Análisis de un documento donde evalúa una teoria así como las implicaciones del bullying., Resúmenes de Psicología Clínica

¡Descarga Análisis de un documento donde evalúa una teoria así como las implicaciones del bullying. y más Resúmenes en PDF de Psicología Clínica solo en Docsity! Critical review of a human development theory 1 Andrews University College of Education CRITICAL REVIEW OF A HUMAN DEVELOPMENT THEORY Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory of development A Course Requirement Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirement for GDPC520 Life Span Development By Sarai Espinoza Ruiz April 30, 2015 Introduction Urie Bronfenbrenner developed the ecological systems theory to explain how everything in a child and the child’s environment affects how a child grows and develops. He labeled different aspects or levels of the environment that influence children’s development, including the microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem, and the macrosystem. Urie’s Ecological System Theory proposed that human development unfolds in a nested set of systems, involving cultural, social, economic, and political elements, not merely psychological ones. These systems and their interactions can nurture or stifle optimal development. Polices and programs can play a major role in shaping these systems, thus potentially promoting human health and well-being. This perspective transformed the study of human development. Among other influences, it encouraged more developmental scientist to examine both naturally occurring and deliberately designed experiments in the real world to illuminate the influences of contexts on human development, and particularly in child development (Edinete & Tudge, 2013). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human development underwent considerable changes from the time it was first proposed in the 1970s until Bronfenbrenner’s death in 2005. It is also important to point out that although Bronfenbrenner may be best known as the developer of the theory, he was also intensely interested in the family as an institution. During the years that he was developing his theory, he also wrote many papers on such topics as social-class influences on child rearing, the effects of maternal employment on children’s development, the problems associated with treating some families as being at a “deficit”, and family polices that are needed for families to grow healthily. Most relevant is 2 individual’s teacher and his parents, or between the individual’s church and the neighborhood. The exosystem defines the larger social system in which the individual does not function directly. The structures in this layer impact the individual’s development by interacting with some structure in his microsystem. Parent workplace schedules or community-based family resources are examples. The individual may not be directly involved at this level, but he does feel the positive or negative force involved with the interaction with his own system. The macrosystem may be considered the outermost layer in the individual’s environment. While not being a specific framework, this layer is comprised of cultural values, customs, and laws. The effects of larger principles defined by the macrosystem have a cascading influence throughout the interactions of all other layers. For instance, if it is the belief of the culture that parents should be solely responsible for raising their children, that culture is less likely to provide resources to help parents. Critique The ecological perspective provides a much richer description of environment and environmental influences than anything offered by learning theorist. Each person functions in particular microsystems that are linked by a mesosystem and embedded in the larger contexts of an exosystem and a macrosystem. Therefore, the theory shows how multiple influences affect the individual’s development even when the individual is not directly involved in the situation. It makes little sense to an ecological theorist to study environmental influences in laboratory contexts. Instead, this theory argue that only by observing transactions between developing children and their ever-changing natural 5 settings it will be understood how individuals influence and are influenced by their environments (Tudge, Mokrova, Hatfield & Karnik, 2009). However, despite its strengths, the ecological systems theory falls shortly of being a complete account of human development. It is characterized as a bioecological model, but it really has little to say about specific biological contributors of development. The emphasis on complex transactions between developing persons and their ever-changing environments is both strength and a weakness of ecological systems theory. Where are the normative patterns of development? Must there be formulated different theories for persons from different environments? If unique individuals influence and are influenced by their unique environments, is each life span unique? (Shaffer, & Kipp, 2010). In sum, ecological system theory protrudes in the broad aspects, systems and structures that are involved in the development of an individual. However, it may focus too heavily on ideographic aspects of change instead of provide a coherent normative portrait of human development. Developmental relevance The bioecological theory of development has been applied to different developmental problems and interventions. The ecological framework is not a “theory” of development, other than proposing variation in children’s adaption as function of context. More appropriately, it can be thought of as a heuristic framework that helps organize a systematic attempt to disentangle the various levels of influence on development and the design of interventions (Tudge et al., 2009). Over the past 10 years, empirically validated interventions have become increasingly ecological. For example, in the treatment of serious adolescent problem behavior, multisystemic therapy is clearly ecological. This family-center intervention approach addresses peer dynamics, school, and diverse services of mental health agencies. One of the 6 central features of the ecological model is the idea that culture is more than a component of stressful life context. Rather, culture potentially redefines the meaning and validity of key psychological constructs, this aspect can benefit on addressing the potential disruptive nature of acculturation stress on parent leadership and guidance of bicultural families with adolescents (Fine, 2003). Clearly, the application of the ecological model to prevention and intervention is not new. This model is frequently applied to school-based interventions in which a child’s behavior is evaluated in context and interventions are developed to on the child’s specific situation (Fine, 2003). The ecological model is also applied on family therapies, in which this theory perspective not only helps to increase the relationship among the members of the family, but also expand the relationship emphasis beyond the nuclear and extended family to include other societal systems and cultural issues that impact individual within the family system (Stormshak & Dishion, 2002). In conclusion, the bioecological theory’s key fact is that, relations between the individual and environment are central. For Bronfenbrenner, processes of development are the cores of his theory, with emphasis between developing individual and social partners the key to understanding both stability and change. These interpersonal interactions are most fully understood by considering them in broader historical, cultural, and social contexts, and their relationships between them. This theory has received many different critiques, however it is essential to realize its important contributions on counseling and the counseling treatment and interventions. 7