Using Selwyn (2017), I considered the courses I had taken over the years. I struggled to find whole courses as examples, which were much more likely to be made of a combination of approaches, depending on the activity. Nevertheless, here’s what I came up with:
Behaviourism
Lots of maths and maths-based courses I have taken have been based on behaviourism; especially true of the more elementary levels. Classes I have taken recently in calligraphy have been the same. In these cases, there is an assumed right way of doing things and that students need repeated exposure to them to learn these ways (rather than letting students find them for themselves). It’s possible to be critical about this approach (especially if you note Selwyn’s comparison to animal training) but there must be occasions when the time and effort that a student may take to find a way to do something is not worth the effort made (and potential frustration and discouragement). However, it will only take a student so far.
Cognitivism
I struggled to find an example of a course built on this (rather than just elements).
Constructivism
More difficult to find an example. I can recall a week-long biology field trip that was very loosely constructed and had room for learning through exploration (the rest of the course, however, was more behaviourist, doubtless because success in the assessment was based on getting through a large amount of content.)
Constructionism
For me, this recalls bookbinding courses where, although there is some direct instruction on some matters, the act of creating an artefact is the greater part of the teaching and learning. Whatever you make, however good or bad it is, you will have learnt something which you can apply.
Socio-cultural
This was my school-based teaching training course, where I spent almost all of the course in school, guided by teachers, rather than substantial time at a college or University. Almost everything was learnt by doing and in context.
———-
References
