It is an idea that keeps returning in how we think about education. Something that has been around for centuries. I tend to associate it strongly with Jean-Jacques Rousseau. If we just shift far enough from explanation to discovery, from directing to guiding, things will fall into place. More active learning is better learning. It is, and remains, an appealing idea, but, as I have often argued, it is also too simple.

A recent study by Zhu and colleagues, which I came across via Carl Hendrick, starts from a different question. Not so much what works, but for whom it works. They combine two elements that are less often examined together: who receives which type of instruction, and who benefits most from it.

The first finding is almost reassuring. Today, there is little difference in who receives which kind of instruction. Students from different socio-economic groups are exposed to roughly similar amounts of teacher-centred and student-centred instruction. Critics of this debate have pointed this out to me before. If you look only at access, the problem seems largely resolved. But that is precisely where a potential pitfall lies.

The difference does not lie purely in outcomes. Teacher-centred instruction is more effective for students with a lower socio-economic status. That in itself is not new. I have discussed similar findings in two recent posts (and here as well). What this study adds is something I encounter less often. The effect decreases as socio-economic status increases and, importantly, may even reverse at some point.

For student-centred instruction, the authors do not find a robust effect on differences associated with socio-economic status, at most indicating that it tends to benefit students who are already in a stronger position. The same approach, then, leads to different outcomes.

This has consequences for how we think about inequality. Many discussions still start from access: more resources, more opportunities, more of the same for everyone. But if outcomes differ, equal access is not enough. You can distribute things perfectly fairly and still maintain inequality.

The authors make this explicit by analytically separating the gap. What is due to differences in access, and what is due to differences in outcomes? Their analysis shows that teacher-centred instruction reduces the gap between students from lower- and middle-SES backgrounds, not because it is distributed differently, but because it yields greater benefits for those who need them most.

This sits uneasily with a dominant narrative in some contexts. Not because student-centred learning does not work, but because it does not work in the same way for everyone, and certainly not at the same time.

The implication is therefore rather sober. It is less about choosing between approaches and more about sequence and build-up. Yes, I have written that before, but it is useful to see it confirmed again here. First, ensure sufficient knowledge, structure and support, and only then create room for autonomy. Without that foundation, independence quickly becomes empty.