The debate of whether Behaviorism should or should not shape educational practices seems to center itself around the idea of freedom. One side of the debate states that freedom is the sole characteristic of being human, that this freedom needs to be protected and allowed to grow. In regard to educational issues, this idea gives more of a humanistic than behaviorism spin to education. It's basically saying that in order for education to be most effective, one should rely on their inner self and the freedom that resides there, and not so extensively on external forces. On the other hand, the other side of the debate, in regard to educational issues, states that one should rely less on freedom, that the idea of freedom is really a facade to begin with, and to rely instead on the environment around us for our influences.
According to advocates of behaviorism in educational practices, believing in a sense of freedom is refusing to acknowledge how our experiences and environment greatly affect the way we think, learn, and act. In the 12th Edition of Noll's Taking Sides: Educational Issues, Skinner sees freedom resulting from the scientific reshaping of the environment that influences us (50). Since, according to this perspective, learning is better understood through the effects of outside forces, competency-based education, outcome-based education, assertive discipline, and mastery learning have all been implemented. Suggesting that outside forces motivate us to perform specific behaviors does not mean that these forces have to be seen as negative or be implemented under an uncontrolled state. Skinner argues that control is the true gateway to freedom (50.) Knowing our understanding of human behavior allows us to shape the external forces that shape us. Knowing these environmental factors allows us to change the aversive controls in schools and allow for positive reinforcement and more motivated learning.
