From Degrees of Difficulty: The Challenge of Equity in College Teaching by David Trend, forthcoming from Worlding Books
The university classroom long has been dominated by teacher-centered instruction, which has shown some adaptability while retaining its fundamental characteristics. It wasn’t until the late 20th century that this approach faced significant challenges, as evidence-based practices and learning sciences began to inform educational methods. Understanding this transition requires examining the extensive history of teacher-centered education, including the influence of global pedagogical traditions and the effects of industrialization and technological advances.
Throughout educational history, our understanding of how children and young adults learn has continuously evolved. For centuries, this understanding remained notably one-dimensional, failing to account for the complexity of human learning. Prior to the 20th century in most parts of the world children were either seen as blank slates or miniature adults, requiring little more than information and discipline as they matured. Philosophers in the 1700s described children as possessing a natural goodness or in need of stern training. But it wasn’t until the early 1900s that Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget began charting children’s “stages” of maturity.[i] From this would emerge understandings of how youngsters transition from self-centeredness into social beings, eventually acquiring capacities to actively “construct” knowledge rather than passively taking it in. These insights about cognition and learning would eventually underlie the fields of child development and “child-centered” education.

Yet even as these progressive educational theories were evolving, families and educators continued to prefer traditional instruction, owing to “common sense” resemblances of teaching to parenting in activities like establishing routines, setting expectations, imparting knowledge, and providing feedback. These resemblances make teacher-centered instruction feel familiar and natural, especially in K-12 years. This broad-based appeal speaks to a deep-seated human desire for guidance and a reverence for wisdom embodied in the teacher figure. But as any teenager will tell you, such methods can become counterproductive over time as learners develop levels of independence and autonomy, requiring less and less supervision, direction, and monitoring. Failure to recalibrate instruction to the maturing learner can lead to stress, resentment, and underperformance in what educators term “resistance.”[ii]
The origins of teacher-centered education can be found in early civilizations –– notably Greece, China, and India –– in eras predating the advent of widespread literacy. In the agoras of ancient Greece, well-known figures like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle conducted dialectical discourse, cultivating an intellectual atmosphere predicated on the oral tradition.[iii] Confucian education in China placed a premium on hierarchical relationships and moral instruction, with Confucius himself the embodiment of wisdom and virtue.[iv] In India, the Gurukul system put teachers (gurus) at the center of the educational cosmos, guiding disciples (shishyas) in intellectual and spiritual enlightenment.[v] While unique in their cultural contexts, these traditions shared a common thread: the elevation of the teacher in imparting knowledge through direct interaction and dialogue. The Socratic method of questioning, the Confucian emphasis on moral education, and the spiritual Guru-Shishya relationship all exemplify these early educational paradigms, underscoring the global origins of teacher-centered pedagogy.
Western education changed significantly in the Christian era. Priests and clerics assumed roles as knowledge bearers, becoming conduits of divine wisdom in a primarily non-literate world. The advent of the printing press in the 1400s brought in a new era of knowledge dissemination. Nevertheless, the interpretation of religious doctrine remained firmly in the hands of the learned clergy.[vi]Both Catholic Popes and Protestant Reformation leaders may have used the printed word to propagate their theologies, but still maintained a teacher-centered relationship with their congregations.[vii] This period also witnessed the expansion of religious education throughout Europe’s colonial empires. [viii] Indigenous education often fell to missionary schools, that replicated the hierarchical pedagogies of their European overseers. The clergy’s monopoly over knowledge dissemination ensured a continued reliance on their interpretations, further reinforcing top-down educational relationship transcending geographical boundaries. These globalized forms of religious education served not only to spread faith but also to entrench a specific form of teaching.
In an era of limited literacy, secular reading and knowledge remained the preserve of privileged social classes, predominantly white men in Europe and its colonies. Sir Francis Bacon and René Descartes were products of this system, designed to prepare the aristocracy for leadership roles or academic pursuits.[ix] The general population, including women and those of lower classes, found themselves largely excluded from formal education. Even when lower classes gained basic literacy, they were often denied access to advanced texts and classical languages that served as gatekeeping mechanisms in academic institutions. Religious authorities and secular elites actively worked to restrict certain types of knowledge, viewing widespread literacy as a potential threat to established hierarchies. Education helped maintain social stratification and limited intellectual mobility, perpetuating power structures intergenerationally.
With the modernization of the Industrial Revolution, the need for broad-based instruction became increasingly apparent. The demands of urbanization and a growing factory system called for a workforce with basic literacy and numeracy skills. This period saw the adoption of the teacher-centered methods on a larger scale, enabled by technologies like the mass-produced textbook.[x] This made possible more efficient instruction to large groups of learners, epitomized by the Lancasterian system, through which monitoring personnel instructed vast numbers of pupils under the supervision of a single master teacher.[xi] This educational model became a microcosm of the factory floor, with students arranged in neat rows, much like assembly line workers, absorbing standardized information delivered by the authoritative figure at the front of the room. Underlying this approach were ideologies of rationality, efficiency, and control that typified times.
Schools metamorphosed into veritable factories of learning, where large cohorts of students were subjected to identical curricula, fostering a culture of passivity and unquestioning obedience.[xii] The emphasis shifted towards producing learners who embodied virtues of punctuality, quietude, and compliance. These qualities were seen as essential for success in a world governed by the time clock and the rhythm of repetitive tasks.[xiii] Hardly confined to the industrialized West, such methods were exported to many parts of the globe through imperial education systems.[xiv]
In the 20th century, critiques of the teacher-centered model began to gain traction, challenging long-held assumptions about what constituted effective education. Progressive theorists like John Dewey in the U.S. and Rabindranath Tagore in India emerged as vocal advocates for more learner-centered practices, emphasizing the value of experiential learning and the cultivation of critical thinking skills.[xv] Dewey’s work was particularly critical of factory-style schooling, advocating instead for pedagogical environments where learners could engage in hands-on activities and learn through direct experience. Tagore’s revolutionary vision stressed the importance of creativity, self-expression, and a connection with nature, offering a clear counterpoint to the rigid, exam-focused systems maintained by British colonial authorities.[xvi] The utility of progressive methods in fields like carpentry and nursing drove home the need for methods of schooling prioritizing active engagement and knowledge application over passive reception.
The progressive education movement of the early 20th century pushed for the systematic implementation of student-centered learning, recognizing the disconnect of the industrial model to a democratic society. Dewey and his fellow reformers argued that education should not merely impart knowledge but also foster the ability to analyze information critically and make informed decisions.[xvii] The movement paralleled broader social changes, including the expansion of suffrage and the rise of new forms of political participation, reflecting a growing awareness of the interconnectedness of education and civic life. In this new vision, schools were reimagined as laboratories for democracy, where learners could practice and hone skills essential for meaningful civic engagement. Similar educational reforms later took root globally, spurred by decolonization and a burgeoning desire for educational systems that reflected local cultures and democratic values.[xviii]
As research on educational efficacy expanded, a growing body of evidence lent support to the benefits of student-centered learning. Studies demonstrated that inquiry-based instruction, group discussions, collaborative projects, and applied learning led to deeper understanding and enhanced knowledge retention. Work by educational psychologists Lev Vygotsky and Jerome Bruner showed the crucial role of interactivity and scaffolding in the educational encounter.[xix] Over time these findings began to influence educational policies and practices, leveraging a broader adoption of methods prioritizing learner autonomy and agency.[xx]
Student-centered education is gaining further traction in the current knowledge-driven age. When information is accessible at the touch of a button, memorizing facts is less important than the ability to apply knowledge in novel contexts. Advances in cognitive science and brain research have further bolstered the case for student-centered pedagogy, revealing that interest, engagement, motivation, and feedback play pivotal roles in deep learning and knowledge synthesis.[xxi] These insights have confirmed the importance of creating educational environments that foster curiosity, nurture inquiry, and hone dialogical skills, preparing learners to apply knowledge outside the school environment.
[i] Jean Piaget and Barbel Inhelder, The Psychology of the Child, Helen Weaver, trans. (New York: Basic Books, 1969).
[ii] Emile Bojesen, “Educational Resistance,” Educational Philosophy and Theory, 55, no.5 (2023) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131857.2021.1927702 – inline_frontnotes
[iii] David Kaplan, ed., The SAGE Handbook of Philosophy of Education (Los Angeles: SAGE, 2010).
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Ibid.
[vi] Megan Laverty and David Hansen, A History of Western Philosophy of Education (New York: Bloomsbury, 2021).
[vii] Ibid.
[viii] Ibid.
[ix] Peter Burke, A Social History of Knowledge: From Gutenberg to Diderot (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2000).
[x] Michael B. Katz, The Irony of Early School Reform: Educational Innovation in Mid-Nineteenth Century Massachusetts (New York: Teachers College Press, 2001).
[xi] Ibid.
[xii] Joel Spring, The American School 1642-1985 (New York: Longman, 1986).
[xiii] Ibid.
[xiv] John Dewey, Democracy and Education (New York: Macmillan, 1916).
[xv] Ibid.
[xvi] Lev S. Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978).
[xvii] Ibid.
[xviii] Ibid.
[xix] Lev S. Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978).
[xx] Ibid.
[xxi] John D. Bransford, Ann L. Brown, and Rodney R. Cocking, eds., How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000).