Spectrum History

Muska observed that his students flowed easily in their learning experiences from Command to Discovery. However, many of his colleagues and the Physical Education profession posed a greater challenge.

The Spectrum theory did not initially receive standing ovations and applause. In fact, the theory and Muska were seen as threats to the establishment. His beginning message about the Spectrum theory too often attacked physical educators for their dominant Command Style teaching approach. Instead of introducing teaching styles akin to Command Style-A, the Practice Style-B, or Reciprocal Style-C, he chose a style opposite to that most familiar to the profession. He presented the virtues of the Discovery Styles. These teaching approaches were viewed as shifting far too many decisions to the students because they encouraged students to design content that was outside the established protocol. Such teaching was viewed as heresy.

In spite of the professional resistance, during Muska's Rutgers years he was invited to numerous conventions to speak about various aspects of the Spectrum. There were moments of tremendous accolades and times when the applause was barely audible!

Many PE organizations banned him from speaking at conferences. Not only was the Spectrum content heresy, but also they found fault with the aggressive manner in which Muska presented his work. His tender charm applied to children but not always to his colleagues. The more his ideas were rejected, the more pronounced his impatience became towards the field. Many student organizations supported his ideas and invited him to speak; however, this created a challenge since he was banned from many major conferences. The students solved the restriction by sneaking him through the back door into their designated presentation rooms.

"At the time the ideas of the Spectrum came about, I was teaching at Rutgers University presenting my students with ideas, notions, techniques, and experiences in teaching. One day a student approached me and said: 'I want to talk to you about the things you are teaching us.' 'Certainly,' I replied. 'What is it?' After a slight pause, the student uttered, 'I can't be you!' 'Thank you,' I responded—and began to walk away. 'Furthermore,' the student said, 'I don't want to be like you.'

I was quite stunned. I was upset. It took me some time to recover, but that statement kept gnawing at me. Is that what I was doing to my students? Did I impose my ideas on them? Did I demand replication of 'me'? It was, indeed, a moment of revelation. I realized that my experiences, my idiosyncrasies were mine—solely mine. I realized that they were only a part of the story of teaching. But, what is the other part? Or perhaps other parts? I kept asking myself…what is the body of knowledge about teaching that is beyond my idiosyncratic behavior? Is there such a possibility? Is it possible to identify a framework, a model, a theory that will embrace the options that exist in teaching, or a framework that might embrace future options?

It became clear to me that arbitrary teaching, scattered notions, fragmented ideas, and isolated techniques—successful as they might be—do not constitute a cohesive framework that can serve as a broad, integrated guide for teaching future teachers. The search for a universal structure of teaching had begun.

It has been a search for a unified theory that will show and explain the relationship between deliberate teaching behavior and learning behavior, a theory that will identify with consistency the structure of the options in teaching and learning behavior. The search was for a single, unifying principle that governs all teaching. Hence the identification of the axiom: Teaching behavior is a chain of decision making." (Mosston & Ashworth, 1994, pp. vii–viii).

This initial event is more than an incidental story; it chronicles the reason for Muska's cognitive dissonance and emotional unrest to solve what he realized was a professional obstacle. "What is teaching independent of my personal idiosyncrasies? Is there only one teaching approach? And if there is more than one, how does one differ from another?"

The search to answer these initial questions led to an exhaustive international review of literature from unrelated fields. His investigative journey eventually led to the discovery of the three factors that serve as the foundation from which the Spectrum framework was created.

In 1965, Muska's first book, Developmental Movement, was published by Charles E. Merrill. This book offers the field of physical education "an integrated concept of movement designed to achieve total physical development" (vii). Muska believed that all fields have their own intrinsic conceptual framework. Conceptual frameworks are like blueprints, linking ideas to form a structure. Developmental Movement delineated the blueprint (the structure) from which all movement is connected.

Muska's cognitive structure demanded conceptual logic. How do ideas connect? What underlying principle connects seemingly unrelated and random ideas? What is the relative position of one idea to another? What is the factor or variable that links one idea to another to eventually establish an overarching conceptual framework? Cognitively, Muska searched for structural order. For him, structural order revealed the patterns that linked and connected knowledge.

Additionally, Muska was an avid supporter of the developmental possibilities inherent in physical movement. He believed that the subject matter of physical education should be a prominent content area in schools, particularly for younger students, because of the rich and varied developmental opportunities movement offered. He promoted the now established findings that moving influences and stimulates thinking. Few content fields so effortlessly embrace the implementation of all teaching styles, and few fields provide simultaneous developmental opportunities on all the Developmental Channels – the physical, social, emotional, cognitive, and ethical, etc. domains. Muska believed physical activity was critical for development and health.

Why did Muska select physical education as the initial content field for developing and testing his Spectrum ideas? Movement provided the visual verification of students' thinking and showed them how they made decisions. Seeing the decision process enabled Muska to make predictions about different learning opportunities in each teaching style.

Charles E Merrill Publishing Company released the first edition of the Spectrum theory, Teaching Physical Education, in 1966.

Muska was very upset by the title the publisher assigned to his book. He wanted the Spectrum theory to be independent of any particular field of study. The publisher rejected Muska's position that his work was appropriate for all subject matter fields, grade levels, student performance levels, and diverse learning issues. Such a cross-field publication was outside the standard procedures and thinking at that time. Therefore, they refused to comply with his request. Additionally, at the time, books were field dependent for marketing purposes. 

During Sara's first workshop on the Spectrum in St. Augustine College, Sioux Falls, South Dakota in 1969, she asked Muska, "Why you?" Why did you discover the Spectrum?" His immediate reply was, "I asked different kinds of questions." 

The 25-year partnership of Muska and Sara as well as Sara's commitment to the Spectrum began with a keynote presentation by Muska at the Southeastern District Physical Education Convention in Memphis. The topic, addressed to the one thousand educators in attendance, was "Inclusion in Physical Education" and he presented the now classic "slanty" rope concept (see Style E for info about this concept).

His ideas were novel and they focused on a range of teaching styles. The keynote emphasized one teaching style designed to include all students, independent of their ability level by providing multiple opportunities to be engaged in the task. Such ideas about teaching had not been part of Sara's university studies. The humanity of his ideas captivated Sara, and the content of his presentation changed her life.

Not only were Muska's ideas mesmerizing; his presentation energy was phenomenal. Instead of lecturing on inclusion versus exclusion, he used a logically sequenced questioning approach that invited audience interaction. This interactive audience approach was unheard of in 1969 (see the Convergent Discovery Style) and it was cognitively and emotionally compelling and convincing.

His questions led the audience to first conclude that the higher a rope was raised, the more children were excluded from developing in the task over the therefore, Exclusion in Education results when tasks are designed with only one level of difficulty. Holding his belt horizontally as a prop for the rope, he next asked, "What can be done to the rope to create a condition where allstudents can be INCLUDED in jumping over the rope?"

Although the audience provided several possible and workable solutions, Muska led them to refine their thinking about the concept of inclusion and the role of the rope in creating conditions for Inclusion.

Some of the preliminary responses were:

"Keep the rope low." Muska's response: Psychologically, we have learned that this option reduces motivation. What can be done to the rope so all students are included and motivated?

"Have the children go under the rope." Muska's response: This option changes the task. The task for the lesson is for each child to go over the rope. Therefore, how can you include, motivate, and keep the integrity of the task?

"Have multiple ropes at different heights." Muska's response: We are a poor district, and we have only one rope! What adjustment can be made with just this one rope so all students are included, challenged, and motivated?

"Before jumping over, have each child indicate the height they want, and then adjust the height."Muska's response: This option is indeed possible. However, more class time is spent waiting, as the height is adjusted rather than engaging in the task. What can we do to the rope so that all children can select their own entry point and be actively involved in the task of going over the rope?

Although Sara was sitting in the last row with 1,000 people in front of her, she managed to offer a thought out loud, "Slant the rope." Muska's response to this option: When multiple heights are offered by "slanting" the rope, each child is offered an opportunity to engage in the task based on where they can participate. Thus, by offering multiple levels of difficulty, within the same task, students are INCLUDED in the task and they are offered opportunities for continued participation in the educational experience.

The power and the elegance of the concept of Inclusion in education challenged everything Sara had been taught and opened her thinking to new possibilities in teaching and learning. Most of all, Muska's presentation created a desire to learn more about the Spectrum of Teaching Styles. At a publisher's reception later that day, Muska and Sara were introduced. That introduction led to a partnership that continued for the next 25 years.

In 1971, Sara accepted a job at County College of Morris in Dover, New Jersey, where Muska would regularly observe her classes and offer feedback about the implementation of the Spectrum styles. These classroom observation sessions, which continued for more than a year, were not always easy for Sara as Muska pointed out discrepancies between how she thought she was teaching a particular teaching style and how she was actually teaching that style. With continuous practice and feedback from Muska, thinking about the specific decision making patterns of both teacher and learner in the various styles becomes automatic. The Spectrum requires a different level of deliberate thinking about intentions, planning, implementation, and assessment. With the Spectrum as a pedagogical foundation, reflection takes on a completely different process. This increased knowledge, freedom to design, and flexibility elevated professional understanding about how to teach.

Muska singularly discovered the Spectrum’s axiom, Teaching is a Chain of Decision Making, as well as the notion of a non-versus framework and the idea that different learning objectives/outcomes were produced by a specific clustering of decisions. However, Sara’s partnership added refinements, clarification, and even new styles to the Spectrum. During the practice implementation sessions, it became clear to Sara that a gap existed between theory and implementation. Although students and teachers engaged in "micro-teaching" when studying the Spectrum (videotaping for a minimal time frame from 5-10 minutes with 2 or 4 students), the congruence between theory and implementation was not significant. Too frequently personal, idiosyncratic "interpretations" guided the teachers' design of the style's microteaching episodes. Therefore, an excessive amount of time was spent, during the private viewing of the micro-teaching episode, reviewing the specific teaching style's structure. The question became: How can teachers more successfully implement the theory of each style, without the benefit of Muska observing and offering feedback in every classroom? The Analysis Tools per style were developed to offer teachers a review of the structure, sequence, and components inherent in each style. Sara's implementation procedures (Learning to See exercises) provided teachers and/or principals with the consistent tools they needed to independently internalize, implement, and assess the style's intent in the micro-teaching lesson. The same tools per style were used to guide classroom episodes and to assess the fidelity of the classroom action to the expected learning intent.

The Analysis Tools provided the sequence for implementing each landmark style. Deliberate adaptations and canopies could be designed once teachers were successful in implementing the landmark styles. Fidelity to theory is essential for maintaining the integrity of any theory.

The Department of Research and Development was directed by Dr. Bob Ward and his team of deputies, including Dr. Evelyn Ogden, a former student at Rutgers University. During these years Muska and Sara were invited to give hundreds of introductory presentations throughout the state and many schools signed up for their intensive workshops. After three years of creating and implementing the program, Dr. Richard C. Anderson and his team from the Cognitive Laboratories at the University of Illinois conducted the required validation research. It was an intense evaluation examining every facet of the COT's program. The research findings were so positive that the Spectrum program was acknowledged in Programs that Work. The Center on Teaching continued under the rigorous research structure of the Federal grant for eight years.

The Spectrum workshops had three phases: Phase I. Spectrum theory; Phase II. Micro-teaching practice of each teaching style studied; and Phase III. Classroom Observations that included months of scheduled classroom implementation observations.

Although the classroom observation and feedback experiences were the most consuming and critical for the success of the program, the videotaping phase was the most stressful for teachers. In the early 1970s, videotaping was a new technology, and watching oneself and assessing the accuracy of one's performance against criteria were not common practices. Comfort in front of the camera came slowly and trusting the value of video recording and the importance of the rewind and re-play option took time. In time, most teachers and principals embraced the new technology because of its common point of departure and objectivity in feedback. The Spectrum theory served as the foundational platform for both principal and teacher to view classroom actions.

Objective feedback was possible since each teaching style had its own Style Analysis Tool. The Style Analysis Tools serve as road maps that lead to the specific style's anticipated learning destination. Learning to See (watching one's teaching patterns) is both humbling and empowering. Today videotaping remains a key technique in learning to teach.

Additional recognition and opportunity for dissemination occurred when an invitation for a three-month visit to the Scottish Center for Physical Education in Edinburgh, Scotland arrived. During their stay in Edinburgh, Peter Hill, their host and former Temple University student, invited Muska and Sara to attend an international conference in Great Britain. During this conference, Muska and Sara met many new colleagues who were using the Spectrum and many of them invited Muska and Sara to present at their university. The three-month visit became an eleven-month European Lecture Tour. During the eleven-month tour, Muska and Sara conducted eighty-seven workshops on various topics related to the Spectrum in eleven different countries. 

The following are institutions who hosted Muska and Sara and the Spectrum.

• Sheffield City Polytechnic, Wentworth, Rotherham, England
• University of Warwick, Coventry, England
• Loughborough University of Technology, Leicestershire, England
• Bedford College, Cambridge, England
• Ulster Polytechnic, Northern Ireland
• Leuven University, Leuven, Belgium
• Christian Albrechts Universitat, Kiel, West Germany
• University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, West Germany
• Institut Pedagogique, Gr. D. de Luxembourg
• Universita Korlova, Prague, Chechoslavakia
• Institut National Du Sport Et De L'education Physique, Paris, France
• Instituto Superior de Educacao Fisica, Lisbon, Portugal
• Universidade de Evora, Deptment de Pedagogia and Educacao, Evora, Portugal University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla
• Frie University, Amsterdam, Holland
• Nordic Conference - Finland, Sweden Norway, Denmark
• Before returning to the USA, Muska and Sara flew to Israel to present at Wingate Institute in Natanya. Muska graduated in the first class at this Institute.

Muska's passing shocked the Spectrum community. He was too energetic, vivacious and dynamic to be taken so soon. He was at a stage in his life where he was finally experiencing the acceptance of his ideas and receiving recognition from his colleagues. Indeed, his circle of friends and work obligations spanned the world. His cognitive capacities were amazing and his exuberance and zest for life were contagious.

In spite of the roller-coaster life that Muska led, he was grounded in the hope that pedagogy would someday function from a universal and unifying framework, with a common language that guides theory, practice, and assessment. He saw the Spectrum as a theory that offered a solid, consistent, non-versus foundation from which all teachers and students could benefit. Muska was visionary; he saw what pedagogy could be.

Muska's work in pedagogy is original. He discovered a universal and unifying theory of instruction. He discovered the principal factor that not only explains the structure and function of teaching but that differentiated one teaching approach from another – decision making. Muska discovered the science in the art of teaching.

Dr. Tom Cuddihy (Chair of the School Learning and Teaching Committee, School of Human Movement Studies, Queensland University of Technology) chaired the 26th ACHPER International Conference in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. The conference was attended by approximately 500 very active and involved participants. 

The theme of Creating Active Futures was certainly a topic relevant to all in Physical Education. Creating active futures will require a vision that includes alternatives, invites participation, and creates inclusion while supporting flexibility in programs. It was rewarding as keynote speaker and session presenter to learn that so many were familiar and had such a keen genuine interest in the details of the Spectrum theory. 

This conference provided many connections with new colleagues from Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and with Queensland students. They were remarkably knowledgable and inquisitive, were extremely professional, and had a keen sense of humor. 

During this visit, Sara had the chance to meet her online doctoral student--Brendan SueSee. Brendan and Sara began working together in 1997 and this was their first face-to-face meeting. Brendan is now Dr. SueSee and very knowledgeable in the Spectrum theory.