http://www3.uakron.edu/schulze/610/lec_bronf.

htm (akses 5 mei 2013)

Lecture Notes – Urie Bronfenbrenner

It’s all about the context.

If there’s one thing that unifies Family & Consumer Scientists and makes Child
Developmentalists from FCS different, it’s that one idea. We need to understand the child “in
context.” I think that this theory really compliments all of the other perspectives we’ve
learned about in that way. Even Vygotsky didn’t go into nearly this amount of detail about
the context of development, although I think he would have enjoyed this theoretical
perspective had he lived to read or hear about it.

The great thing about this theory is that, unlike Behaviorism, it systematically examines the
role of multiple levels of the environment (not just the immediate environment) on human
development (not just behavior), and it also acknowledges that individuals areactive within
these contexts. It takes all of the wonderful attributes of, say, Cognitive Theory, Information
Processing Theory, Sociocultural Theory, and more—it keeps the core assumptions of these
theories, and at the same time it takes a serious look at the active, developing person within a
context that is also dynamic and changing. Like Vygotsky, Bronfenbrenner saw a kind of
dialectic between the individual and the environmental context; the individual can exert an
influence over his/her environment at the same time the environment exerts an influence on
the individual. On the nature-nurture issue, I’d say this theory is just as balanced as Piaget’s
and Vygotsky’s in acknowledging that each has a role, and observed development is really
the result of an interaction between the two. Bronfenbrenner’s theory has evolved somewhat
over time--so many people have picked up on his initial idea and have modified it to make
their own variations--but the basic idea of the person developing in the context of various
“systems” or environments is something that Bronfenbrenner really deserves credit for.

You’ve seen his “concentric circles” model before. Here’s one I found applied to students
in Tennessee’s higher educational system:
(note: they just left out the Chronosystem.)

As you can see, this idea has a great deal of potential for application. My favorite area of
application is in the area of poverty and child development (if you’ve taken my poverty class,
then you know this already). This perspective can be applied to explain the development,
typical or atypical, of any individual or group. What I particularly like about the theory is that
it can help to lead to good programmatic and policy decisions—we must change as many
levels of the environment as possible if we’re serious about making change in the lives of
children. Does that mean we should even try to change things at the cultural/national level?
The worldwide level? Yes, absolutely. (Think of people like Gandhi and Martin Luther King,
Jr.—that’s exactly what they set out to do, and it is also what they accomplished.) Be wary of
any program or policy that only focuses on one level of the environment and ignores the
others. Systems correct themselves—if change happens in one area of one level, then the
larger system as a whole is likely to resist that change. Here’s an example: say your approach
to solving the problem of child crime is one simple thing: to put the child in a correctional
institution for a very long time. Essentially, society is tackling this problem at the level of the
individual by punishing the child for undesirable behavior (remember, according to
Behaviorists, punishing an unwanted behavior should cause the individual to be less likely to
perform the behavior in the future.) This solution removes the offender from the street for a
time, it’s true, but eventually the child offender (perhaps no longer a child) will be released
into the same environment(s) that helped to lead to his antisocial behavior in the first place.
By not attempting to change educational opportunities, job availability, the minimum wage,
neighborhood safety, prevailing societal attitudes about the worth of ex-convicts, the criminal
justice system and how it works, we have done nothing to prevent the same behavior from
reoccurring. In fact, if we put the child in an adult institution, we’ve presented him with a
plethora of adult criminal models who’ve probably done pretty heinous things—maybe
even while they were in prison (think of Bandura). On a cognitive level, we’ve also taught
him something very important: he is a dispensable person. On an emotional level, we teach
him that nobody cares, the world is a dangerous and frightening place, and he’ll never be a
productive (or generative) member of society (e.g. Erikson’s theory). Not only do we have to
look at multiple systemic levels of the environment, but we also have to consider different
systems or aspects of development at work within the individual. Hard work, but certainly
possible—and worthwhile.

According to the criteria in Thomas’ book, is this the strongest developmental theory we’ve
read about? Well, no. There’s a lot about the relationship between the individual and the
environment and how change really happens within these various contexts that’s probably
impossible to directly study—think of all the uncontrolled variables (not to mention the rarity
of a truly random sample). That’s the problem as we move from a simple theory like
Skinner’s, which may be testable but is in many ways far removed from the real lives of
children, toward a theory that has the potential to explain the messiness of reality. “The real
world” can be very difficult to study empirically. What we can do is evaluate programs or
policies that deliberately impact as many environmental levels and systems as possible. This
has been done (there’s a kind of old book out there that’s really great—14 Ounces of
Prevention—which is a good example of what I mean), and in fact more comprehensive
programs do work. It’s why the Decker Center inBarberton made such an impact on the
community, and why “full service schools”, where they have been tried, are so effective.
Although this kind of empirical support is more indirect than we might like, sometimes that’s
the best we can hope for with a theory that is, as David Witt would say, “looking under the
right street lamp” for the truth about child development. Sometimes the light’s not so great,
but we know we’re on the right side of the street. (I’d repeat the whole analogy, but he tells it
better.)

As always, here’s your lagniappe:

Another example from a newsletter by Wendy Russell:

A framework for defining playwork

It may be helpful to have a framework for the knowledge and standards and the
one I offer here is the concentric circles developed by myself and Stuart Lester
from an ecological model of human development by Urie Bronfenbrenner:
The concentric circles start with the child at play in the centre and show the
influences on that child and their play from the perspective of the play setting.
This model also allows for acknowledgement of the flow of connections within
and between each circle.
The play environment circle focuses on the role of the playworker in providing a
rich physical play environment as well as a human environment where the
children expect to be able to play, and also looks at the role of the playworker in
terms of the 'low intervention, high response' model.
The idea of the model is that each of the outer circles should support rather than
constrain children's play.
http://blogs.ubc.ca/earlychildhoodintervention1/2010/12/03/nature-nurture-debate/
(akses 5 mei 2013)
The Ecological and Transactional Models of Development
by PDCE Admin
(or How Urie Bronfenbrenner meets Arnold Sameroff)
Objectives: The next two models will show how looking at the developing child
through a model system helps us gain awareness and new perspectives, organize our
ideas, guide our practices, and evaluate intervention techniques

Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model

Those who study children try to understand what

factors influence their development within a
system (Fig. 1) that includes the children’s families.
Two models that will be used in this course are
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model and Sameroff’s
transactional model. Both view the child as existing
within an intricate system of variables, all of which
could have an effect on their development.

Figure 1 shows the solar system where the planets,

stars and satellites are all connected, just like in a family system.

Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model:

The ecological model (Fig. 2) outlines how the environment influences child
development. It’s divided into a number of “systems” that describe different aspects
of an environment. They are:
Micro System: the child and what they bring to the world with them. This includes
temperament and any conditions they may have.
Meso System: the immediate setting in which the child lives, such as the nuclear
family.
Exo System: the environment in which the child lives. This includes the school the
child attends, the community and neighborhood in which the child lives, and the
occupation of the child’s parent.
Macro System: the general society in which the child lives. This includes the
broader culture as well as the government and any regulations and policies it has,
which may affect thedeveloping child.
Chrono System (Fig.3): this includes any transitions in the child’s life that may
impact their development.

Fig. 3: Chronosystem
Arnold Sameroff’s Transactional Model1
Arnold Sameroff proposed the “Transactional Model of Development”2 in the 1970’s.
He believed that both nature and nurture are constantly being changed by their
interaction with one another. This means, developmental outcomes are a function of
neither the individual nor the context alone, but both (Fig 4.).

Fig. 4: This picture illustrates the transaction that happens between

nature (plant) and nurture (person caring for plant)
The transactional model looks at development as a result of a complex interplay
between the child and their natural personality and traits, as well as family
experiences and economic, social and community resources.

The transactional models also look at “proximal influences” and “distal

influences”. Proximal influences are the factors that influence the child closely.
Interactions with the parent and family are examples for proximal
influences. Distal influences are those affecting the child less directly, for example,
the family income and the type of community. Infants and young children spend
more time with their parents and caregivers; this is why they are more dependent on
their “proximal influences.” Older children would tend to be more influenced from
distal factors including their school and community.
At the same time, distal factors do impact parents/caregivers in ways that may affect
their ability to provide for their child. Sometimes negative factors, such as family
unemployment, may result on additional risks to the development of a child. Risks
are not measured one by one, in terms of how negative the outcomes could be, but in
their combined effect on a child’s development.

Sameroff uses the following terms to illustrate his model (Fig. 5):

Fig. 5: This image shows that certain genes (genotype) work together in
the make-up of an insect (phenotype)
Genotype (see full Glossary) – related to the child’s genes; for example, eye colour or
dimple on cheeks;
Phenotype (see full Glossary) – how the child looks; for example, child’s height and
weight;
Environtype (see full Glossary) – related to child’s own family and culture (Fig. 6).
 Fig. 6: This image shows a child behaving in different ways in two
different environments
1. see References
2. see References
Friday, January 21, 2011

An Ecological Approach to Life: Urie Bronfenbrenner

Due to popular demand, I'm starting an occasional series of blogs where I go through various
theories in psychology from my therapy dog perspective. Why? A friend on Facebook was
studying for an exam and asked my take on a couple of theories. I successfully taught these
theories using examples from my life (squirrels). It seems like it would be fun to continue
doing that.

In the United States, it is now possible for a person eighteen years of age, female as well as
male, to graduate from high school, college, or university without ever having cared for, or
even held, a baby; without ever having comforted or assisted another human being who really
needed help. . . . No society can long sustain itself unless its members have learned the
sensitivities, motivations, and skills involved in assisting and caring for other human beings.

Who said this? Urie Bronfenbrenner. You probably don't know him but you should. From all
reports, Dr. Bronfenbrenner was a wonderful human being. While studying in New York City
the human met a woman who spoke about studying with him. She got all calm and dreamy
talking about what a kind soul he was. Later while working in Ithaca New York, the human
happened to walk past Dr. Bronfenbrenner. They had a brief conversation--he indeed was a
lovely person. Bronfenbrenner was a professor at Cornell University and the co-founder of
the national Head Start program.

Children need people in order to become human.... It is primarily through observing, playing,
and working with others older and younger than himself that a child discovers both what he
can do and who he can become—that he develops both his ability and his identity.... Hence to
relegate children to a world of their own is to deprive them of their humanity, and ourselves
as well.

Urie was born in 1917 in Moscow, Russia. When he was six he and his parents, Russian
Jews, emigrated to the United States. For those of you who aren't students of history, note
that Urie was born when the Russian Provisional Government collapsed. His parents moved
at the end of the civil war when the Soviets had taken control of the country. Why is this
important? These small biographical details anchor Dr. Bronfenbrenner into a particular place
and time. How might have these early experiences influenced him? What did he learn during
this time frame? Who did his story of emigrating with his parents influence him?

If the Russians have gone too far in subjecting the child and his peer group to
conformity to a single set of values imposed by the adult society, perhaps we have
reached the point of diminishing returns in allowing excessive autonomy and in
failing to utilize the constructive potential of the peer group in developing social
responsibility and consideration for others.

We often don't think about people in a historical context: we should. It is from within our
contexts that our selves develop. I'll get back to that in a minute. First let's look at one more
thing Dr. Bronfenbrenner said:

Development, it turns out, occurs through this process of progressively more

complex exchange between a child and somebody else—especially somebody who's
crazy about that child.

Do you think that perhaps part of how Urie learned this was from a deep
understanding of his own context? Neither I nor the human are scholars of Urie or
his biographer. It's worth wondering about.

Dr. Bronfenbrenner developed an Ecological Systems theory to human development.

It was revolutionary at the time--and in many ways still is. He wrote about
about development as something occurring within five systems. I'll describe each of
them in turn from my perspective.

Source

Micro system: This is the setting in which I live. My family, peers, school, and neighborhood
all populate this system. It is within the micro system that I spend most of my life and have
most of my direct interactions. It's important to know that within this theory, I am not a
passive recipient of experiences in these settings. I actively am involved in creating and
deciding the contours of these experiences. Who's in my microsystem? My humans, of
course. The humans that I live with are my most enduring and important relationships. My
interactions with them set the contours of what is possible and what is not. My responses to
the environmental they create, and my own personal tastes and genetics, dictate the
possibilities of what I might become. My microsystem also includes the humans office, the
way we are transported to the office, and of course the patients who come into the office. I
grew up around people in therapy: this had a fundamental effect on who I became.We
develop within the complex exchanges of our relationships. In his ecological systems
theory, Bronfenbrenner changed all of our understandings of how children
developed. He identified five systems which influence what all of us become. I'll talk
about each of those five systems and to help you think about them, I'll put myself in
context. Of course I'm sure you all understand that he was talking about human
development--not puppy development. However I think the theory holds for me too!

We as a nation need to be reeducated about the necessary and sufficient conditions for
making human beings human. We need to be reeducated not as parents—but as workers,
neighbors, and friends; and as members of the organizations, committees, boards—and,
especially, the informal networks that control our social institutions and thereby determine
the conditions of life for our families and their children.
 Mesosystem: Refers to relations between microsystems or connections between
contexts. This is the in between system. An example is the relation of family experiences
to school experiences. If I don't feel safe at home for example, or my humans don't
provide me with positive interactions, I'm not likely going to be successful in school. I
won't have the skills from home to use and be skillful in school. Make sense? Ever know
anyone deeply frustrated that the dog trainer can easily get their dog to sit (I'm sure
you've all watched Victoria Stillwell on T.V.) but then the dog won't listen at home? Well
this is because of the mesosystem. The family doesn't share the same set of skills nor
provide the same environmental that the dog trainer does. Without an interplay between
the two systems it is hard for a dog to learn what to do!
Witness the American ideal: the Self-Made Man. But there is no such person. If we can stand
on our own two feet, it is because others have raised us up. If, as adults, we can lay claim to
competence and compassion, it only means that other human beings have been willing and
enabled to commit their competence and compassion to us—through infancy, childhood, and
adolescence, right up to this very moment.
 Exosystem: No, not exoskeleton. Those are crunchy bugs that I like to eat in the
summer time. Exosystem involves the links between a social setting that I don't have an
active role in and my immediate context. For example, I'm not directly involved in my
human's marathon running. I'm influenced by it because when he's deep into training, I'm
left alone more often and go on less walks. The exosystem, in this case marathon training,
changes patterns of interaction with me. Involves links between a social setting in which
the individual does not have an active role and the individual's immediate context. For
example, a husband's or child's experience at home may be influenced by a mother's
experiences at work. The mother might receive a promotion that requires more travel,
which might increase conflict with the husband and change patterns of interaction with
the child.
In the planning and designing of new communities, housing projects, and urban renewal, the
planners both public and private, need to give explicit consideration to the kind of world that
is being created for the children who will be growing up in these settings. Particular attention
should be given to the opportunities which the environment presents or precludes for
involvement of children with persons both older and younger than themselves.
 Macrosystem: Describes the culture in which I live. Cultural contexts include
developing and industrialized countries, socioeconomic status, poverty, and ethnicity.
Don't think this affects dogs? Have you ever traveled to another country and saw the
different ways people relate to animals? Some countries dogs aren't household pets--they
are street animals. A more simple example--in some countries cows are food--in others
cows are considered sacred animals. Take a look at the differences in training styles of
Victoria Stillwell and Cesar Milan. They are both highly influenced by different aspects
of the macrosystem. They both have different values and different contexts in which they
understand animals. They in fact are both from different macrosystems (Milan from
Mexico, Stillwell from the United Kingdom). Think about how these macrosystems
influence how they relate to animals, and then how they teach others to relate to animals.
If the children and youth of a nation are afforded opportunity to develop their capacities to
the fullest, if they are given the knowledge to understand the world and the wisdom to change
it, then the prospects for the future are bright. In contrast, a society which neglects its
children, however well it may function in other respects, risks eventual disorganization and
demise.
 Chronosystem: The final system involves the effect of time and transitions across a
lifespan. Marriage, divorce, or the birth of a baby all are transitions in the human world
that fall into the chronosystem. My chronosystem includes being born in Kentucky, being
abandoned when I was a day old, being transported to New Hampshire, and then finding
my home in Massachusetts. How do you think these transitions have influenced me?

Last thought? In Dr. Brofenbrenner's obituary at Cornell University the following was
written. I see it as an invitation to relationship. I hope you do, too.
He spent many of his later years warning that the process that makes human beings
human is breaking down as disruptive trends in American society produce ever more
chaos in the lives of America's children. "The hectic pace of modern life poses a
threat to our children second only to poverty and unemployment," he said. "We
are depriving millions of children--and thereby our country--of their birthright...
virtues, such as honesty, responsibility, integrity and compassion."