Jforum of Oucation.

Vol. V. No. I. February, 1927.

The Necessity of Experimental Pedagogy.*

By W II. WINCH

After I had learned to teach, I tried to improve myself by reading books

on educational theory, and among others I read Compayre’s summary
of educational theories. These seemed to me just a see-saw through the
ages, indeed, more difficult to ride on than a see-saw, justifying rather
F. H. Hayward’s description as possessing a circular motion. Somehow,
we must escape from this sequence of assertions and counter assertions,
of dicta and contradicta. For education has not been fortunate : its great
theorists have not been successful teachers : its great teachers have not
been theorists, and our purely educational theorists have hardly realized
what philosophy is, in itself, and have evolved, or invented, a philosophy
to suit their educational doctrines. Some modern exceptions, at least, can
be cited. I can refer you to Percy Nunn’s excellent monograph on the
‘‘Aims and Achievements of Scientific Method.” and to Benjamin Dum-
ville’s papers in the proceedings of the Aristotelian Society on ‘‘Philosophy
and Education.”
It is often asked, however, why do we need philosophy at all.
Unfortunately, philosophy is a term which embraces a variety of meanings
It sometimes means metaphysics, the r« ptr« ra of Aristotle.
Is there a real world apart from us who perceive it ? Are space and time
infinite ? And what is the ultimate constitution of matter ? Is the universe
monastic, dualistic, or pluralistic ? And what is the ultimate relation
between body and mind ? Such questions arc matters of philosophy.
I do not believe that, merely as teachers, we need greatly concern ourselves
with this aspect of philosophy. But there is another aspect which cannot
be disregarded by teachers. Herbert Spencer years ago (I am not now
referring to his volume called “ First Principles,” which was really meta¬
physics in the older sense) attempted a survey or summary of existing
knowledge in his “ Synthetic Philosophy.” And that neglected genius,
John Beattie Crozier, pleaded that some such summarized knowledge
should form part of the mental equipment of every educated man. At
least, there are questions in such summarized science or philosophy, not
perhaps, finally ultimate, but rather, as Bacon would have said, axiomata
media, which it behoves educationists to consider. If, for example, we
wish by education to give not merely knowledge or skill, but to strengthen
* An address delivered to the Education Guild of Great Britain and
Ireland.

3
 THE NECESSITY OF EXPERIMENTAL PEDAGOGY.

the mental powers themselves, it makes a vast difference whether acquired

traits, or an improvement of natural traits, can become hereditary or not.
Kammerer's recent suicide, on learning that his work had been tampered
with, and that he had promulgated unreliable doctrine, is an illustraton
of the seriousness with which biologists regard the issue. If it is only by
eugenic doctrine, by attention to breeding rather than to environment
that we can really advance mentally, the difference in our ordinary educa¬
tional outlook would be enormous. Let me cite another great issue. Is
it true that the child in evolution does actually reproduce in little the
progress of the race ? I suggest to those who lightly take a strongly affirma¬
tive view, as some educational theorists have done, to glance through
Edward Lee Thorndike's " Notes on Cliild Study.” Are we justified in
regarding instincts as necessarily beneficent and the interest aroused in
their satisfaction, as by itself, justifying an educational procedure? I
cannot here labour these issues, I must content myself by a mere aper^u.
But, of course, there are the day-by-day procedures, the common
events of school life. So why do we need definite experiment, it is often
urged, when we have teachers’ conferences, educational exhibitions, and
inspectorial reports on schools. May I make a brief comment on each of
these ? We are talking animals, and I am quite sure that conferences will
always be a source of delight to those who love talking and to those who
wish " to pick up the latest tips ” without any serious thought and inquiry
of their own. They will not advance our science, though they may spread
some of its conclusions, amid much which is mere opinion. Educational
exhibitions arc a more serious matter. But it is thought by most com-
petent and experienced teachers that they are valuable, if at all. rather
as a sort of camouflage which impresses a lay public, than as a real con¬
tribution to educational method or science. Do we not know, for all of
us here are, or have been teachers, that any school, by abstracting time
and energy from its usual pursuits and neglecting its ordinary time-table
of work, can produce results in some aspect or other of educational
attainment which greatly impress an ignorant public (teachers themselves
are rarely deceived) ? Just recently I had frequent business in a school in
which one department was holding a handwork exhibition in the near
future. For three weeks prior to the exhibition it smelt strongly of
—
leather it was not in Bermondsey a smell which disappeared com¬
pletely after the exhibition was over. In another school (or shall I say
schools) which produced some rather good musical displays, the assistant
teachers were greatly disturbed by the abstraction of their pupils from
their usual lessons to make special preparation for the public performances.
I am setting aside those cases in which the teachers, not the pupils, do the
difficult parts of the work exhibited, and citing only those in which the
work is honest, though not honestly prepared under fair school conditions.
The amateur, and sometimes the inspector or organizer, is deceived, and
quotes to other teachers, to their great indignation, the wonderful results in
so-and-so to be seen at such-and-such schools, with the implication that
they are to go and do likewise.
And finally, may I say a word about inspectorial reports, about which
1 may claim to possess a good deal of personal experience, for I have
perpet rated many ? I do not say they are of no value, far from it. It is
very useful, from time to time, for teachers to become aware of how their
school impresses a person of wider experience, and to know what he thinks
of their standard of work. But inspections and inspectors, qua inspectors,
are not means by which the value of a school syllabas or of school methods
can be scientifically tested ; for even if the inspector possesses the
requisite knowledge, which he does not necessarily, the teachers are not
with him as inquirers ; he is an outsider and represents an authority
to which they must give way, or appear to give way, whether they deem
it right or not. Moreover, they are anxious, and quite rightly anxious,
to show that their schools are good ones. And when the inspector, after
obtaining some results, asks, as he is sometimes required to ask. by what
method they were obtained, the teacher sometimes “ holds a candle to
the devil ” and tells the inspector that he has worked by a method the
inspector may be suspected of favouring, whether he has actually worked
that way or not. So figures are placed on the wrong side of the balance
sheet, the conclusions are published with official dignity, and counsel is
further darkened. One is tempted to say to teachers, I have done it
myself. " Your tenure is now sufficiently secure : you can tell the truth :
you can say, without fear, what you really believe, why don’t you ? ”
But we are all human, and not all courageous ; and after all. the teacher
often does not know what is best, and sometimes knows that he does not
know. But put the teacher in the position of an inquirer, under guidance
of course, when necessary. Ask him (or her) to help you to find out whether
this or that syllabus is the better, whether this way or that way of teaching
or learning is the more profitable, and he will drop his defensive attitude
and heartily co-operate with you in the work heavy and continuous work
though it is.
Well, yes, this all seems so simple, then why has it not been done ?
To this issue I will return.
It is often said that the advocates of an experimental treatment of
educational problems wish to " run a moist pen slick through everything
and start fresh ” like the apocryphal American Chancellor of the
Exchequer. It is true that they do not join in any such cries as " Back
—
to the Master ” it is not always the same master, by the way. It is
true that they are likely to pay, at least, no overwhelming regard to the
theorists of the past, before the methods of the modern world in scientific
inquiry were even dimly prevised. And it is true that the advocates of
experimental inquiry do not believe in authority, if by that is meant the
half-guessed, half-rationalized dicta of old masters of educational theory.
But they will not neglect them, and above all. they will turn with open
arms and open minds to all available knowledge, and by knowledge I
do not mean what the Greeks meant. Knowledge for them meant
opinion which had been tested by argument and rigorous dialectics.
Knowledge for us must pass that test too, but it must be more ; it must
be tested by the direct observation of the facts, and more than that, by
ad hoc experiment also. But, it is asked, why lay so much stress on modern
knowledge as against that of the past. Are we so much greater than our
forefathers ? In certain departments of human activity, it would be very
difficult, and probably impossible, to establish an affirmative answer.
But we of to-day have one great advantage in matters of science, meaning
by that term much more than a knowledge of material and mechanical
processes. We have a technique, statistical, and inductive, of making
5
 truth in the biological sciences, of which education is one, which our
forefathers did not possess. And the first place in this technique must be
given to the formula of correlation, usually called the correlation
coefficient. In 1846. Bravais, a Frenchman, invented a formula of this
kind, and with its use and improvement for other purposes by Galton and
Karl Pearson it stands firmly to-day as a great instrument in the hands of
every serious worker in science. Does one quality, attribute, power, or
function go with another in a proportional manner? It is, of course, the
inductive logical method of concomitant variation, set out clearly by John
Stuart Mill, and rendered precise and utilizable by statistical devices with
which he was unacquainted. Let me take a few simple illustrations. 1
do not propose to weary you with the details of the calculation of this
coefficient ; they are set out in all books now which are written about the
new methods of research. Suppose, for example, we wished to find out
the relation between the age of entry into school and subsequent school
progress, this formula of correlation will show us whether the relation is
positive or negative or non-existent. Or take a simpler matter, and one
which has been much discussed by teachers and examiners the relation
between mechanical proficiency in arithmetic and the power to solve
—
arithmetical problems. If we take a number of measurements (a) of
mechanical proficiency and (6) of proficiency in the rational solution of
problems, and correlate the marks, we shall find, when the measurements
have become steady, that there is high positive correlation I >e tween them :
those who can do one can mostly do the other, under, of course, the
ordinary circumstances of school instruction. Quite outside the usual
conditions we do not know, either with these tests of scholastic attain¬
ment, or indeed with what we cal) mental lists of natural proficiency,
what would occur* What can we infer from high positive correlation,
given the usual school conditions ? Can we say that the functions are so
allied in the same mind that they work together in such a way that improve¬
ment in the one will produce improvement in the other ? We find, exercising
due precautions, and balancing a trained group with an untrained
group of equal initial ability, that they are not. So that the method of
correlation needs to be supplemented, if we hope to discover the solution
of the problems which perplex teachers, and have been assumed as settled
without experimental inquiry by writers on school method. Let me not
be misunderstood. The correlation coefficient, however carefully
calculated, is not a means of rendering ad hoc experiment unnecessary ;
but it does give it definiteness, direction, and assistance in its calculations.
I take another instance, of vastly more importance to education in the
broadest sense, than is the utmost proficiency in arithmetic. We know
now that bright young children are not small, unwholesome specimens
of humanity whose precocity is counterbalanced, and more than outweighed
—
by poor physique. The Bureau of Child-Study in Chicago all honour to
the School Board of Chicago, the first iti the world to establish an educa¬
tional research department in connection with its city schools more than
thirty years ago demonstrated that the popular conception was quite
wrong, and that the boys and girls most advanced in the school grades

• Hugh ('■onion’s pamphlet on " Mental Tests of Canal Boat and Gipsy Children ”
is illuminating in this respect. It is published by the Board of Education.

6
 (anglice " standards ”) were taller and heavier than children of the same
ages in the lower grades. I did the same work in London in 1905-1906,
and reached the same conclusions, though I did not publish the work,
as it was merely corroborative. The same result has been obtained in
Germany. This conclusion is a valuable one for educational theory ;
and we need no longer be apprehensive of a child’s health merely because
he is clever. Expressed briefly, there is considerable positive correlation
between mental and physical growth. They usually go together, and it is
well to know that. But a positive correlation does not, in itself, establish
causation. Can we say that by improving mental acquisition or capacity
that we thereby improve physical health and growth ? I am not sure that
such a position could not be established : many children seem to fall off
all round during school holidays. But most people would say that
assuredly we could not. Or can we assert that by improving physical
growth and capacity, we are thereby producing additional mental capacity
and growth ? Most people would answer confidently that we can. The
point 1 want to make here is that the establishment of positive correlation
so much togetherness—gives no ground for believing either that improved
mentality produces improved physique, or that improved physique causes
improved mentality. London has within itself every variety of school¬
child, and the poorer schools in many parts of it have shown great advances
in the health and material prosperity of their pupils. Notwithstanding
this, their mental level, age for age, as measured by sets of my reasoning
lists, administered and marked in precisely the same way under my
personal supervision, remains constant. Let me take another practical
question. It is asserted by medical officers that the inferiority of the
eyesight of girls, as compared with boys, is caused by tin* needlework
of the girls, to which the school work of boys offers no precise parallel.
And on pressure, the argument is put in the form " Well, what else can
it be ? ” " What else can it be ? " means little where a matter of positive
causation is concerned. No attempt has been made to show by positive
experiment that needlework is the cause of the girls' inferior eyesight ;
though, by the method of equal, parallel, and highly correlated groups of
girls, the issue should not be difficult of determination. Their inferior
—
eyesight there is no doubt about the fact— may be a sex-difference at
that age, and be quite unrelated to school practices. It is. of course,
sound method to endeavour to find in a variation in environment the
cause of a constant difference, but we must not jump to conclusions. Though
I have cited a case above which primarily concerns medical officers of
health, it must not be thought that educationists are free from similar
guess-work. An experienced examiner, a few years ago, in his report on
the arithmetical work of girls and boys in the L.C.C. Junior Scholarship
Examination, drew attention to the poorer work of the girls ; and. since
from his experience in mixed schools he had found (“ found ” has a flavour
pf research ; but, of course, is the wrong word, for he had not looked
in any adequate way) no difference between boys and girls in arithmetic
when working under the same teachers, he came to the conclusion, and
announced it, that girls were taught worse than boys, and admonished the
teachers of girls’ schools. If he had seen and noted Ballard’s figures for
boys and girls in rule and problematic sums, it might have given him pause,
though he probably would have countered them by his reference to mixed
7
schools with the same time table and the same teacher for arithmetic for
both boys and girls. For, of course, the time-tables and the syllabuses
of work for boys and girls are not quite the same, nor is the time given to
arithmetical work. One critic said that the girls would be just as proficient
—
if they had not to do needlework that unfortunate scapegoat for the
deficiencies of females. But alas ! a big research on the comparative
arithmetical attainments of boys and girls in ordinary elementary and
central schools, carried out by Mr. George Lilley and a committee, and
published by the London County Council, though the conditions under
which it was carried out were not altogether such as to produce absolute
proof, still established a very strong presumption that the difference is
a sex -difference, and should be allowed for. and not complained of, in all
examinations. And this brings me by a natural transition to another
consideration. It is of little use to subject material even to the most
rigorous and careful statistical treatment, if it has not been collected
under fair conditions, and by competent researchers. 1 do not exclude
experienced teachers if they have worked long enough under competent
guidance. As Buckingham has just pointed out in his “ Research for
Teachers.” and as I have long maintained, if teachers do not take a hand,
they cannot complain if the conclusions are unpleasant. They must not
only, in my judgment, take a hand, but the researcher must lay his cards
on the table, and submit them for inspection till the end of the game. Take
a recent issue, not unconnected with questions of immigration. Figures
as to the comparative [intelligence of Jewish and Christian boys and girls
have been held, and rightly held, to show that Christian children are
superior in mental capacity. Rightly held, if the figures themselves have
been property collected. The head master of the school, a very large
one, from which the Jewish figures were collected (some years ago,
I may say), stoutly avers that they were not. Let us leave the issue open
for the moment, premising, as we must (for we have not, and cannot
have, any mental test which is quite uninfluenced by pedagogical practices),
that Jewish and Christian children to be compared must be taught by the
same teachers, and even a more important consideration still, must be
of the same social class. We must not erect a class difference into a racial
trait. It is useless to say, let us take unselected material and we shall get
over all those difficulties. We shall not ; for not only natural ability,
but economic pressures and social and religious practices produce selec¬
tion on all sides, and to ignore them is to court failure. To take one very
modern instance, are large families more or less intelligent than small
ones, it is asked. Speaking of the East End of London alone, I could
obtain differing results from the wide social and racial diversities there
exhibited. No : let us frankly use selected material ; we must do so.
whether we like it or not ; and let us clearly state the basis of our selection.
Very serious, indeed fatal, is the neglect to do this in experiments on the
rival values of school methods. A capable group of children will do
better than one less capable by any fairly well accredited method. Methods
cannot be estimated apart from equal groups of children and equal
teachers. But this doctrine of the need for equal, parallel, and highly-
correlated groups is accepted now, and I need not elaborate it, though I
will give one illustration. Well-born children, i.e., children of good parent¬
age, with good homes, will write fairly good English at any early age ;

8
the typical product of the slum school never will ; yet the teaching of
English composition may be carried out by a better method and the
teachers may be better in the slum school than in the school well situated.
But does a consideration of such matters I have discussed con¬
stitute a revolution in education, as my words have, here and there,
implied ? Frankly, it does ; it does involve a revolution in the way of
determining educational needs, educational provision, and educational
methods. It will be useless to appeal to old educational authorities, for
they cannot tell us what we want to know. In fact, there will be no
authorities ; though, doubtless, enterprising text-book writers will con¬
tinue to be so called. The authority is the science, and any worker,
though humble and unknown, who contributes however small a piece of
valid work to the general stock of knowledge, is a maker of it. So that if
this implies a revolution, it will be a slow one. Very slow, some people
say. Perhaps so. but perhaps, not so very slow. As Arthur Hugh Clough
says in another connection in the beautiful stanza which I never tire of
repeating, and which has solaced many a pioneer :
“ For whilst the tired waves, vainly breaking,
Seem here no painful inch to gain,
Far back, through creek and inlet making.
Comes silent, flooding in, the main.”