One of the foundational exponents of educational psychology, B.F. Skinner, introduced radical behaviorism—a theory that emphasized the observable behaviors of learners rather than internal mental states. In doing so, Skinner proposed that learning is the result of conditioning, and he developed teaching machines and programmed instruction methods based on his operant conditioning theory. One of the most controversial aspects of Skinner’s position is his view on the role of the teacher: in a behaviorist framework, the teacher is not a facilitator of open-ended inquiry, but a controller of stimuli and reinforcers to shape desired learning behaviors.

What do you make of Skinner’s comments about free will, nature or nurture?

Skinner famously argued that free will is an illusion and that all behavior is shaped by environmental stimuli—a clear endorsement of the “nurture” side of the debate. From a contemporary standpoint, this deterministic view can seem overly rigid. While it is true that the environment plays a critical role in shaping behavior, modern research in neuroplasticity and genetics shows that individual agency and nature also play important roles in learning. If we accept Skinner’s view entirely, we risk oversimplifying the learner to a passive responder, ignoring the internal cognitive and emotional processes that influence decision-making and motivation.

Dangers and uses of this view:

There are both dangers and uses in applying Skinner’s view in modern educational settings. On the one hand, behaviorist methods are extremely effective for habit formation and skill acquisition, especially in early childhood education or with students who need structure and clear goals (e.g., special education contexts). On the other hand, when overapplied, this perspective can lead to excessive control, reward dependence, and suppression of curiosity. For example, students who are trained only through rewards and punishments may stop learning for its own sake, reducing intrinsic motivation.

Knowledge or behavior introduced by foundational exponents:

One key knowledge/behavior introduced by Skinner is positive reinforcement, where desired behavior is followed by a rewarding stimulus to increase the likelihood of that behavior recurring. For example, a teacher might give a sticker or verbal praise every time a student completes a math problem correctly. This concept is still widely used today in classrooms, often through token economies or digital reward systems like ClassDojo.

Definition in practice: Positive reinforcement is defined as the process of increasing the probability of a behavior by following it with a positive consequence. In practice, I observed this in a Grade 1 classroom, where the teacher gave students a marble each time they stayed quiet during transitions. Once the jar was full, the class earned a “fun Friday.” This predictable system of reinforcement successfully conditioned desirable group behavior.

What is the role of the teacher in the behaviorist scheme?

In Skinner’s model, the teacher is a behavioral engineer—someone who identifies target behaviors, designs reinforcements, and shapes the classroom environment to encourage desired learning outcomes. The teacher does not primarily focus on learners’ thought processes or emotions but instead controls stimuli and responses. While this may sound limiting, such a role can be extremely effective in structured learning environments like basic literacy or language drills, where repetition and consistency matter.

Intelligence tests and their uses/limits:

Another concept introduced in early educational psychology is intelligence testing. Intelligence tests, such as the Stanford-Binet or the Wechsler scales, attempt to measure cognitive abilities such as reasoning, problem-solving, memory, and verbal fluency. These tests are widely used for educational placement, special education eligibility, and giftedness screening.

However, these tests also come with major limitations. They often reflect cultural and linguistic biases, may not capture creativity or emotional intelligence, and can lead to fixed mindset labeling (“smart” vs. “not smart”). As Howard Gardner and others have pointed out, intelligence is multidimensional, and over-reliance on IQ tests can result in an incomplete understanding of a student’s capabilities.

Sources and Links:

Skinner, B. F. (1954). “The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching.” Harvard Educational Review.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences.

ClassDojo: https://www.classdojo.com/

Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test: https://www.verywellmind.com/the-stanford-binet-intelligence-test-2795283