In a teacher-centered education, the focus is on the teacher who talks, while the students exclusively listen. During activities, students work alone, and collaboration is discouraged. In a learner-centered (or student-centered) instruction, students and instructors share the focus.

The advantages of learner-centered education is active learning strategies to engage students directly in learning processes and to achieve important learning skills, such as critical thinking, problem solving, and the ability to cooperatively work with others. The teacher models instructions and acts as a facilitator, providing feedback and answering questions when needed. The disadvantages are in causing students to feel overwhelemed and maybe not pull as much from learning as they normally would. Also, another disadvantage to learner-centered instruction would be too much independence.

Some maintain that teacher-centered education is the more effective strategy. In most cases, the combination of approaches is preferred to ensure that all student needs are met.

Thank you for yor answer. The questions I want to make clear are:

Are there some difficulties in its implementation of classroom setting, i.e. the belief system of the students and teachers? Has student–cantered learning may necessarily transfer to all countries education or teaching - learning system easily?

Regards,

Interesting question and discussion.

Certainly both approaches are existent and acceptable. Different classes may require different teaching methods.

No method should be rejected.

One of the key issues that this question raises is the traditional division/divide between teaching staff and students - at all levels of tertiary education - undergraduate and especially at post graduate level education ideally is a collaborative effort - collaborative between staff and students - as well as collaborative among groups of staff to teach across disciplines and among groups of students to develop team building - and leadership skills.

Students need to be encouraged to take responsibility for their studies and their learning journey and teaching staff have to be willing to release some control and allow and encourage students to take that responsibility - the teacher centered and student centered approach is arguably becoming an outdated concept - esp in post graduate business education - we all learn from each other

From my point of view, teachers teach in very different forms. The question is which form of teaching leads to greater learning success and makes learners happier. Some teachers claim that teacher-centred education is the more effective strategy, others claim the opposite.

In my own studies, for example, I have developed and examined the following hypotheses.

- There is a connection between the coordination of theory and laboratory teaching and the form of teaching (proportion of teacher-centred to learner-centred).

- There is a correlation between the type of teaching and the learning success or pass rate of examinations.

Of course, pupil-centred teaching also requires the availability of appropriate resources and media that can be used for teaching purposes in small groups. If there is no appropriate equipment, it is hardly possible to implement learner-oriented teaching. The question of the form of teaching and learning, the equipment and the methods cannot be answered independently from the actors (teachers and learners), the learning targets, the means and the media.

Perhaps my contributions under Researchgate will help you.

With best regards

Teacher-centered and student-centeredness are two different type of methods used in classroom teaching. Both methods are used still used in classroom.

Teacher-centeredness is traditional method of teaching and this is now slowly replaced by student-centeredness. For some lesson we want to follow teacher-centeredness and for others we want to follow student-centeredness. So both are necessary and inevitable in teaching-learning process.

In order to clarify the sense of teacher-centred and pupil-centred teaching, we should first look at the teaching principles. Teaching principles are general principles of teaching design. Accordingly, principles are basic principles but not rules or recipes. The legitimation of teaching principles is based on assumptions about what constitutes good teaching.

According to Wiater, the orientation towards pupils, facts and actions is one of the fundamental teaching principles, because an educational examination of the matter can only come about if the teacher succeeds in orienting himself towards the pupils, in presenting the facts in a professional manner and in ensuring that the pupils deal with the matter adequately.

The principle of action orientation is intended to activate the pupils, because learning is an active process that requires people to come to terms with their environment, i.e. understanding, trying out, forming hypotheses or analogies. Such an occupation with real things is the basis for our thinking. However, in order to overcome the limitations of perception, goal-oriented questions are also required.

As far as the multitude of teaching principles is concerned, it can be said that all principles can never be followed at the same time. For example, many teachers argue that goal orientation suffers from student self-activity. It is therefore impossible to speak of real principles that must not be violated. Some principles, however, can be combined. Therefore, it makes little sense for teaching-learning research to examine individual teaching principles with regard to their effect. The form of teaching is more suitable for this (more teacher-centred compared to more pupil-centred teaching). Teacher-centred instruction aims primarily at subject and goal orientation as well as structuring, while pupil-centred instruction aims in particular at pupil and action orientation as well as pupil self-activity.

In both extreme forms of teaching, therefore, at least one fundamental teaching principle is violated. The optimum must therefore be between teacher-centred and pupil-centred instruction. My article "Influence of the frequency of use of teaching procedures on their benefit" provides empirical confirmation.

I would like to support Otmar, on teacher centred but the most preferable is student -centred teaching because we have to engage students more and more.

By so doing we draw a line on what type of students we teach (VARK) to accomodate all of them. Some students are getting bored if we only use teacher-cented teaching. student@PGCHE NUST

The terms due to science of education and the elaborating skills. We need creativity when using the terms as suitable as. So, it is better to use the two terms based on forward quality of teaching and learning.

I agree but student-centred is the mostly dominant than the other.

THE OBJECTIVE OF TEACHING AND LEARNING IS KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER AND ACQUISITION; therefore, the ideas of teacher-centered or student-centered are displaced in education. If teacher-centered means that the focal point of teaching is the teacher; the words of the teacher are final---such an approach deprives students of creative thinking. If student-centered means allowing students to learn through exploration with minimal supervision at the expense of instructional design and institutional influence---such an approach is equally ineffectual because it creates fake learning for lack of supervision, quality control and effective evaluation process.

Thank you for a topic.......teacher-centred is also one of the strategy which is used but it has little benefit on a student....while student-centred , there must be the best curriculum developed which benefit the student from the varsity journey throughout the employability. In classroom sessions, proper preparation must be done and the students should be given a fair chance of participation (think-pair-and-share) strategy.

Student-centered in term of humanistic link, while teacher-centered is a style of pedagogic propa-deutic