We hear it often. Education should become more student-centred. Less direct instruction, more discovery. Less teacher, more learner. It sounds intuitive. And to be fair, there is something in it. At the same time, in other circles, you may hear the exact opposite.

But as so often in education, what sounds right is not automatically what works. Or more precisely, it works sometimes, under certain conditions, and often in ways that differ from what we expect.

The concept is less clear than it seems

A first complication is conceptual. Student-centred learning is not a single approach. It covers a wide range of practices, from relatively structured forms of guided learning to fully self-directed approaches. That makes strong claims difficult. Even in the research literature, the term is used inconsistently, which makes conclusions less clear-cut than they sometimes appear.

This is not new. As Larry Cuban has argued, the evidence for student-centred instruction is often less straightforward than assumed (see, for example, this post: Evidence to support student-centred instruction?).

What research on learning actually shows

A second issue is how learning actually happens. Decades of research in cognitive psychology show that learning depends on prior knowledge, cognitive load, and how information is structured. When guidance is too limited, especially for novice learners, this can lead to overload or superficial strategies. Yes, this refers to the classic Kirschner, Sweller and Clark article.

This becomes very visible when looking at differences between students. In an older but still relevant study, students without difficulties benefited from both approaches, while those who struggled clearly needed more explicit instruction (Student-centred activities… but not for low achievers).

More recent work confirms that this is not just about ability, but also about context. In a recent analysis, teacher-centred instruction appeared to benefit lower SES students more, while student-centred approaches tended to favour those who were already in a stronger position (Who benefits from which instruction?).

This helps explain why the debate often becomes too simplistic. People often present student-centred learning regularly as the opposite of teacher-centred instruction. That is a false dichotomy. In practice, effective teaching combines elements of both.

Students benefit from opportunities to think, discuss, explain, and apply what they have learned. But these activities are most powerful when they are embedded in a well-structured learning process. Without sufficient knowledge and guidance, activity alone does not guarantee learning.

The same nuance appears in research on autonomy. Giving students more control sounds appealing, but it does not automatically improve learning outcomes. In some contexts, it can even have negative effects if the necessary foundations are not in place (Does autonomy really improve learning?).

Beyond the false dichotomy

So the question is not whether we should choose between student-centred and teacher-centred learning. The more relevant question is: when, for whom, and under what conditions do different approaches work best?

Seen in that light, student-centred learning is neither a miracle solution nor a myth. It is a label for a set of practices that can be effective, but only when carefully designed and supported.

The implication is not that we should abandon student-centred approaches. It is that we should be more precise. Not just asking whether students are active. But how that activity is structured. What it builds on. And what it leads to.

Because in the end, learning is not defined by who is at the centre of the classroom. We need to define it in terms of what students actually understand, remember, and can do afterwards.