Spectrum Revisited manuscript
Page 1
1
The Spectrum of Teaching Styles- Revisited 2011
2
Michael Goldberger
3
James Madison University
4
The Spectrum of Teaching Styles was introduced over forty-five years ago when the first
5
edition of Teaching Physical Education (Mosston, 1966) was published. As we approach the
6
semi-centennial anniversary of its inception, and as a new generation of teachers is being
7
introduced to the Spectrum, we thought a retrospective might be timely. In this article we
8
provide a brief history of the Spectrum, discuss several of the key refinements since its inception,
9
and, in closing, we respond to a commentary about Spectrum theory by two European colleagues
10
(Sicilia-Comacho & Brown, 2008). We invite those interested in learning more about the
11
Spectrum to visit our website at www.spectrumofteachingstyles.org. We are also pleased to
12
announce that a special edition of the book Teaching Physical Education is available for
13
downloading at no cost at our website courtesy of the Spectrum Institute for Teaching and
14
Learning.
15
16
The Spectrum of Teaching Styles – A Retrospective
What is the Spectrum of Teaching Styles? Over the years we have heard all the following
17
descriptions- a framework, a paradigm, a basic structure, a model, a schema, a system, a theory,
18
and more. It is, we suppose, all of those things, however for the many teachers we’ve worked
19
with over the years the Spectrum is first and foremost a tool that has become an integral part of
20
their daily teaching routine. It is a tool that helps teachers better harmonize their intent and
21
action. Just as a compendium of topical information guides the teacher in selecting content, the
22
Spectrum provides a comprehensive array of behavioral approaches, or as we call them, teaching
Spectrum Revisited manuscript
Page 2
23
styles. In our experience we have found that no teaching style is inherently better than another.
24
We have found that each teaching style is either more or less appropriate given the purposes, the
25
situation at hand (including the learners), and the kind of learning context.
26
In describing the Spectrum we like to use the word ‘elegant’ because it is, at the same
27
time, deceptively simple, logical, and straightforward, and yet complex, elusive, and knotty.
28
Spectrum colleagues from many countries have been studying and working with the Spectrum
29
for many years and for us it continues to both create and unlock mysteries about teaching and
30
learning. Who was it that observed that "teaching is as mystifying as life itself”? Although we
31
agree with that characterization, the Spectrum has provided an entrée into and an anchorage
32
within the fascinating world of teaching and learning. It provides an entrée by offering a
33
common perspective, a number of undergirding concepts, and a functional language we can all
34
use. For the sport pedagogy scholar, it serves both as an organized repository for knowledge
35
about teaching as well as a catalyst for generating new pedagogic research questions. The
36
Spectrum cannot solve all the problems of the teaching profession, but we believe it can help by
37
providing all involved in the teaching/learning enterprise with a common perspective and
38
language.
39
During the early 1960’s a young physical education professor at Rutgers University in
40
New Jersey was asking some pretty interesting questions about teaching. Is teaching an art, a
41
science, or both? Can a teacher, regardless of her/his personality, learn to teach effectively using
42
a variety of teaching approaches? What is the relationship between teaching and one’s
43
educational philosophy? How many different teaching approaches are there? Is there a finite
44
number? What is the relationship between teaching behavior and learning outcome? Is there a
45
unified theory connecting all these ideas? Dr. Muska Mosston was that professor.
Spectrum Revisited manuscript
Page 3
46
_____________________________________________________________________________
47
Place Mosston photo about here
48
_____________________________________________________________________________
49
Mosston loved working with his university students as much as he loved working with
50
children in schools and camps. He also loved playing with ideas. He invented playground
51
equipment and models made out of clay and wire could be found around his home and office. He
52
invented games, contests, and physical challenges for his students. His groundbreaking work
53
with ‘developmental movement’ provided an innovative model for the study of human
54
movement.
55
During the early 1960’s Mosston had his own television program on Saturday mornings
56
on WCBS-TV in New York City. The weekly program was carried for several years under two
57
titles, ‘Having a Ball’ and ‘Shape Up’. The half-hour sessions were broadcast live, these were the
58
days before video-tape. Mosston would lead a group of a dozen or so children through a series of
59
physical activity sessions demonstrating the teaching theories he was developing at Rutgers.
60
Because the sessions were not rehearsed, the children responded extemporaneously. There were
61
some magical moments of innovation and inspiration during those sessions. The program’s
62
producer/director, Ed Simmons, described his role as a ring-master as he tried to anticipate and
63
follow Mosston’s and the children through their paces. Most of the sessions were not recorded
64
but, luckily, several were saved using a process called kinescope.
65
Mosston was developing a national reputation as a non-conformist thinker and
66
charismatic speaker on the topic of teaching physical education. He traveled extensively while
67
still teaching at Rutgers. One day, while back on campus, one of his university students, out of
Spectrum Revisited manuscript
Page 4
68
frustration in trying to replicate his master’s teaching approaches, said to him, “Professor
69
Mosston, I can’t be you!” After a pause the student continued. “Furthermore, I don’t want to be
70
like you.” This encounter affected Mosston like a splash of cold water in the face. He
71
recognized the dilemma and turned his attention away from honing his own skills to
72
conceptualizing a vision of teaching that would include, but that would also go beyond, his own
73
teaching repertoire. In our view Mosston’s greatest contribution to teaching was providing the
74
particular perspective from which the Spectrum evolved. That perspective was captured in the
75
simple premise- ‘teaching behavior is a chain of decision-making.’ The premise was that all
76
teaching and learning behavior was the result of decisions previously made. What emerged from
77
this premise was a continuum of behavioral approaches, all undergirded by the decision-making
78
premise, that ranged from command to discovery.
79
For the next thirty years the Spectrum was foremost on Mosston’s agenda. After leaving
80
Rutgers he established the Center on Teaching, a federally funded project designed to further
81
explore Spectrum theory, develop training materials, and conduct implementation studies. Over
82
the next two decades Mosston, Through the 1980’s Mosston spent a great deal of time overseas,
83
and governments,
84
In 1994, at the age of 68. Muska Mosston passed away in his home in New Jersey.
85
86
All Spectrum work, both theoretical and practical, emanates from and rests upon this
87
simple premise. This premise provides us all, teachers, teacher educators, teaching researchers,
88
administrators, math and science specialists, art specialists, physical activity specialists, parents,
89
and students with a common perspective about teaching and a common language which allows
Spectrum Revisited manuscript
Page 5
90
us to communicate objectively. Qualifiers such as “in my view” or “in my opinion” are typically
91
not necessary within a Spectrum discussion. The Spectrum makes no judgment about any
92
teaching approach but rather identifies its position along this decision-making continuum. The
93
Spectrum provides reference points, so that the location of any teaching approach can be
94
identified. Those who know the Spectrum can observe any teaching/learning encounter and can,
95
with a good degree of accuracy and reliability, agree on which decisions were made by the
96
teacher, which decisions were made by the learner, and which decisions were not made by
97
anyone, and thus can identify which teaching style was being used. As best as we can recall, the
98
following describes Mosston’s thinking as he developed the Spectrum in the early 1960s. Once
99
he settled on the decision-making premise, the next steps flowed smoothly. If teaching behavior
100
is a chain of decision-making, what then are the decisions that must be made in any
101
teaching/learning transaction? As many decisions as possible were identified, including big
102
decisions (like the subject matter to be taught- a content decision) as well as small decisions (like
103
should a whistle be used- a signal decision). Mosston then organized these myriad decisions into
104
a framework with three temporal sets: (a) pre-impact or planning decisions, decisions made prior
105
to the teacher-learner engagement, (b) impact or implementation decisions, decisions occurring
106
during the teacher-learner engagement, and (c) post-impact or assessment decisions, decisions
107
made after the engagement has begun. He called this framework the Anatomy of Any Style (see
108
Figure 1) and the Anatomy undergirds every teaching style.
109
110
Place Figure 1 About Here
111
112
Actual teaching styles emerged from the Anatomy by identifying who, teacher or learner,
113
makes which decisions. So, if the teacher makes all decisions, and the learner complies with the
Spectrum Revisited manuscript
Page 6
114
teacher’s directions (the one decision the learner almost always has to make is whether or not to
115
comply), a style of teaching emerges that Mosston labeled the Command style. In this style, the
116
teacher provides very specific directions, including pace/rhythm and posture, and the learner
117
complies by performing as accurately as possible striving to achieve precise performance. Did
118
Mosston “invent” Command style? No, but he clarified it and placed it within the broader
119
context of the Spectrum.
120
Some people find the word ‘command’ uncomfortable, conjuring up an image of a
121
domineering leader and exploited followers. Labels, although necessary, can be misleading.
122
Mosston attempted to avoid this pitfall by identifying each style simply by a letter, so the
123
Command style was labeled Style A, the Practice style was Style B, and so forth. One must not
124
take any label literally and control one’s rush to judgment when considering the utility of any
125
teaching style. In selecting a teaching style it is a matter of deciding which approach would best
126
provide the learning environment most conducive to the objective(s) at hand. For example, if
127
one is teaching dicing in food preparation, or how to pull onto a freeway in driver education, or
128
performing an appendectomy in medical school, or how to print letters in first grade language
129
arts, or how to shoot an arrow (archery) in physical education, an episode in the Command style
130
might be an effective approach to get things started.
131
A more graphic example of a situation suggesting the use of the Command style involves
132
fire drills. A school that doesn’t have a fire drill policy, and/or that doesn’t have the children
133
master this routine, is likely negligent in terms of basic safety practice. Learning to respond to a
134
fire drill is a Command style activity. To provide a less dramatic example, but one that is
135
perhaps more educationally relevant, the Command style can be observed when watching a
136
marching band. Of course there is a lot of preparation the band goes through but when the leader
Spectrum Revisited manuscript
Page 7
137
signals the start, and everyone in their uniforms respond in a manner decided upon by the
138
director (pre-impact), this is an example of the Command style in action. Again, let us be very
139
clear, the Command style, with the teacher directing the learner what to do and the learner
140
following directions implicitly, is not new to pedagogy. It has existed throughout recorded
141
history. But what Mosston did was to identify its place along the Spectrum of Teaching Styles.
142
Finally, anyone watching the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympic Games, with the
143
incredible precision of the hundreds of participants, observed the power of the Command style.
144
Mosston thoughtfully shifted decisions from teacher and learner to form an array of
145
different teaching styles and thus the Spectrum evolved. At one end of the Spectrum is the
146
Command style. At the other end of the Spectrum is a teaching style in which the learner makes
147
all decisions, independent of others. This is the Self-teaching style. This style, outside the
148
confines of the regularly scheduled physical education class, is self-guided in all three sets of
149
decision --- planning, implementation, and assessment. An example of this might be a high
150
school student who chooses to go to the local community recreation center to participate in a
151
self-developed (based on knowledge learned in his school physical education program) weight
152
training program.
153
In our view, these two end styles (teacher makes all decisions and learner makes all
154
decisions) are universal. What alternatives do you have to those decision-making
155
configurations? The styles in between these bookend styles, identified by Mosston by
156
thoughtfully shifting configurations of decisions between teacher and learner to form different
157
teaching styles, were designed by Mosston (1966, 1981), and later refined with his colleague
158
Sara Ashworth (1986, 1994, 2002), are not universal in the same sense as the bookend styles.
159
The shifts along the Spectrum are Mosston’s conceptualizations. So, another person may come
Spectrum Revisited manuscript
Page 8
160
along, Smith for example, and, using Mosston’s decision-making premise, s/he might identify a
161
different batch of teaching styles based on different decision making configurations. The Smith
162
Spectrum might have four styles or it might have 40 styles. Again, the only styles likely to be
163
truly universal are the two bookend styles. The styles that Mosston identified represent his
164
vision and his rationality and thus we identify this as Mosston’s Spectrum of Teaching Styles. If
165
others were to develop other models based on Mosston’s work, in our view, it would be
166
professionally honest to give Mosston the credit he deserves as the original designer/developer.
167
So, acknowledgments such as Smith’s Adaptation of Mosston’s Spectrum of Teaching Styles
168
might be an honest and appropriate identification, in our view.
169
In 1966, Mosston wrote the first edition of Teaching Physical Education and this book
170
introduced the Spectrum to the world. In this edition he identified eight teaching styles (now
171
there are 11) and he provided examples about how each might be used in teaching physical
172
education. Mosston provided a schema (visual) of the entire Spectrum, which attempted to
173
provide an overview (see Figure 2). The diverging lines were meant to indicate, we believe, that
174
in his view education should proceed from a dependent learner toward the target of an
175
independent learner.
176
177
Place Figure 2 About Here
178
179
180
Five Refinements
The book is now in its fifth edition and while the Spectrum’s premise has stayed the same
181
and the idea of shifting decisions between teacher and learner to form different teaching styles
182
has remained unchanged, there have been a number of refinements. Let us highlight and discuss
Spectrum Revisited manuscript
Page 9
183
five of them. These refinements emerged as Mosston, and later Ashworth and others, studied
184
and implemented the Spectrum over the past half-century.
185
Non-versus.
186
When the second edition of Teaching Physical Education was published in 1981, one
187
change was in the schema/diagram. In the revised Spectrum schema (see Figure 3), each
188
individual style appears to be of equal dimension. The size of the square representing Style A is
189
the same as Style B, Style C, and so forth. In contrast, the original Spectrum schema (see Figure
190
2), because of the two diverging lines forming a “cone” across the schema, it appears that the
191
styles on the left side are smaller, and by implication, of less value than the styles to the right
192
side. This is not what Mosston believed. He always believed in the power of each style to
193
contribute in unique ways. He never envisioned individual styles in opposition to each other. In
194
his view the styles were complimentary. In the preface to the second edition (1981) he wrote,
195
“The conceptual basis of the Spectrum rests on the NON-VERSUS notion. That is, each style
196
has its place in reaching a specific set of objectives; hence, no style, by itself, is better or best.”
197
(page viii). Those of us who knew him know how much he would have enjoyed the opening
198
ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics. He would have been in awe of the precision and would
199
have said something like, ‘Wow, the power of the Command style.’ But, he would never
200
advocate for an educational system dominated by the Command style (or any other style). There
201
is a lot any society must teach its younger generation and making the entire Spectrum available
202
to teachers, to make appropriate teaching style decisions, is likely the best we can do. In our
203
words, each style, because of the unique combination of teacher and learner behaviors it fosters,
204
creates a particular set of learning conditions. These particular learning conditions are either
205
more or less appropriate for supporting the learning objective(s) at hand. So, Mosston defined
Spectrum Revisited manuscript
Page 10
206
and valued the Command style exactly the same way in both schemas. In the Command style the
207
teacher makes all decisions and the learner responds. The Command style is appropriate for
208
certain learning outcomes and inappropriate for others, based on the conditions it fosters. And
209
the same is true for each style along the Spectrum. But the first cone-shaped schema didn’t seem
210
to represent that view. It seemed to project a biased view of the relationship among the styles
211
and so it needed to be changed.
212
213
Place Figure 3 About Here
214
215
216
Landmark styles.
As was mentioned above, the two teaching styles on either end of the Spectrum are truly
217
universal. Mosston developed other teaching styles along this decision-making continuum by
218
gradually shifting decisions between teacher and learner. A style shift resulted when a
219
significant new teacher-learner relationship and set of learning conditions emerged. For
220
example, Mosston identified a cluster of nine teacher decisions in the Command style that, if
221
shifted from teacher to learner, made enough of a change in learning conditions to be considered
222
a different teaching style.
223
In Mosston’s first edition (1966), eight teaching styles were identified in this logical
224
manner and thus made up the Spectrum of Teaching Styles. Over the years, through a process of
225
refinement, the number of teaching styles has increased to eleven. These eleven teaching styles
226
are referred to as “landmark” styles. Each landmark style has its own specific decision-making
227
Anatomy. But, within the Spectrum, what is it when you have a configuration of decision-
228
making that doesn’t replicate one of the landmark styles? These non-landmark styles are
229
referred to as “being under the canopy” of the nearest landmark style. In the revised schema, the
Spectrum Revisited manuscript
Page 11
230
vertical lines between styles were replaced with segmented lines (see Figure 3). This was meant
231
to illustrate that decisions flow between styles and the separation is permeable and that styles are
232
not discrete. Are landmark styles better than non-landmark styles? If a non-landmark style is
233
selected thoughtfully for an episode, with the realization that it will create learning conditions to
234
satisfy a deliberate learning intent that are different from the landmark style, it might be very
235
appropriate for the situation at hand. Safety, equipment, facilities, and logistics are reasons for
236
not shifting certain decisions. Nevertheless, our observation is that the best way to get the full
237
impact of landmark styles is to employ them as they were designed. The insistence on being
238
clear with regard to whether or not an episode is landmark or under the canopy of a style has to
239
do with accountability. As in any quasi-scientific endeavor, clarity and precision are critical in
240
understanding the Spectrum and its implications.
241
242
In her book Teaching Middle School Physical Education (2003) Bonnie Mohnsen
wrote:
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
My own
teacher training in the 1970s primarily taught me simply to explain and
demonstrate motor skills to students. I learned to follow this with having everyone
practice the same skill simultaneously in the same way and to give students feedback
afterward. As I visit classes across the United States today, this is the same strategy I still
observe in the majority of classes. (p. 129)
The vast majority of physical education classes we’ve observed over the years fall “under the
250
canopy” of the Practice style. We are not critical of this because we feel if the Practice style
251
were the only style used, and if it were used well, certain goals of physical education would be
252
achieved more consistently. The Practice style, with its various configurations/formats, has been
253
found to be a superb approach for basic motor skill acquisition, particularly with larger groups.
254
If learning motor skills was the only goal of physical education, using formats of the Practice
255
style almost exclusively could make sense. However, given the variety of important goals in
256
American education, and the differing circumstances teachers find themselves facing, we believe
Spectrum Revisited manuscript
Page 12
257
the more comfortable and competent a teacher is in using a variety of pedagogical approaches
258
available (including different teaching styles) the more effective s/he could potentially be. The
259
concept of ‘mobility ability’--- the ability to easily move from style to style as circumstances
260
dictate --- is one we wholeheartedly endorse.
261
It is rare in our experience to observe certain styles used routinely in mainstream physical
262
education classes. For example, we have rarely seen Guided Discovery used in practice. Also
263
observed infrequently are the Learner-Initiated style and the Inclusion style (although in
264
programs/schools for special needs children the concepts and ideas of the Inclusion style are
265
predominant). A discussion about why these styles are seldom used, and if this reality is a
266
detriment to effective learning, will be postponed until another time. It is likely more a function
267
of educational philosophy and curriculum than of teacher choice.
268
Episodic teaching.
269
We have used the term ‘episode’ on several occasions thus far in this paper. For us this
270
has become an important and useful concept. In planning a lesson a teacher usually thinks in
271
terms of a class period. A class period is a unit of time, usually designated by the school,
272
agency, or program, during which instruction occurs. So, for example, a school might divide
273
their day into 50-minute segments or a company might offer a course for their employees
274
meeting once a week from noon until 1 p.m. Both teachers and students would typically refer to
275
that hour as a class period. In preparing for a class period the teacher would plan for certain
276
things to happen. The teacher might decide, given this hour of time, s/he might be able to
277
accomplish three things. Each of these three things might have different objectives, different
278
learning experiences, and different anticipated outcomes. In our terms, we would describe this
279
class period as having three episodes. In Spectrum terms an episode is a unit of time within
Spectrum Revisited manuscript
Page 13
280
which the teacher and learner are working on the same objective or set of objectives and engaged
281
in the same teaching style. An episode might last a few minutes, an entire period, or more.
282
So, a lesson or class period will typically include one, two, or more episodes. Each
283
episode has its own learning intent and corresponding pre-impact, impact, and post-impact
284
decisions. This combination of episodes would appear seamless to the learners during the flow
285
of the lesson. Some of the pre-impact decisions for one episode might be occurring during the
286
impact of another episode. Or, and now we are getting fancy, there may be two or more episodes
287
happening concurrently. Also, an episode might extend beyond a typical period and could be
288
continued during the next period. This is not as confusing as it may seem and we’ve found using
289
the episode as the “unit of measure” to be very useful. Spectrum teachers and learners can
290
change episodes easily. Spectrum scholars focus at the episode level in trying to establish
291
linkages between teaching behavior and learning outcome.
292
Clusters.
293
While developing the Sprectrum, Mosston came to realize a break was apparent along
294
separating the landmark styles into two clusters. Again, this is not a “versus” issue and clusters
295
were not included to be divisive. Just as landmark styles identify where teaching behavior lies
296
along the Spectrum (not good or bad), clusters also help to identify the cognitive demarcation f a
297
teaching style. This break occurs between the Inclusion style and the Guided Discovery style
298
and involves the decision about how the learner acquires the content (see Figure 4). If the
299
content is ‘provided’ to the learner and the learner is being asked to reproduce content as closely
300
as possible to the presentation, several teaching styles on the left side of the Spectrum could be
301
proficient for this purpose. The evaluation would compare outcome produced by the learner
Spectrum Revisited manuscript
Page 14
302
against content criteria presented by the teacher. However, if the learner isn’t provide with the
303
content directly but is involved in acquiring or discovering the content him or herself, this would
304
provide a significantly different learning experience, one involving a teaching style within the
305
production cluster.
306
307
Place Figure 4 About Here
308
309
For example, a teacher might be working with a group of students on the concept of
310
balance. The teacher could state simply- “You have balance when your center of gravity falls
311
within your base of support.” And then the teacher might lead them through some examples of
312
this concept- so they could ‘feel it’ in their own movement. Alternatively, the teacher might
313
develop an episode in which, after defining ‘base of support’ and ‘center of gravity,’ the students
314
perform a series of static balance activities, some of which produce stability and others which
315
produce instability. Then the teacher might ask them to write down in their notebooks their
316
answer to the following question- “From your experiences, what is the relationship between your
317
base of support and your center of gravity?” Most of them would come to understand that as
318
long as their center of gravity stayed within their base of support they could maintain stability.
319
But they would come to this understanding experientially, not as a result of the teacher telling
320
them directly. In general this type of teaching has been referred to as indirect (Flanders, 1970) or
321
heuristic.
322
Why would a teacher decide to use what clearly is a much more complicated teaching
323
approach when a more direct approach is available? We will save that question for another time.
324
For the present discussion, in just trying to describe the Spectrum, this bifurcation has been
325
identified. “The cluster of styles A-E represents teaching options that foster reproduction of past
Spectrum Revisited manuscript
Page 15
326
knowledge; the cluster of styles F-K represents options that invite production of new knowledge-
327
that is, knowledge that is new to the learner, new to the teacher and, at times, new to society.
328
The line of demarcation between these two clusters is called the discovery threshold” (Mosston
329
& Ashworth, 2002, p. 11).
330
O-T-L-O Relationship.
331
In describing an episode we said that each episode, in Spectrum terms, has its own
332
objectives, teaching and learning behavior, and outcomes; in other words, its own O-T-L-O.
333
What is the relationship among these components of the teaching-learning process? We believe
334
it is logical, causative, and organic. Mosston referred to these components taken together as the
335
“pedagogical unit” (p. 15). The proposition undergirding the Spectrum is that a particular
336
teaching style will produce predictable learning conditions that, in turn, will produce expected
337
learning outcomes. Will there be times when a particular episode doesn’t work in the sense of
338
producing expected outcomes? Of course, as is true in most human endeavors. But, there are
339
reasons why it didn’t work and those, in most cases, can be determined and, with persistence,
340
rectified.
341
The key component in the O-T-L-O is the teacher’s behavior. Teaching is a purposive
342
activity. But, regardless of the instructional purpose, it is the teacher’s behavior the learner
343
experiences and to which the learner responds. The Spectrum helps to bridge the gap between
344
teacher intent and behavior. It has been argued that using these behaviorally predetermined
345
teaching styles is depersonalizing and mechanistic (Sicilia-Camacho & Brown, 2008). In our
346
experience, just the opposite is the case. Because a Spectrum prepared teacher has an expanded
347
repertoire of alternative teaching styles, s/he can select the style that best matches intent to reach
348
a given objective.
Spectrum Revisited manuscript
349
Page 16
The O-T-L-O identifies the critical elements of the teaching-learning process at the
350
episode level. For any given episode, the O-T-L-O should be seamless. Teacher intent and
351
behavior should be congruent, learning activities should clearly support intent, and outcomes
352
should match objectives. If there is incongruity or discord among these elements, outcomes will
353
not match objectives. It is also important to appreciate that any teaching episode exists within a
354
larger context. Most episodes are segments of a whole.
355
Another dimension of the O-T-L-O incorporates the perspective of breadth or degree of
356
specificity, from a narrow to a broad perspective. Perhaps a simple way to look at this
357
dimension is in terms of three levels of perspective. The ‘micro’ level is about a particular
358
episode/lesson, the ‘meso’ level focuses more at the unit or the year-long perspective, and the
359
‘macro’ level offers the broadest perspective. Each element of the O-T-L-O can be examined at
360
each level. For the most part teachers live at the micro level. Nevertheless, we must all be aware
361
of this broader context and be cognizant of any incongruities between intent and action (see
362
Figure 5).
363
364
Place Figure 5 About Here
365
366
367
368
Response to a Critique of the Spectrum
In this paper we’ve attempted to provide a retrospective of the Spectrum’s development
369
and to discuss five refinements incorporated since the first Spectrum book was published in
370
1966. In closing we turn our attention to an article about the Spectrum by two European
371
colleagues. In 2008 Alvaro Sicilia-Camacho and David Brown had an article published in
372
Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy in which they submitted some of the concepts
Spectrum Revisited manuscript
Page 17
373
undergirding the Spectrum to philosophical analyses. It was their article, in fact, that motivated
374
us to write this article in response. Actually, the present article is not a direct response to Sicilia-
375
Camacho and Brown because we are not prepared to engage them in a philosophic discussion
376
(we are teacher educators, not philosophers). However, we found some of their understanding to
377
be interesting and thought a retrospective about the Spectrum, referencing some of the issues
378
they raised, would be of interest to the physical education scholarly community.
379
Sicilia-Camacho and Brown wrote, “The original Spectrum of teaching styles was made
380
up from a collection of eight commonly observed teaching approaches or styles….” (p. 87).
381
While the eight original teaching styles identified by Mosston were used in practice before his
382
1966 book was published, that was not how the Spectrum was developed. He didn’t ‘collect’
383
known teaching approaches or methods and organize these approaches into a framework. As the
384
Spectrum evolved from a premise, to the Anatomy, and then to the landmark styles, it is
385
important, we believe, to understand the nature of Mosston’s Spectrum of Teaching Styles.
386
Sicilia-Camacho and Brown (2008) contend that there was a paradigm shift from a
387
“versus (opposing) notion of learning and teaching to a non-versus (non-opposing) notion” (p.
388
85) of learning and teaching beginning with the second edition of Mosston’s text (1981). They
389
wrote, “While seemingly innocuous, we contend that this shift can be seen in epistemological
390
terms as an advance (back) towards a positivism in PE despite years of dialogue from emerging
391
interpretive standpoints” (p. 85). In our opinion, they read more into Mosston’s ‘paradigm shift’
392
than he intended. As we tried to explain above, the shift had more to do with a misrepresentation
393
within his original schema than with the Spectrum itself. In his first schema, Mosston included
394
the diverging lines (see Figure 2) that did imply direction, ‘from Command to Discovery.’ Even
395
though that statement at the time represented his philosophy about education, his Spectrum work
Spectrum Revisited manuscript
Page 18
396
was committed to the standard of universality. Upon reflection he came to understand this
397
misrepresentation and changed the lines to parallel.
398
Before the Spectrum was conceived, when pedagogical ideas like didactic and heuristic
399
teaching, direct and indirect teaching, problem-solving, cooperation learning, mastery learning,
400
individualized instruction, etc., were being discussed, they were often presented in an
401
oppositional relationship. For example, one expert would claim that indirect teaching was better
402
than direct teaching and another that individualized instruction was better than group instruction.
403
One of Mosston’s motivations in devising the Spectrum was to show the positive connections
404
among all these ideas. Once the idea of the Spectrum was clear, styles could be discussed in
405
terms of both their commonalities and their differences. Mosston never viewed individual
406
teaching styles as “oppositional” to each other as Sicilia-Camacho and Brown (2008, p.88) write.
407
Rather, he viewed the styles as complimentary to each other. Mosston observed the utility of
408
each style in terms of the different relationships it could forge between teacher, learner, and
409
content.
410
The authors also discussed the use of clusters, categories of Reproduction and
411
Production teaching styles. It should be noted that in the first edition of Teaching Physical
412
Education (1966), these categories had not yet been introduced. They didn’t appear until the
413
third edition. But more importantly, the identification of clusters was not introduced to produce
414
contention or opposition; command ‘versus’ discovery. The clusters provide more of a
415
navigational reference point along the Spectrum.
416
Sicilia-Camacho and Brown (2008) expressed their concern about teachers losing their
417
individuality and creativity when using the Spectrum. They contend, “any pedagogical model
418
that attempts to universalize and objectify will necessarily have to separate personhood from
Spectrum Revisited manuscript
Page 19
419
pedagogy, and thereby once again devalue and neglect the important issue of subjectivity” (p.
420
87). They viewed the Spectrum as something that makes teaching more de-personalized and
421
more technocratized (if there is such a word). The authors describe the styles as “neutral,
422
technical instructional devices that reflect no particular value” (p. 98).
423
We have found just the opposite to be true. The Spectrum, rather than depersonalizing
424
the teacher, can serve to provide more congruency and fidelity between a teacher’s intent and
425
her/his in-class behavior. Mosston’s push toward identifying “universal” structures in pedagogy
426
was not motivated in the least by a desire to diminish the creativity or individualization of
427
teachers. The Spectrum provides teachers with a versatile tool through which they can express
428
their creativity and individuality. Just as painters use color and brush technique to create highly
429
personalized visions, so teachers use teaching styles to help achieve their instructional intent in
430
the most effective, efficient, and exciting way possible.
431
The authors describe the Spectrum as being devoid of value. On the contrary, each style
432
does express a value or values. But these are mainstream values supported by most societies.
433
For example, the Command style expresses the value of conformity, the Reciprocal style the
434
value of cooperation, and the Guided Discovery style the value of thinking logically. So, for
435
example, when the Reciprocal style is used in an archery episode to provide immediate feedback
436
to learners about their archery form, the learners, who are giving and receiving feedback while
437
performing, are experiencing the value of reciprocation but they are not being indoctrinated in
438
some sort of socialistic philosophy. When you go past the individual styles and consider the
439
Spectrum as a whole at the macro level, the Spectrum expresses both many values and none in
440
particular. It is up to the teacher to craft the scenario. It is like saying that learning to play a
441
piano is a ‘technocratic’ endeavor. Teaching the brain to trigger certain nerves to respond when
Spectrum Revisited manuscript
Page 20
442
particular notes are observed is, we suppose, technocratic, but that’s not the end in learning
443
piano- it is the means for gaining a manner for self-expression.
444
In our experience most teachers can learn to behave comfortably and genuinely in most,
445
if not all, of the teaching styles. We have not observed teacher personality or philosophy having
446
a deleterious effect on acquiring the full range of teaching styles. We have seen the most liberal
447
teachers effectively use the Command style and the most conservative teachers use the Divergent
448
Discovery style. Utilizing alternative teaching styles is not a matter of personality or philosophy.
449
It is a matter providing the most appropriate learning conditions for the objective at hand.
450
Sicilia-Camacho and Brown (2008) don’t seem to accept this and argue that “this is only
451
achievable if that teacher ignores aspects of the underlying educational theory that informs these
452
styles, replaces them with a form of pedagogical pragmatism, and ‘performs’ them with the
453
authenticity of an accomplished actor” (p. 97).
454
We have advocated “mobility ability” as a goal for professional educators. Mobility
455
ability is the teacher’s ability to change teaching styles to meet changing objectives and/or
456
conditions. Interestingly, we have a couple of colleagues (now retired) who studied and
457
implemented Spectrum for over 30 years and both only used three styles. These were terrific and
458
successful teachers, well-respected for their abilities. How can this be true? As we noted above,
459
this has to do more with the curriculum they were following than their philosophy. In both cases
460
the major goal of their programs was limited to performing a specific set of sport skills. To do
461
this they used mainly the Practice style, with some episodes in Command and Reciprocal used on
462
occasion. In our experience, and it is also our belief, teaching styles are not necessarily
463
employed evenly across the typical physical education curriculum. The Spectrum was developed
464
to provide a comprehensive view of teaching behavior and was not meant to be a prescriptive
Spectrum Revisited manuscript
Page 21
465
tool regarding curriculum development. You can have an excellent curriculum and only use a
466
limited number of teaching styles. You can also be an excellent teacher and only use a limited
467
number of teaching styles.
468
Teaching Spectrum theory to pre- and in-service teachers both in North America and
469
abroad for many years, we have seen many teachers struggle in the beginning, as we did,
470
attempting to learn new behaviors, reducing inappropriate behaviors, and reconciling differences
471
between intent and action. Using the painting analogy, it is like mastering new stroke
472
techniques, we suppose. But once these behaviors become internalized and part of one’s
473
repertoire they recede from consciousness and during implementation the focus shifts from
474
oneself to the larger context.
475
Sicilia-Camacho and Brown (2008) apparently do not appreciate the concept of episodic
476
teaching. They wrote: “For example, on Monday a teacher might implement a teaching style
477
geared towards behaviourist understandings, while on Tuesday, the teacher might change this
478
approach in order to develop a more personal and autonomous constructivist teaching style and
479
so on” (p. 100). In our experience, Spectrum teachers never use the same teaching style all day.
480
Differing objectives trigger the use of different styles. The authors go on to discuss situations in
481
which two or more teaching styles are employed on the same day or even within the same period
482
and they express concern that these approaches are contradictory. We have conducted and
483
observed many lessons where episodes, utilizing disparate teaching styles, were used seamlessly
484
and effectively during the same period and were even used concurrently. For example, when
485
teaching a new motor skill to a class of second graders, the teacher may introduce the critical
486
skill elements of the movement in a short Command style episode, next have the children
487
practice the motor skill at their own pace in a Practice style episode, follow skill practice with a
Spectrum Revisited manuscript
Page 22
488
Reciprocal style episode where the children practice the motor skill while simultaneously
489
engaged in giving and receiving feedback (social development) and analyzing a partner’s motor
490
skill performance (cognitive development), and finally end the 30 minute lesson with a
491
Command style episode where the children review the critical skill elements that were
492
introduced during the first episode of the lesson. In this example, three different teaching styles
493
are used in a carefully selected sequence to help the children accomplish a series of similar and
494
different learning outcomes.
495
Early in their article Sicilia-Camacho and Brown (2008) suggest that Mosston used the
496
Spectrum to promote his “progressive liberal education” agenda (p. 90). But that was the
497
concern Mosston addressed when he changed the schema in the second edition of Teaching
498
Physical Education (1981). That Mosston believed in progressive, liberal, education is not in
499
question- he did! But, he envisioned the Spectrum going beyond his own experience and his
500
own philosophy- to offer a more universal perspective. After the first edition was published, he
501
came to realize that his philosophy was reflected in the first schema, developing learners as
502
independent decision-makers. Again, that’s why he revised his original schema to provide what
503
he referred to as the ‘non-versus’ perspective.
504
Sicilia-Camacho and Brown (2008) state, “The non-versus notion of teaching styles bases
505
itself on knowledge predominantly generated through quantitative research over the last few
506
decades” (p. 97). We have no idea how they came up with that idea. Mosston was not a
507
researcher in the classical mode. He was a scholar and read voraciously, but none of the
508
Spectrum’s structure or logic was based on quantitative research. Some of Mosston’s students,
509
his followers, led the push into quantitative research.
Spectrum Revisited manuscript
510
Page 23
Sicilia-Camacho and Brown (2008) state that although “tempting,” it is very difficult to
511
scientifically “to establish predictive and causal relationships between human behaviour” (p. 97).
512
We agree with this view, but as young scholars we were trying to engage in the 1973 challenge
513
laid down by Nixon and Locke to provide empirical evidence about the Spectrum’s
514
effectiveness. In our view the relationship between teaching and learning is positive. We
515
believe what a teacher does in the classroom can make a difference. Of course, both the teacher
516
and learner must be willing participants in this endeavor. The teacher’s behavior helps to craft a
517
learning environment that supports the learning objective at hand. And, we state again, “results
518
to date confirm the theory’s power to both describe teaching events and predict teaching
519
outcomes” (Goldberger, 1992, p. 45). We understand that there are many factors difficult to
520
control that affect learning; including learner factors (such as learner aptitude and learner
521
motivation), teacher factors (such as teacher content knowledge, commitment, and enthusiasm),
522
and many other contextual factors. Nevertheless, we do still believe that the teacher’s behavior,
523
and the use of alternative teaching styles, can make an important difference in terms of learning
524
outcomes.
525
Sicilia-Camacho and Brown (2008) appear to bristle at the suggestion that teaching and
526
learning have a positive relationship. “In this sense, the non-versus logic embedded in the
527
revised version of the Spectrum of teaching styles is a clear attempt at objectification and
528
universalism, that derives directly from its positivistic epistemology” (p. 98). This paradigm
529
shift concerns how Mosston’s teaching styles Spectrum has come to be conceptualized in an
530
increasingly universalizing and technocratic direction as exemplified by Goldberger’s (1992)
531
proclamation that “although the theory has not yet completed the full program of testing Nixon
532
and Locke called for, results to date confirm the theory’s power to both describe teaching events
Spectrum Revisited manuscript
Page 24
533
and predict teaching outcomes” (p. 45). According to Sicilia-Camacho and Brown, one of the
534
reasons why the Spectrum has not been submitted to a thorough philosophic review and
535
evaluation is because the focus of the educational leadership and research community has been
536
on issues dealing with PE content and curriculum. We agree.
537
In conclusion, we would enjoy engaging our colleagues, Sicilia-Camacho and Brown, in
538
further discussion about the Spectrum, whether face-to-face, virtually, or via scholarly
539
exchanges. However, we don’t think they like us support the Spectrum very much. In their
540
paper they called us some pretty nasty things (we think). Since most of it was ‘philosophy-talk’
541
we’re really not sure what they meant. They referred to us as positivistic, de-personalized, re-
542
objectified, neo-liberal technocrats. But in truth, as best as we can determine… Yup, that’s us!
543
Guilty as charged.
544
545
Spectrum Revisited manuscript
546
Page 25
References
547
Flanders, N. (1970). Analyzing teaching behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publish Co.
548
Goldberger, M. (1992). The Spectrum of teaching styles: A perspective for research on teaching
549
physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 63(1), 42-46.
550
551
Mohnson, B. (Ed.). (2003). Concepts and principles of physical education: What every student
needs to know. Reston, VA: AAHPERD.
552
Mosston, M. (1966). Teaching physical education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
553
Mosston, M. (1981). Teaching physical education (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
554
Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (1986). Teaching physical education (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH:
555
556
557
558
559
Merrill.
Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (1994). Teaching physical education (4th ed.). New York:
Macmillan.
Mosston, M., & Ashworth, S. (2002). Teaching physical education (5th ed.). San Francisco:
Benjamin Cummings.
560
Nixon, J., & Locke, L. (1973). Research on teaching physical education. In R. Travers (Ed.),
561
Handbook of research on teaching (2nd ed.), pp. 1210-1242. Chicago: Rand McNally.
562
Sicilia-Camacho, A., & Brown, D. (2008). Revisiting the paradigm shift from the versus to the
563
non-versus notion of Mosston’s Spectrum of teaching styles in physical education pedagogy:
564
A critical pedagogical perspective. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 13(1), 85-108.
Spectrum Revisited manuscript
565
Page 26
Figure 1. The Anatomy of Any Style
566
567
568
Pre-impact
(-)
569
Impact
(-)
570
Post-Impact (-)
571
572
573
574
575
Figure 2. Spectrum Schema 1966
576
_________________________________________________________________
577
578
A
B
C
D
E
F
etc
579
580
Minimum learner decisions
581
____________________________________________________________________________
582
583
Maximum learner decisions
Spectrum Revisited manuscript
Page 27
584
585
Figure 3. Spectrum Schema 1981
586
587
588
589
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
590
591
592
Minimum learner decisions
Maximum learner decisions
593
594
595
596
Figure 4. The Spectrum Clusters
597
598
599
600
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
601
602
603
604
605
606
Minimum learner decisions
Maximum learner decisions
Spectrum Revisited manuscript
Page 28
607
608
Figure 5. O-T-L-O Three Level Schema (revised August 2008)
609
610
611
612
613
MACRO
LEVEL
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
Objective
MESO
LEVEL
Teaching
Outcome
MICRO
LEVEL
Learning