Experimental pedagogy is the measurement of children's thinking, memory, and will from outside; Steiner granted its results and read its existence as a symptom.
Experimental Pedagogy in Anthroposophy is the name Rudolf Steiner gave to the empirical child-study movement of his own day, the laboratory measurement of a pupil's thinking, memory, and will, which he judged twice over: as useful science, and as evidence of a loss. In his lecture of 11 November 1921, printed in Waldorf Education and Anthroposophy 1 (GA 304), Steiner refused to disparage the discipline that Ernst Meumann and Wilhelm August Lay had founded. He accepted its statistics and said an anthroposophist can put them to use. His objection was to its foundation: experiments on children become necessary only where the teacher can no longer read the child directly. The imponderable relation of one soul to another, which older cultures carried without instruments, had thinned under materialistic civilisation. Steiner's remedy was not better instruments but a knowledge of the human being that engages thinking, feeling, and willing, and that knowledge became the training basis of the first Waldorf school in Stuttgart.
Experimental pedagogy reached German classrooms around 1900 with a promise: bring the psychological laboratory to the child and education becomes a science. Steiner watched it arrive, credited its findings, and then asked a question the movement had not asked itself. Why does a teacher need an apparatus to learn what a child is doing? His answer put the whole discipline in a different light.
In Steiner's Own Words
I do not wish to say anything derogatory about what, today, is referred to as experimental psychology or experimental pedagogy. I appreciate what those scientific disciplines are capable of achieving and I acknowledge it. But, just because of those disciplines, we must deepen our educational life all the more. For, aside from their positive aspects, they demonstrate that we are not getting closer to children in a direct and natural way, but that, on the contrary, we have become more estranged from them than ever before. External experiments are made with children to ascertain how their thinking, their memory, and even their will function. From the ensuing statistics, rules and regulations are then drawn up. Certainly, such findings have their uses, especially if one is an anthroposophist.
What it Means Today
The measuring discipline Steiner described did not go away. It grew into the effect-size research that now steers school policy. John Hattie's Visible Learning, published by Routledge in 2009, synthesised more than 800 meta-analyses covering millions of pupils and ranked the influences on achievement by effect size. The ranking is where the argument turns. Structural levers that school boards spend money on, class size among them, came out weak. Teacher-student relationships came out near the top, around 0.72, with teacher clarity and feedback beside them. A century of instruments, applied with far more rigour than Meumann had available in 1907, arrived at the one item Steiner said the instruments had been invented to compensate for: the living contact between one person and another.
Hattie draws a school-improvement conclusion, that teachers should measure their own effect. Steiner drew a different one from the same observation. If the relation is what carries the teaching, then the real training question is how a teacher acquires the perception to read a child without apparatus, which is why a Waldorf teacher's preparation begins with a knowledge of the human being rather than a method sheet. Thalira synthesis: experimental pedagogy is not the opponent of anthroposophical education but its diagnostic instrument, a discipline whose most rigorous findings keep pointing back at the imponderable thing it was built to measure around.
Where to Read More