom group situations in which the instructor controls the environment. By incorporating concepts and principles from Rogers’ approach, the person-centered model capitalizes on the distributed and individualistic nature of instruction in virtual settings by redefining roles, instructional procedures, and assessment in ways that accommodate rather than antagonize the learner. Additionally, by emphasizing students’ interests and abilities, courses taught in virtual environments such as certain applications delivered via the Web can create an atmosphere of mutual participation and allow for the accommodation of various skill and ability levels. Students can exercise the freedom to choose which is encouraged by user-controlled virtual learning environments. By utilizing the person-centered approach for instructional design, students and instructor can take full advantage of the very features of virtual environments that are thought to promote engagement and enhance learning. In other words, the instruction developed using a person-centered model of design is a good fit with user-controlled, choice-laden instructional virtual environments.

The Person-Centered model is new, and many questions can be raised regarding its application. The elements promoting the success of such an approach—learner responsibility, ability to be self-assessing and proactive in learning—are the very elements, when lacking, that will result in an instructional experience that is non-productive at best and frustrating at worst. For example, how will students who have incorrectly assessed their abilities fare in such a free choice environment? Indeed, what kinds of self-assessment tools will be needed for students (and instructors) to make such appraisals of skill and knowledge? What opportunities or interim assistance are needed to aid these students in fully participating in the course and learning the material? Will students who often expect to obtain course material via lecture and didactic instruction feel cheated if the instructor relies on them to shape their own course experiences? What is the proper role of the instructor—how much facilitation/guidance is needed or appropriate?

There are certainly logistic issues, which arise from the implementation of the personcentered approach. Will courses have no design until learners sign up for them? How can instruction be so customized and learner interests assessed? (especially when learners may be unprepared to accurately detail their interests in cogent ways). Will assessment be credible? How can learners be prepared for their new role as mutual participants in the design and assessment of learning?

We believe that some of these concerns, while valid, can be overcome through the thoughtful application of the person-centered model in ways that keep in mind the spirit of the concepts and principles of Rogers’ work. There will be course design, but it will be focused on the negotiation of goals within a knowledge domain and competencies tailored to the learner’s facilitated self-assessment. The purpose of this article has been to articulate the theoretical underpinnings of the model. Specific procedures and processes for engaging the learner in dialogues that result in the articulation of interests need to be more clearly articulated. Case studies of courses that use the model will be particularly helpful for understanding the practical issues related to using this approach. Moreover, students will have to understand, acknowledge, and accept their new roles as mutual participants, and this new role will augment the well-documented need for activity and participation in meaningful learning.

Issues of dehumanization raised by the Fordist debate as well as problems relating to transactional distance, interaction, control, and social context, which have been documented in the distance education literature, are in evidence (and in some cases augmented) in newer, virtual on-line instructional environments. A consideration of the person-centered model of instruction described in this paper is clearly in a nascent stage. However, we believe its emphasis on the personal attempts to address several issues raised in the literature regarding the changing role of instructors and students, the broadening of the notion of learning outcomes, the isolation and dissatisfaction of students in dispersed locations, and problems with authenticity and individualization of experience. Though there are unanswered questions regarding implementation of the model, the primary purpose of this paper has been to articulate concepts and principles from Rogers’ work that can be applied to designing instruction in on-line courses where the roles, expectations, and delivery systems are changing radically. New models and approaches will be needed, and the Person-Centered Model is presented to provoke thought and spur further discussion on how instructional design must change to accommodate the challenges posed by the proliferation of on-line courses and virtual instruction.