Revisiting the paradigm shift from the “versus” to the “non-versus” notion of Mosston's Spectrum of teaching styles in physical education pedagogy: A critical pedagogical perspective.

Background: Teaching styles in physical education (PE) found prominence through Muska Mosston's teaching styles ‘Spectrum’ model. Mosston's Spectrum has been remarkably successful and its logic currently underpins the conceptualisation of teaching styles in many PE practices in Western education systems, including those in the United States, Australia, Spain and the United Kingdom. While we acknowledge the enormous contribution that Spectrum research has made to the development of PE pedagogy over the years, the Spectrum has evolved in ways that give cause for concern.

Purpose: Drawing on a broadly critical pedagogical perspective, it is the purpose of this paper to focus attention on the nature of this evolution and the possible problems it introduces. First, we identify the paradigm shift that occurred in Mosston's second edition that has been further consolidated in subsequent editions. Next we elucidate how this shift involved the original teaching styles Spectrum moving from a versus (opposing) notion of learning and teaching to a non-versus (non-opposing) notion. While seemingly innocuous, we contend that this shift can be seen in epistemological terms as an advance (back) towards a positivism in PE despite years of dialogue from emerging interpretive standpoints. Next, we consider some of the creeping practical consequences of this shift as its emphasis on a continuing drive towards a universalised technocratic delivery of PE knowledge takes hold in institutional culture. More specifically, we consider the impact of this re-objectification of teaching as a form of de-personification of the individual teacher and pupil. Finally, we focus on the way in which the logics embedded with the non-versus model of the Spectrum are vulnerable to manipulation by coalitions of powerful groups who continually seek to impose their own agendas on PE.

Conclusions: We conclude with a call for a greater critical scrutiny to be paid to the ‘Truth’ claims of these and other ‘scientific’ models of pedagogy that have found renewed vigour in an increasingly neo-liberal, ends-led, performativity culture in Western education systems. In so doing we suggest that a rapprochement of the curriculum and pedagogy literatures in PE research remains an important catalyst for a sustained and sophisticated critique to (re) emerge.