Comparative analysis of teacher-centered and student-centered learning in the context of higher education: A co-word analysis

Objective. This study compared teacher-centered and student-centered learning approaches by identifying and examining word clustering in related research literature. Design/Methodology/Approach. To categorize and compare research findings on each learning approach, a cluster mapping methodology was employed. Five distinct clusters were identified for teacher-centered and student-centered approaches, focusing on themes relevant to each methodology. Results/Discussion. For the teacher-centered approach, the identified clusters are Educational Content and Beliefs, Teaching Actions and Applications, Educational Approaches and Environment, Educational Competency and Context, and Curriculum and Implementation. These clusters highlight key aspects such as pedagogical strategies, teacher effectiveness, and curriculum development. Conversely, the student-centered approach clusters include Educational Achievement and Performance, Academic Institutions and Success, Educational Processes and Agreements, Accessibility and Support in Education, and Educational Best Practices and Considerations. These categories focus on student success, institutional commitment, and access. When compared, the student-centered approach refers to a means by which students are engaged and perform, while the teachers center on instructional procedures and teacher abilities. These two models relate to assessment and learning environments but concentrate on different things. Balanced frameworks integrating components from both positions may improve educational practice for educators, policymakers, and researchers. Future research should investigate hybrid models to capitalize on the strengths of both approaches for improved educational efficacy. Conclusion. These approaches are markedly distinct from one another. Teacher-centered learning was driven by standardized testing and uniform assessments, whereas student-centered learning is designed to facilitate individual progress with continuous feedback through formative assessments. The differing perspectives on assessment reinforce the distinction between the two approaches, with proponents of each offering a compelling set of arguments in favor of and against their respective approaches.