Introduction
In the field of education, there has been a notable shift in the teaching methods used by teachers in their classes (Berg & Lepp, 2023). Student-centered learning is on the rise, while teacher-led learning decreases in popularity. Teacher-led learning means that the teacher is the center of the learning activity, seen in methods like lectures (Javed, 2023). Student-centered learning puts the students at the center of their own learning process (Shehata et al., 2024). Problem-based learning, the flipped classroom and debate exercises are all examples of this. In recent years, professionals and researchers have written about the advantages and challenges of both types of teaching methods. Oftentimes, there are discussions about which of the methods works better in different educational settings. This article will describe the recent research on teaching methods and the discussions that arose alongside it. First there will be a focus on teacher-led learning, and after that, student-centered learning will be described.
Teacher-Led Learning
There are a lot of articles written about the disadvantages of teacher-led learning. The ones criticizing these types of teaching methods say that it does not promote active learning. Students do not improve their independent problem solving, nor does it give them space to express their thoughts and opinions (Luoma & Kosunen, 2024). They are only passive recipients of the information that the teachers convey. Some even say that students are used to having the knowledge handed to them on a plate (Meletiadou & Tsagari, 2022).
Those in favor of traditional teacher-led learning argue that it provides a solid base of knowledge and discipline, which prepares students for academic success (Javed, 2023). In certain academic disciplines, such as STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), it is considered essential to ensure that students possess a strong knowledge base. Especially, when some concepts in STEM have weak linkages and a lack of real-world problems, making it harder to master the content (Fung et al., 2022).
Other instances where teacher-led learning was preferred occurred when teachers in some countries had difficulty letting go of their authoritative role as teachers (Shi, 2024). Not only did the teachers express this view, but the students also agreed. They felt that the teachers abandoned their role when engaging in student-centered learning (Shi, 2024). In a classroom situation where there were relatively a lot of disadvantaged students, teachers said to prefer teacher-led learning (Luoma & Kosunen, 2024). According to the teachers, students benefited from those teaching methods and the clear instructions that were accompanied by it. Students from that class remarked to prefer teacher-led learning as well (Luoma & Kosunen, 2024).
Student-Centered Learning
Many sources discuss student-centered learning, its benefits and the challenges. Student-centered learning can take on many different forms. It ranges from methods of small-scale that can be used during a phase in the class, like a small group discussion, to methods that require integration in the curriculum, like the flipped classroom (Javed, 2023; Malikovna et al., 2022). Regardless of what form is used, there are multiple advantages found to student-centered learning. Interactive teaching methods tend to promote critical thinking skills in students (Kamran et al., 2023). Being the center of their own learning process made students develop a sense of ownership and control of their learning. Additionally, interactive teaching methods fostered collaboration and teamwork skills as well as boosted the students’ self-efficacy and confidence (Kamran et al., 2023). Experiencing student-centered learning was also found to broaden the students’ horizons (Zhang et al., 2023).
The interactive teaching methods required teachers to deepen their understanding of the curriculum, as they no longer relied on textbooks. This was found to improve the teachers’ knowledge structure.
According to previous studies, not only did they find advantages in the learning process of students. Teaching levels improved as well (Zhang et al., 2023). The interactive teaching methods required teachers to deepen their understanding of the curriculum, as they no longer relied on textbooks. This was found to improve the teachers’ knowledge structure.
Listening to the experiences of students, it became clear that they felt empowered and listened to when working in a student-centered environment (Berg & Lepp, 2023). They remarked that their needs were taken into consideration. It was found that interactive teaching methods motivated the students more than other methods (Gudu & Jesse, 2023).
Even though student-centered learning motivated students, it did not motivate all of them. Some students lacked motivation or had low attitudes (Malikovna et al., 2022; Nazim et al., 2024). In some cases, students were motivated to participate in interactive teaching methods, but lacked experience (Nazim et al., 2024), and embracing autonomy was found to be a challenge (Santosa et al., 2024). It is something that students should be supported in for a successful learning experience.
Summary of Methodological Discussion
There has been a lot of discussion in recent years on teaching methods. Teacher-led learning is often discussed, as critics say it does not promote active learning, which is something that student-centered learning does promote. Others say that teacher-led learning ensures a strong knowledge base for the students, which is beneficial to them. Student-centered learning is said to have many advantages, like developing a deep understanding of the materials. However, it is challenging to get those results when students miss motivation or experience. So, there’s something to say about both categories of teaching methods. There are many advantages and challenges, which makes that both can be seen as useful in their own way.
How do We do it at TAMK?
At Tampere University of Applied Sciences (TAMK) both types of teaching methods are used, depending on the situation and the topic. In TAMK’s pedagogical principles (Tampere Universities, n.d.b) it is said that the student plays a central role in a learning process. Learning is seen as a ubiquitous process and does not only happen in the classroom. During their studies, students learn a lot in different kinds of projects, events and networks – in authentic environments of the world of work. Competence acquired outside of studies is also considered, and credit transfer for this competence may be granted where applicable.
It is always beneficial to activate student participation and thinking with inclusive methods.
However, there is always space for applying student participation on a teaching method level. Even if the topic was something that requires building a strong knowledge base, it is beneficial to activate student participation and thinking with inclusive methods.
Teaching and Learning Centre (TLC) has published a page about teaching methods on their open website for every teacher to use (TLC, n.d.). Methods have been categorized into six categories:
- Activation and orientation
- Knowledge building
- Brainstorming
- Critical thinking
- Summarizing
- Evaluation and reflection
Certain methods also include tips for online adaptation. Additionally, the Tampere Universities Community maintains the Digital Toolkit (Tampere Universities, n.d.a) which provides readers with detailed information on digital tools to enhance online lectures by making them more engaging and interactive.
In Finland, teachers generally enjoy considerable autonomy in planning their teaching. Nonetheless, pedagogical principles and institutional values serve as the foundation for delivering high-quality education to students. At TAMK, teachers are incited to focus on the learning process from the student’s perspective when designing their courses. TLC provides support and training in the design of learning processes and the online courses. Teachers are encouraged to engage in collaborative teaching practices. Autonomy does not mean that teachers must cope on their own. We truly believe that two heads are always better than one.
References
Berg, E., & Lepp, M. (2023). The meaning and application of student-centered learning in nursing education: an integrative review of the literature. Nurse Education in Practice, 69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2023.103622
Fung, C. H., Poon, K. K., & Ng, S. P. (2022). Fostering student teachers’ 21st century skills by using flipped learning by teaching in STEM education. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(12). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12728
Gudu, B. O., & Jesse., N. W. (2023). Teaching methods and strategies on learners’ motivation in English language lectures in higher education in Kenya. American Journal of Education and Practice, 7(1), 36-60. https://doi.org/10.47672/ajep.1344
Javed, M. (2023) The effectiveness of different teaching methods in education: a comprehensive review. Journal of Social Signs Review, 1(1).
Kamran, F., Kanwal, A., Afzal, A., & Rafiq, S. (2023). Impact of interactive teaching methods on students learning outcomes at university level. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 7(7), 89-105.
Luoma, T., & Kosunen, S. (2024). Participation and education conservatism among lower secondary school students in a disadvantaged neighborhood in Finland: a request for visible pedagogies. Peabody Journal of Education, 99(1), 23-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2024.2307797
Malikovna, K. R., Marisharapovna, S. Z., Shadjalilovna, S. M., & Kakhramonovich, A. A. (2022). Types of interactive methods in teaching English to students. Texas Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 14, 1-4. https://www.zienjournals.com/index.php/tjm/article/view/2641
Meletiadou, E. & Tsagari, D. (2022). Exploring EFL teachers’ perceptions of the use of peer assessment in external exam-dominated writing classes. Languages, 7(1), 16. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/languages7010016
Nazim, M., Alzubi, A. A. F., & Fakih, A. H. (2024). EFL teachers’ student-centered pedagogy and assessment practices: challenges and solutions. Journal of Education and Learning, 18(1), 217-227. https://doi.org/10.11591/edulearn.v18i1.21142
Santosa, I., Iskandar, I., & Munaworah, L. A. (2024). Assessing students’ learning readiness toward student-centered learning. Journal of English Education and Teaching, 8(1), 254-268. https://doi.org/10.33369/jeet.8.1.254-268
Shehata, B., Tlili, A., Huang, R., Adarkwah, M. A., Liu, M., & Chang, T. (2024). How are we doing with student-centered learning facilitated by educational technologies? A systematic review of literature review. Education and Information Technologies, 29, 7812-7854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12112-w
Shi, Z. (2024). Investigating the impact of different learning assessments on students’ adoption of learning strategies through explore-exploit tensions. Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, 38.
Tampere Universities. (n.d.a). Digital Toolkit. Tampere Universities. https://sites.tuni.fi/digitaltoolkit/
Tampere Universities. (n.d.b). Key information of TAMK. Pedagogical principles. https://www.tuni.fi/en/about-us/tamk/key-information#pedagogicalprinciples
TLC. (n.d.). Teaching methods. Retrieved April 2, 2025, from https://www.tuni.fi/tlc/en/teaching-methods/
Zhang, C., Zhang, B., & Zhang, F. (2023). Student-centered case-based teaching and online-offline case discussion in postgraduate courses of computer science. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(6). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00374-2
Authors
Evi van Doesburg
Intern
Pedagogical Innovations and Culture
TAMK
evivandoesburg2@gmail.com
ORCID: 0009-0009-2939-0843
Evi is an educationalist in higher and adult education in the Netherlands and did her internship at TAMK during autumn and winter 2024-2025.
Leena Katto
Senior Specialist
Pedagogical Innovations and Culture
TAMK
leena.katto@tuni.fi
ORCID: 0000-0002-3252-4648
Leena is Head of TLC at TAMK, and her work focuses extensively on the development of teachers’ pedagogical and digipedagogical competence.
Photo: Pexels