Bioecological approach - Final PDF

Preview

Summary

Evaluate the usefulness of the bioecological approach to our understanding of child development...

Description

PS552 CW1 Word count: 2,199 (excluding references) Evaluate the usefulness of the bioecological approach to our understanding of child development

“Human beings create the environments that shape the course of human development. Their actions influence the multiple physical and cultural tiers of the ecology that shapes them, and this agency makes humans…” (Bronfenbrenner, 2005, p. 27). Developmental theories are a collection of ideas that suggest a number of universal ideologies of development (Boyd and Bee, 2014). Urie Bronfenbrenner, primarily writing in 1939 introduced developmentalists’ to the significance of contexts, suggesting that the context in which a child grows up has a profound impact on their development; this was soon labelled ecological systems theory, later named bioecological systems theory (Krishnan, 2012). In order to understand child development, Bronfenbrenner proposed that all environmental settings need to be considered in terms of their influence, as well as how they relate to one another, otherwise known as ecosystems; this will be expanded upon during later discussion. Research from Leanord (2010) for example has demonstrated how applicable the bioecological model can be to daily settings, supporting various concepts of Bronfenbrenner’s theory. Lev Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory (1934) however argues that bioecological theory doesn’t focus upon cultural differences enough; Vygotsky states that cognitive development is affected by culture, essentially meaning social interactions have an impact on a child’s development (Oppenheimer, Soto & Agosto, 2017). Both opposing and supporting theories will be further discussed during the course of this essay, as well as the usefulness of the bioecological approach to our understanding of child development. Bronfenbrenner is considered to be one of the founding fathers in developmental psychology due to his construction of the bioecological model (Cohen & Waite-Stupiansky, 2017). His theory attempts to explain how environmental influences that are either external or internal will impact on a child’s development, for example family and education; this idea arose through his own childhood experiences (Derksen, 2010). It is important to highlight that children typically find themselves simultaneously involved in different ecosystems, (Boyd and Bee, 2014) thus from this Bronfenbrenner stressed the importance of evaluating children within the context of multiple settings. Bronfenbrenner’s earlier model graphically represents 4 complex ecosystems that individuals commonly interact with, termed nested systems (Guhn and Goelman, 2011). These ecosystems are represented through rings. The early model adopted a ‘process-person-context’ approach, initially beginning with the child in the centre, surrounded by their immediate layer; this is known as the microsystem. This symbolises the child’s individual relationships with immediate surroundings, such as with his/her parent’s, or school environment; these directly influence the child (Berk, 2000). Bronfenbrenner suggested that this level impacts relationships in two conflicting directions, both away and towards the child; a child’s parents for example may affect his/her behaviour and possibly their beliefs, however this can also be reversed in that a child’s behaviour may impact on their

PS552 CW1 Word count: 2,199 (excluding references) parents’ beliefs and behaviour; parent’s may feel obliged to discipline their child in a way that they originally may not have agreed with, such as physical force if their child is misbehaving. Bronfenbrenner referred to this as bi-directional influences (Parenta, 2018), which he suggests occur within each ecosystem. Secondly, the mesosystem is the layer which connects the different structures of the child’s microsystem, such as the connection between the child’s parents and the child’s school teachers. Keenan and Evans (2009, p.36) describe the mesosystem as “the connections which bring together the different contexts in which a child develops”. Following this is the exosystem, which refers to the much larger social systems that do not directly interact with the child, but instead interacts with various structures within their microsystem. An example of this could be a parent losing their job, which will indirectly affect the child in terms of possible financial pressure. The final ecosystem of Bronfenbrenner’s earlier model was the macrosystem. This was originally the outermost layer that refers to intangible principles that are believed to be panoptic, such as religious beliefs (Swick and Williams, 2006). Bronfenbrenner expressed the importance of these larger forces in terms of their influence on the interactions between the other ecosystems; cultural norms for example differ from another, thus one’s belief of the way a child should be disciplined may differ dramatically from another person’s; this could therefore affect the interaction between the parents and other structures. There have been various criticisms of Bronfenbrenner’s earlier model, particularly with regards to the lack of emphasis on the individual’s active role on their own development, for example, although Bronfenbrenner’s model highly considered the importance of context, time was not initially included within this ideal, thus producing an unrepresentative model (Oppenheimer et al., 2017). From this, Bronfenbrenner used much of his time to develop upon ‘time’ as a part of the ecosystem, which he termed the chronosystem. This level became the edging layer of the bioecological model and considers the changes in a person or environment overtime, and how this may impact on development. Influences within this system can be external or internal. External influences could be timing of a family member’s death, or internal influences could be certain physiological changes that occur with age. Bronfenbrenner reinforced that as a child grows up, their attitudes to certain occurrences may change, also suggesting that as children get older, they will begin to develop more awareness to the changes that influence them. This additional layer emphasised the importance of a person’s experience within their environment, as well as considering their own personal properties of age, and how this might impact on an individual’s development (Goouch & Powell, 2013). Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model has proven its applicability to certain establishments. A number of child and youth care organisations apply ecological models to their work, and have strongly encouraged the utilisation of these models in order to understand how children may function in different ways (Tudge, Mokrova, Hatfield & Karnik, 2009). Leanord’s project for example examined a troubled urban high-school in Boston to develop a better understanding of schoolcommunity partnering, and how this in turn promotes school reform as-well as student success

PS552 CW1 Word count: 2,199 (excluding references) through their development. School-community partnering refers to the interaction between schools, parents and other community-based agencies, which is referred to in Bronfenbrenner’s mesosystem. The study involved a historical mixed methods design, where both school improvements as well as school decline over the previous 60 years were evaluated, and the primary reasons behind this were considered. Results demonstrated that in the early 60s, the school was increasing with success; graduation rate was at its highest, and it may be an important factor to note that at this time, the school was integrating Black students into their traditional white, lower-middle-class school. Following this in 1968, the school reputation began to rapidly decline due to overcrowding of low-minority families and students with disabilities. This is somewhat supportive of Bronfenbrenner’s exosystem, suggesting that the child isn’t directly affected, yet the positions of other people has an impact on their development; in this case, low-minority families may not have been able to financially support their children in terms of extra tuition or extra curriculum, thus their opportunity to succeed may be limited. Thinkers such as Robert Merton writing in 1938 would propose his theoretical perception of strain theory would apply in this circumstance (Lee & Cohen, 2008). Merton believed that American citizens were socialised into believing that an agreed consensus existed about the social goals people should meet in order to reach success, however Merton argued that this idea was not attainable for everyone, in fact it was only achievable for bourgeoisie. A strain was therefore embedded between the socially-encouraged goals of society, and the socially-acceptable means to achieve those goals (Lee & Cohen, 2008). Leanord (2010) also found that the breakdown of the US economy from 1988-1992 generated violence within schools, resulting in a high drop-out rate. Improvements in facilities, staffing and school safety were finally made from late 20th century to early 21st century, which again increased the academic achievements of students within the school. School-community partnering also began to increase, which has resulted in a much more positive experience for the students in terms of their academic achievements; again in terms of explaining this through the bioecological model, Bronfenbrenner may highlight that positive interactions within the mesosystem will ensure overall child-stability and growth (MentalHelp.net, 2012. Bronfenbrenner’s chronosystem enabled the researchers to consider changes overtime in terms of how a person responds to certain alterations, however the study only discusses one school that was already known to be ‘troubled’ therefore dramatic changes were almost expected in terms of student achievement. It would have been interesting to compare more than one school, perhaps with different reputations in order to fully investigate and understand child development based upon Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model. Although research has revealed the bioecological model to be helpful in understanding some areas of development, there has been evidence of confusion with theoretical concepts and inadequate testing (Oppenheimer et al., 2017). Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory for example suggests that culture should not be a separate system from the individual since it is a “product of human activity” (Oppenheimer et

PS552 CW1 Word count: 2,199 (excluding references) al., 2017, p. 900). Sociocultural theory aims to explain how culture intervenes with individual experiences thus it is considered to be an internalisation. Nisbett and Miyamoto (2005) support this in suggesting that culture has an impact on the way one perceives situations. They compared Western cultures to Asian cultures in terms of their perceptual connections by showing them 3 images; a man, a woman and a baby. The children were asked to pick 2 of the images that linked together. Findings showed that Asian cultures group objects on the basis of relational-context information, for example a woman and a baby were grouped together due to the cultural norm of a mother taking care of the baby. Western cultures however categorised objects based upon shared analytic features, for example a man and a woman are grouped together because they are adults (Nisbett & Miyamoto, 2005). This supports Vygotsky’s assumption that culture intervenes with experiences and the way that these experiences are perceived. Vygotsky criticises Bronfenbrenner for being too broad in that he doesn’t consider development to be a step-by-step process (Christensen, 2016); instead Bronfenbrenner believed that development was caused solely on one’s environment, and the interconnections between certain structures within that environment. Vygotsky believed that learning is a social process in which caregivers such as teachers and parents encouraged, otherwise known as scaffolding, rather than relying on the interconnections between different social structures. Furthermore, Paquette and Ryan (2001) suggest that Bronfenbrenner’s model lacked explanation of a number of ecosystems, and focused too much attention on the interconnection between families and schools within the mesosystem. Paquette and Ryan (2001) suggest that he should have focused on the realistic issues that commonly arise, such as the conflict between family life and workplace. They also challenged Bronfenbrenner’s notion of primary relationships being a dominant factor in overall stability, such as schools. Paquette and Ryan (2001) have highlighted the changes in societal norms, particularly within individualistic cultures; they have suggested that individualism is now becoming a dominant trait in terms of societal norms, thus primary relationships aren’t as influential as Bronfenbrenner initially suggested. Puroila and Karila writing in 2001 also challenge Bronfenbrenner’s theory in terms of its applicability to real-life (Goouch & Powell, 2013). They conclude that although development and education may occur at similar times, they are two different complexities thus the objective of Bronfenbrenner’s study is almost invalid due to the primary focus on education. Penn somewhat agrees with this, stating that Bronfenbrenner’s model was too systematised and focused on too many structures; Penn argued that the systematic model was almost too controlled, thus it doesn’t represent the realistic complexities of life (Goouch & Powell, 2013). Having said this, a number of research studies support Bronfenbrenner’s model within a daily practices structure. Ren and Hu (2014) conducted case-studies on multiple Chinese families in Singapore. Their aim was to evaluate maternal interaction strategies and how this impacts on choice of interaction among children. Findings showed that teaching mothers withheld more control over interaction, whereas non-teaching mothers tend to lack in control over interaction. This suggests that

PS552 CW1 Word count: 2,199 (excluding references) differences in contextual factors could contribute to different processes of development, in particular mother-child interactions. This supports Bronfenbrenner’s concept of bi-directional influences, suggesting that children can have just as much of an effect on their parents, as their parents have on them. To conclude, the bioecological model developed by Bronfenbrenner makes a considerable contribution to our overall understanding of child development, as well as emphasise the importance of context when evaluating a person’s development. The individual’s role and behaviour is explained in relation to their surrounding contexts, which Bronfenbrenner divides into complex systems; through the division of these systems, case-studies such as the example explained above illustrated a clearer understanding of the different examples of contexts, and how they may impact on a child’s development in different ways. Having said this, some studies became overwhelmed with the different ecosystems and terminology, resulting in incompletion, thus it is questioned whether Bronfenbrenner’s model is applicable to real-life settings on a day-to-day basis. A potential revision of the model could be proposed to consider in more detail how cultural differences may impact on child development. From this, further research could be conducted in order to gain a more insightful explanation of child development.

PS552 CW1 Word count: 2,199 (excluding references)

Reference List Berk, L.E. (2000). Child Development. 5th edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Boyd, D. & Bee, H. (2014). The Developing Child. 13th Edition. Edinburgh Gate, Harlow: Pearson. Bronfenbrenner, U. (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Christensen, J. (2016). A critical Reflection of Bronfenbrenner’s Development Ecology Model. 69(?), 22-28. Retrieved from: http://oaji.net/articles/2016/457-1460961906.pdf Cohen, L. & Waite-Stupiansky, S. (2017). Theories of Early Childhood Education: Developmental, Behaviourist and Critical. 1st edition. New York: Routledge. Derksen, T. (2012). The Influence of Ecological Theory in Child and Youth Care: A review of the literature. International Journal of Child, Youth & Family studies, 1(3). 326-339. Retrieved from: https://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/ijcyfs/article/viewFile/2091/736 Goouche, K. & Powell, S. (2013). The Baby Room: Principles, Policies and Practice. 1st edition. Maidenhead, Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Education. Guhn, M., & Goelman, H. (2011). Bioecological theory, early child development and the validation of the population-level early development instrument. Social Indicators Research, 103(2), 193. Keenan, T. & Evans, S. (2009). An Introduction to Child Development. 2nd edition. Oliver’s Yard, London: SAGE Publications. Krishnan, V. (2010). Early Child Development: A conceptual Model. Community-University Partnership, 1(1), 1-17. Retrieved from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8099/6bed2ef51e4128e5251f98242009888f4028.pdf Lee, D. & Cohen, J. (2008). Examining Strain in a Social context. SAGE journals, 6(2), 115-135. MentalHelp.net. (2019). Urie Bronfenbrenner and Child Development. Retrieved from https://www.mentalhelp.net/articles/urie-bronfenbrenner-and-child-development/ Nisbett, R. & Miyamoto, Y. (2005). The influence of culture: holistic versus analytic perception. Trends in cognitive science, 9(10). 467-473. Oppenheimer, M., Soto, J. & Agosto, N. (2017). Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Theory Revision: Moving Culture from the Macro into the Micro. Association for psychological science, 12(5), 900910. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321012999_Bronfenbrenner's_Bioecological_Theory_Revis ion Paquette, D. & Ryan, J. (2001). Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory. 1-59. Retrieved from: http://www.floridahealth.gov/AlternateSites/CMSKids/providers/early_steps/training/documents/bronfenbrenners_ecological.pdf Parenta. (2018, September 01). Bronfenbrenner: children’s learning in a wide context [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.parenta.com/2018/09/01/bronfenbrenner-childrens-learning-in-a-widercontext/

PS552 CW1 Word count: 2,199 (excluding references) Swick, K. J., & Williams, R. D. (2006). An analysis of Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological perspective for early childhood educators: Implications for working with families experiencing stress. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(5), 371-378.

Tudge, J., Mokrova, I., Hatifield, B. & Karnik, R. (2009). Uses and Misuses of Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Theory of Human Development. Journal of Family theory and Review, 1(?), 198-210. Retrieved from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d71f/22dbc4c95a9b0cf3951b68b876369880d05e.pdf...