Читать книгу Infants and Children in Context - Tara L. Kuther - Страница 57

Similar to other developmental theorists, Urie Bronfenbrenner (1917–2005) believed that children are active in their own development. Specifically, Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological systems theory poses that development is a result of the ongoing interactions among biological, cognitive, and psychological changes within the person and his or her changing context (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Bronfenbrenner proposed that all individuals are embedded in, or surrounded by, a series of contexts: home, school, neighborhood, culture, and society, as shown in Figure 1.4. The bioecological systems theory thus offers a comprehensive perspective on the role of context as an influence on development. As shown in Figure 1.4, contexts are organized into a series of systems in which individuals are embedded and that interact with one another and the person to influence development.

Description

Figure 1.4 Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Systems Theory

Source: Adapted from Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2006).

At the center of the bioecological model is the individual. The developing person’s genetic, psychological, socioemotional, and personality traits interact, influencing each other. For example, physical development, such as brain maturation, may influence cognitive development, which in turn may influence social development, such as a child’s understanding of friendship. Social development then may influence cognitive development, as children may learn activities or ideas from each other. In this way, the various forms of development interact. The individual interacts with the contexts in which he or she is embedded, influencing and being influenced by them (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).

The individual is embedded in the innermost level of context, the microsystem, which includes interactions with the immediate physical and social environment surrounding the person, such as family, peers, and school. Because the microsystem contains the developing person, it has an immediate and direct influence on his or her development. For example, peer relationships can influence a person’s sense of self-esteem, social skills, and emotional development.

The next level, the mesosystem, refers to the relations and interactions among microsystems, or connections among contexts. For example, experiences in the home (one microsystem) influence those at school (another microsystem); therefore, parents who encourage and provide support for reading will influence the child’s experiences in the classroom. Like the microsystem, the mesosystem has a direct influence on the individual because he or she is a participant in it.

The exosystem consists of settings in which the individual is not a participant but that nevertheless influence him or her. For example, a child typically does not participate in a parent’s work setting, yet the work setting has an indirect influence on the child because it affects the parent’s mood. The availability of funding for schools, another exosystem factor, indirectly affects children by influencing the availability of classroom resources. The exosystem is an important contribution to our understanding of development because it shows us how the effects of outside factors trickle down and indirectly affect children and adults.

The macrosystem is the greater sociocultural context in which the microsystem, mesosystem, and exosystem are embedded. It includes cultural values, legal and political practices, and other elements of the society at large. The macrosystem indirectly influences the child because it affects each of the other contextual levels. For example, cultural beliefs about the value of education (macrosystem) influence funding decisions made at national and local levels (exosystem), as well as what happens in the classroom and in the home (mesosystem and microsystem).

A final element of the bioecological system is the chronosystem, which refers to how the bioecological system changes over time. As people grow and change, they take on and let go of various roles. For example, graduating from college, getting married, and becoming a parent involve changes in roles and shifts in microsystems. These shifts in contexts, called ecological transitions, occur throughout life.

The bioecological model was criticized recently for its vague explanation of development, especially the role of culture (Vélez-Agosto, Soto-Crespo, Vizcarrondo-Oppenheimer, Vega-Molina, & García Coll, 2017). Situated in the macrosystem, culture is said to influence development through the interdependence of the systems. Yet current conceptualizations of culture describe it as all the processes used by people as they make meaning or think through interactions with group members (Mistry et al., 2016; Yoshikawa, Mistry, & Wang, 2016). Critics therefore argue that since culture is manifested in our daily activities, it is inherent in each bioecological level (Vélez-Agosto et al., 2017). Moreover, cultural changes derive from interactions and pressures at each ecological level, not simply the macrosystem as Bronfenbrenner believed (Varnum & Grossmann, 2017).