Teacher-Led or Student-Centered? What the Research Says About Equity

What recent large-scale data suggest about narrowing the achievement gap.

Photo: Pexels (Cottonbro)

Student-centered learning is often associated with greater equity in the classroom. But does it actually reduce achievement gaps? A new study by Zhu et al. (2026)¹ suggests the answer may be more complicated than many educators assume.

To investigate this question, Zhu and colleagues analyzed how different teaching approaches related to equity in real classrooms. They distinguished between two broad categories of instruction: (i) teacher-led instruction (e.g., explicit, direct teaching); and (ii) student-centered learning (e.g., discovery, inquiry-based, problem-based approaches).

Using a large, nationally representative dataset of U.S. eighth-grade mathematics students, the researchers examined how each approach related to achievement across socioeconomic groups. Both teacher-led and student-centered practices were used at similar rates across schools serving different socioeconomic communities, allowing meaningful comparison.

Teacher-led instruction, characterized by clear explanations, structured support, and guided practice, was associated with significantly stronger mathematics performance for students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. It was also the only approach that reduced the achievement gap between low- and middle-SES students. Student-centered approaches, characterized by inquiry, exploration, and greater student autonomy, were not associated with reductions in the achievement gap.

The study raises an important question: Why might student-centered practices, which are often assumed to promote equity, be less effective in shrinking achievement gaps? To illustrate why they can sometimes produce less equitable outcomes, consider the following scenario:

A simple classroom scenario

Imagine two students working on the same open-ended classroom project. Both have been asked to investigate climate change and prepare a presentation. Both receive the same instructions. Both are given class time to work. But the learning supports available to them are not the same.

One student’s parents are university-educated professionals who can help their child locate sources, explain unfamiliar concepts, and review drafts. The other student’s parents work night shifts and are less able to provide academic support. The task and expectations are identical. But one student benefits from invisible scaffolds (support at home) while the other does not.

The inequity is not in the task itself, but in the resources students can access. When instruction assumes such resources are broadly available, it may disadvantage students who do not possess them. Sociologists sometimes describe this dynamic as institutional classism.

Institutional classism in instructional design

Institutional classism refers to the embedding of middle-class norms, assumptions, and supports into institutional structures (Tilly, 1998; Bourdieu, 2018). It is not a matter of overt prejudice. Rather, it occurs when systems are designed in ways that reward those who already possess greater economic, social, and cultural capital, while imposing additional burdens on those with less. It can appear in subtle forms: differences in student prior knowledge, academic vocabulary, familiarity with research practices, self-regulatory habits, and comfort navigating the hidden rules of school-based inquiry.

The climate-change example described above illustrates how institutional classism can operate quietly within instructional design. It challenges popular narratives that associate student-centered approaches with equity. Giving students more autonomy, voice, and opportunities for exploration is frequently framed as benefiting the historically underserved. Yet greater autonomy does not automatically translate into greater equity. Inquiry-based tasks may fail to reduce disparities when foundational knowledge and academic supports are unevenly distributed. As Carl Hendrick says, such approaches tend to “privilege the privileged.”

Of course, the climate-change example is only a thought experiment. One could argue that a better-designed inquiry lesson would produce more equitable outcomes, which is undoubtedly true. But the Zhu et al. (2026) findings are noteworthy precisely because they examine what happens in practice, not in theory. The research draws on large, nationally representative datasets capturing how student-centered practices are typically implemented in real classrooms.

Moreover, this study was not the first to document the problematic relationship between student-centered learning and the socioeconomic achievement gap. Prior studies have reported similar patterns (e.g., Andersen & Andersen, 2017; Baker, Gersten & Lee, 2002; Kroesbergen, Van Luit & Maas, 2004; Marin & Halpern, 2011).

What the study is not saying

The Zhu et al. (2026) findings should not be interpreted as a blanket endorsement of teacher-led instruction or a condemnation of student-centered methods. Zhu and colleagues explicitly caution against that interpretation:

Importantly, these results should not be interpreted as endorsing permanent pedagogical stratification. Rather, they support a dynamic, acceleration-oriented scaffolding model in which teacher-centered instruction functions as a high-intensity, temporary gateway…. Equity, therefore, requires a sequenced pedagogy in which structured teaching serves as the on-ramp to autonomy, transforming student-centered learning from a privilege of the advantaged into an attainable opportunity for all. (p. 7)

Zhu et al. (2026) emphasize that both approaches have value. The central issue is timing and sequencing. Student-centered approaches tend to be beneficial after foundational knowledge has been carefully established. Research supports a progressive release of responsibility, in which structured guidance gradually gives way to increasing student ownership, as knowledge and fluency develop:

Clear explanation → worked examples → guided practice → independent application (Renkl, 2014; Sweller, 2011).

Thus the problem is not student-centered activity itself, but its premature deployment.

What role does teacher education play?

Unfortunately, teacher education programs can sometimes contribute to institutional classism rather than remedy it. They do this by framing teacher-led instruction and student-centered learning as two competing philosophies.

Teacher-led instruction is typically associated with teacher explanations, modeling, and structured guidance. Student-centered learning, by contrast, is associated with inquiry, exploration, and student autonomy. These approaches are often portrayed in teacher education as representing fundamentally different philosophies, one focused on transmitting knowledge, and the other on empowering learners.

Student-centered learning is typically presented as a moral imperative. Teacher-led instruction, in contrast, is often caricatured as passive or authoritarian, associated with labels such as “traditional,” “banking model,” or “sage on the stage.” Such a framing undermines the “gradual release of responsibility” model by treating teacher direction and student autonomy as competing ideologies rather than as complementary phases in a developmental sequence. When explicit instruction is dismissed as philosophically suspect, teachers may feel pressured to accelerate autonomy before foundational knowledge and fluency have been established. Such a framing overlooks a substantial body of cognitive science research (e.g., Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006) showing that novices and students from disadvantaged backgrounds benefit most from explicit guidance, modeling, and structured practice.

The irony of this situation is striking. Teachers come away from their professional training believing they should minimize explicit instruction and make inquiry-based methods the default, perceiving the latter to be inherently more equitable. Yet in doing so, they miss opportunities to narrow achievement gaps by withholding the very supports needed by the most vulnerable students.

This is not a failure of individual teachers. Rather, it is a reflection of professional development narratives that privilege particular pedagogical labels over careful consideration of how learning unfolds for novices.

Toward more equitable outcomes

Real equity means giving all students a genuine opportunity to succeed, especially those who arrive with less prior knowledge and fewer external supports. This requires deliberate attention to instructional sequencing. Early instruction should reduce cognitive load, make structure visible, and build knowledge explicitly before gradually increasing autonomy.

From this perspective, approaches grounded in cognitive science, such as explicit instruction, worked examples, retrieval practice, and timely scaffolds, are not “traditional” or “old-school” in a pejorative sense. They are equity tools.

When instructional approaches yield stronger returns for students who already possess cultural and cognitive capital, the equity problem lies not in teacher intent, but in instructional design. Pedagogies that prioritize autonomy while overlooking unequal starting points can unintentionally function as a form of institutional classism, even when motivated by the best of intentions.

For teacher education, the implication is clear. Future teachers should be prepared to select and sequence pedagogies based not on ideology or fashion, but on evidence about how learning develops, particularly for novices and students with fewer academic and social resources. Equity will be advanced not by privileging particular pedagogical labels, but by ensuring that all students receive the structured support required to build a foundation of durable knowledge. Only then are all students well positioned to participate in successful inquiry.

---

References

Andersen, I. G., & Andersen, S. C. (2017). Student-centered instruction and academic achievement: Linking mechanisms of educational inequality to schools’ instructional strategy. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(4), 533-550. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2015.1093409

Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Lee, D. S. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathematics to low-achieving students. The Elementary School Journal, 103(1), 51-73. https://doi.org/10.1086/499715

Bourdieu, P. (2018). The forms of capital. In The sociology of economic life (pp. 78-92). Routledge.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 4(2), 75-86.

Kroesbergen, E. H., Van Luit, J. E., & Maas, C. J. (2004). Effectiveness of explicit and constructivist mathematics instruction for low-achieving students in the Netherlands. The Elementary School Journal, 104(3), 233-251. https://doi.org/10.1086/499751

Marin, L. M., & Halpern, D. F. (2011). Pedagogy for developing critical thinking in adolescents: Explicit instruction produces greatest gains. Thinking skills and creativity, 6(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2010.08.002

Renkl, A. (2014). Toward an instructionally oriented theory of example‐based learning. Cognitive science, 38(1), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12086

Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 55, pp. 37-76). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8

Tilly, C. (1998). Durable inequality. Univ of California Press.

Zhu, J., Liang, J., & Goddard, R. D. (2026). Teacher-centered vs. student-centered instruction: mitigating the socioeconomic achievement gap through differential access and returns. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2026.2624685

1. Many thanks to Carl Hendrick for sharing this article with us.