B.F. Skinner's comments on free will, particularly his argument that behavior is largely a product of conditioning rather than autonomous choice, offer a challenging yet practical perspective in educational psychology. He suggested that "free will" is an illusion, with most of our actions shaped by reinforcements and environmental conditioning. While this view can feel restrictive, it sheds light on the educator's role in shaping a student's learning environment—essentially becoming an architect of positive and negative reinforcements that guide student behavior and learning outcomes.

In the behaviorist model, the teacher is not merely a facilitator but a purposeful guide, meticulously structuring the environment to reinforce desirable behaviors. This approach aligns well with structured learning goals, where behaviors are broken down into small, measurable tasks. By positively reinforcing incremental achievements, teachers can scaffold complex skills through simpler ones. However, one challenge of this role is balancing reinforcement with fostering intrinsic motivation, as extrinsic rewards can sometimes overshadow a student's inner drive to learn.

As for nature vs. nurture, behaviorism skews heavily toward nurture, placing primary importance on environmental factors in shaping behavior. Skinner and other behaviorists believed that, given the right conditions, almost any behavior could be taught or altered, downplaying the role of innate abilities. While this opens up a hopeful view of education as an equalizer, it may neglect individual differences that stem from genetic and cognitive factors.

Finally, intelligence tests serve as both a diagnostic tool and a potential danger. They can offer educators a clearer understanding of a student’s strengths and areas needing support, allowing for tailored instruction. However, over-reliance on such tests risks labeling and limiting students, especially when tests are treated as definitive assessments of potential rather than a snapshot of current ability.