Infants listen longer to the ungrammatical than grammatical sentences (a novelty effect). Note that the effect is stronger for the verb frames than for the noun frames
Children imitate what they see and hear. Associations are fine-tuned by positive and negative reinforcement (Hebbian learning?). Emphasis on the linguistic environment
Vygotsky's, Skinner's, and Piaget's approaches are not mutually exclusive. They are all almost certainly correct to some extent but they focus on different driving forces, none of them language-specific. Overall, all three claim that language is learned
The child's language input is poor (poverty of the input claim) and it contains limited negative evidence: Children are rarely exposed to ungrammatical sequences as counterpoints, parents do not tend to correct the child's syntactic errors. Therefore, children must have a hard-wired ability to learn and process abstract rules (e.g., how to turn active sentences into passive sentences, etc.)
Chomsky nonetheless agrees that the linguistic environment is important. But only insofar as it is needed to trigger an innate syntax-acquisition device. This must happen during the first few years of life
For Genie, Language exposure happened after the critical period for language acquisition. Language acquisition (exploitation of our innate ability to process language) was substituted with language learning (general-learning mechanisms)
Vygotsky, Skinner, and Piaget do not address syntax formally other than as an emergent property (a by-product) of a supportive social, linguistic, and cognitive input