The theory of B.F.

Skinner is based upon the idea that learning is a function of change in

overt behavior. Changes in behavior are the result of an individual’s response to events (stimuli)
that occur in the environment. A response produces a consequence such as defining a word,
hitting a ball, or solving a math problem. When a particular Stimulus-Response (S-R) pattern is
reinforced (rewarded), the individual is conditioned to respond. The distinctive characteristic of
operant conditioning relative to previous forms of behaviorism (e.g., connectionism, drive
reduction) is that the organism can emit responses instead of only eliciting response due to an
external stimulus. Reinforcement is the key element in Skinner’s S-R theory. A reinforcer is
anything that strengthens the desired response. It could be verbal praise, a good grade or a
feeling of increased accomplishment or satisfaction. The theory also covers negative reinforcers
— any stimulus that results in the increased frequency of a response when it is withdrawn
(different from adversive stimuli — punishment — which result in reduced responses). A great
deal of attention was given to schedules of reinforcement (e.g. interval versus ratio) and their
effects on establishing and maintaining behavior. Operant conditioning has been widely applied
in clinical settings (i.e., behavior modification) as well as teaching (i.e., classroom management)
and instructional development (e.g., programmed instruction). Parenthetically, it should be noted
that Skinner rejected the idea of theories of learning (see Skinner, 1950).

Similarly, the Self-Determination Theory, or SDT, links personality, human motivation,

and optimal functioning. It posits that there are two main types of motivation—intrinsic and
extrinsic—and that both are powerful forces in shaping who we are and how we behave (Deci &
Ryan, 2008). It is a theory that grew out of researchers Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan’s
work on motivation in the 1970s and 1980s. According to Deci and Ryan, extrinsic motivation is
a drive to behave in certain ways based on external sources and it results in external rewards
(1985). Such sources include grading systems, employee evaluations, awards and accolades, and
the respect and admiration of others. On the other hand, intrinsic motivation comes from within.
There are internal drives that inspire us to behave in certain ways, including our core values, our
interests, and our personal sense of morality. It might seem like intrinsic motivation and extrinsic
motivation are diametrically opposed—with intrinsic driving behavior in keeping with our “ideal
self” and extrinsic leading us to conform with the standards of others—but there is another
important distinction in the types of motivation. SDT differentiates between autonomous
motivation and controlled motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2008). Autonomous motivation includes
motivation that comes from internal sources and includes motivation from extrinsic sources for
individuals who identify with an activity’s value and how it aligns with their sense of
self. Controlled motivation is comprised of external regulation—a type of motivation where an
individual acts out of the desire for external rewards or fear of punishment. On the other
hand, introjected regulation is motivation from “partially internalized activities and values” such
as avoiding shame, seeking approval, and protecting the ego. When an individual is driven by
autonomous motivation, they may feel self-directed and autonomous; when the individual is
driven by controlled motivation, they may feel pressure to behave in a certain way, and thus,
experience little to no autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2008). We are complex beings who are rarely
driven by only one type of motivation. Different goals, desires, and ideas inform us what we
want and need. Thus, it is useful to think of motivation on a continuum ranging from “non-self-
determined to self-determined.”
 Another theory is Walberg's (1981) theory of educational productivity, which is one of
the few empirically tested theories of school learning based on an extensive review and
integration of over 3,000 studies (DiPerna, Volpe & Stephen, 2002).   “Wang, Haertel, and
Walberg (1997) analyzed the content of 179 handbook chapters and reviews and 91 research
syntheses and surveyed educational researchers in an effort to achieve some consensus regarding
the most significant influences on learning" (Greenberg et al.,  2003,  p. 470).  Using a variety of
methods, Wang, et al. (1977) identified 28 categories of learning influence.  Of the 11 most
influential domains of variables, 8 involved social-emotional influences:  classroom
management, parental support, student- teacher interactions, social- behavioral attributes,
motivational- effective attributes, the peer group, school culture, and classroom climate
(Greenberg et al., 2003).  Distant background influences (e.g., state, district, or school policies,
organizational characteristics, curriculum, and instruction) were less influential. Wang et al.
(1997) concluded that "the direct intervention in the psychological determinants of learning
promise the most effective avenues for reform" (p. 210). Wang et al.’s research review
targeted student learning characteristics (i.e., social, behavioral, motivational, affective,
cognitive, and metacognitive) as the set of variables with the most potential for modification that
could, in turn, significantly and positively effect student outcomes (DiPerna et al., 2002). More
recently, Zins, Weissberg, Wang and Walberg, (2004) demonstrated the importance of the
domains of motivational orientations, self-regulated learning strategies, and social/interpersonal
abilities in facilitating academic performance.  Zins et al. reported, based on the large-scale
implementation of a Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) program, that student’s who became more
self-aware and confident regarding their learning abilities, who were more motivated, who set
learning goals, and who were organized in their approach to work (self- regulated learning)
performed better in school.  According to Greenberg, Weissberg, O'Brien, Zins, Fredericks,
Resnick, & Elias, (2003), Zins et al. (2004) assert that “research linking social, emotional, and
academic factors are sufficiently strong to advance the new term social, emotional, and academic
learning (SEAL).  A central challenge for researchers, educators, and policymakers is to
strengthen this connection through coordinated multiyear programming"(p. 470). Walberg and
associates’ conclusions resonate with findings from other fields.  For example, the "resilience"
literature (Garmezy, 1993) grew from the observation that despite living in disadvantaged and
risky environments, certain children overcame and attained high levels of achievement,
motivation, and performance (Gutman, Sameroff & Eccles, 2002).  Wach’s (2000) review of
biological, social, and psychological factors suggested that no single factor could explain “how”
and “why” these resilient children had been inoculated from the deleterious effects of their day-
to-day environments.  A variety of promotive (direct) and protective (interactive) variables were
suggested, which included, aside from cognitive abilities, such conative characteristics as study
habits, social abilities, and the absence of behavior problems (Guttman et al., 2003).