Introduction
This chapter presents the theoretical framework for the current study. In keeping with the aim of this study—to explore minority and low SES inner city high school students’ understanding of school, learning and academic achievement and the reason behind inner city minority and low SES high school students’ lack of engagement and apathy toward school12, schooling13 and academic achievement.14 This chapter explains the wholistic humanistic theory of human development, each of the three microtheories that constitutes the wholistic humanistic theory, how each of the theories fits into the study, and the reason for the integration of these three theories into one theory. The chapter concludes with the significance of the study and the need for an integrated theory in evaluating high school students’ learning and academic outcome.
Wholistic Humanistic Perspective of Individual Development and Achievement Background
The wholistic humanistic view of individual development and functioning focuses on the integration of the different aspects of human life—biological, psychological, and
12School in the context of this study refers to all school processes including rules, policies, and practices
and all human and symbolic authority figures through which the institutionalized rules, policies and practices are enforced.
13Schooling in this study refers to all procedures, pedagogy, and curricula through which learning is
targeted, disseminated, fostered and assessed.
14 Barton and Coley (2008) define academic achievement as what a student know and can do as measured
by standardized test. However, in this document, academic achievement encompasses all elements of academic excellence described within this proposal.
environmental—and on the nature of the interaction between these factors, which produces human behavior (Alwin, 1994a; Magnusson & Torestad, 1993; Magnusson, 1995; Mortimer et al., 1982; 1991; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994).
Originating from the debate over nature versus nurture, the call for a holistic view of human development and functioning has its roots in ecological and symbolic
interactionism, which are derivatives of systems theory (Gibson, 1959; Sadovnik, 2007). In the late 19th century, interest in organism-environment interrelatedness began in response to the Newtonian theory of social physics; and accelerated with the emergence of Darwin’s theory of evolution and the role of the environment in the adaptation and survival of species (Tudge et al., 1997; Marion 2002). However, these theoretical
orientations presented a dichotomous view of the relationship between the individual and the environment (Tudge et al., 1997). It was not until the 20th century that John Dewey (1902; 1911) and his colleagues (Cooley, 1902; 1956; Mead, 1934; 1956; James, 1950), introduced the concept of reciprocal relationship between the individual and his or her environment (Dewey, 1902; Cooley, 1956; Mead, 1956). But, the concept of reciprocity15 purported by the symbolic interactionists and the ecologists undermined the contribution of biological factors in the process of social construction of meaning. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) The Ecology of Human Development shared in this reductionist view, a concern
that led to his continuous modification of the theory until it evolved into the bioecological
15 This concept of reciprocity was replaced by Bronfenbrenner’s concept of reciprocality—A two-way
nature of the bioecological model that positions the child at the center of all interacting systems so that he or she is viewed as a stimulus and a socializing agent as well as a reactive being. The child influences those who influence him and the behavior of all individuals involved with the child—including that the child is profoundly affected by other social systems in which these same persons participate in significant roles and relationships, both toward the child and each other (Bronfenbrenner, 1973). In reciprocality, the behavior of each participant affects and is affected by the behavior of the others. The concept is that of the child as a stimulus, who is not only seen as a reactive agent, but as an instigator of behavior in others
theory of human development (Bronfenbrenner, 2001), the overarching theory for the current study.
Within the wholistic humanistic perspective of human development and academic achievement, the environment would serve as a source of information to the development and functioning of the individual, who, in interaction with her or his psychological and biological factors, intentionally processes environmental information at various levels of complexity. Embedded within this view of the environment is the belief of modern social learning, social cognitive, and sociocultural theorists such as Albert Bandura and Lev Vygotsky respectively. Social Learning theorists assume that learning occurs through observation (Bandura, 1989, Vygotsky, 1978). Inherent in this view is the belief that an individual’s way of dealing with the external world develops in a learning process in which two types of perceived contingencies are formed based on situational outcome and behavioral outcome (Bandura, 1977; Bolles, 1971). Within these contingencies, social learning theorists purport that certain situational conditions lead to certain outcomes, while certain behavioral outcome have certain predictable consequences (Bolles, 1971).
On the other hand, sociocultural theorists believe that human activities take place in cultural setting and cannot be understood apart from these settings (Vygotsky, 1978; Bourdieu, 1977). They posit that mental structures and processes can be traced to the individual’s interaction with others and that social interactions are not merely simple influences on cognitive development; rather “they actually create our cognitive structures and thinking processes” (Woolfolk, 2004, p. 45). Sociocultural theorists conceptualize development16 as the transformation of socially shared activities into internalized
16 In addition to this, development in this document will include its bioecological implication as a lasting
processes (Woolfolk, 2004; John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). Consequently, the formation of situational and behavioral contingencies constitutes one source for the stability and continuity of individuals’ functioning in relation to the environment and for the
development of well-functioning mental system in the individual (Magnusson, 1995). For this reason, the wholistic humanistic framework for this study is informed by
Bronfenbrenner’s (2005) bioecological theory, Bandura’s social learning and social cognitive theory, and Bourdieu’s concept of habitus. However, Bourdieu’s (1977) habitus is applied in this study as a derivative of the sociocultural theory because of its focus on the effect of ecological niche on individual development and academic outcome.
Guided by Systems’ theory tenet of the individual as an interconnected organism who is both an active producer and a product of his or her behavior (Bertalanffy, 1959; Brandtstader, 1998), these theories in one way or the other, recognize the individual as an embodiment of mind, body, and spirit and promote the complex interaction between these three domains of the personhood and other biological and environmental factors in
shaping an individual’s behavior and overall outcome. They recognize the role of needs in individual motivation, but emphasize the reciprocal interaction between the human will, which equips a person with the ability to self-organize in order to achieve set goals, and the environment in determining individual motivation and achievement
(Brandtstader, 1998; Huitt, 2006; O’Hara, 2001; 1995; Rowan, 2011). Correspondingly, at the core of these theories is the belief that human beings create the environments that shape the course of their development (Bandura, 2006; Bronfenbrenner, 2005). As Bronfenbrenner (2005) posited, human actions “influence the multiple physical and
cultural tiers of the ecology that shapes them, and this agency makes humans—for better or worse—active producers of their own development” (p. 6).
Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Model of Human Development
Thebioecological model is not only an expanded version of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological paradigm, first introduced in the 1970s (Bronfenbrenner, 1974, 1977a, 1977b, 1979a, 1979b), it is also an integration of an evolving body of theory and research concerned with the processes and conditions that govern the lifelong course of human development in the actual environments in which human being live over time
(Bronfenbrenner, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Even though most of the systematic theory-building of this paradigm was done by Bronfenbrenner, his work was based on the analysis and integration of results from empirical investigations conducted over many decades by researchers from diverse disciplines (Bronfenbrenner, 2005).
Although the earlier version of the theory (The Ecological theory of Human Development) was highly influential in promoting considerable interest in the role of ecological systems in human development throughout the 1980s (Lerner, Rothbaum, Boulos, & Castellino, 2002), it was criticized for undermining the characteristics of the developing person. Unfortunately, Bronfenbrenner was his own worst critic
(Bronfenbrenner, 1986; 1989). He recognized earlier on that his theory of human development was incomplete without the inclusion of the different levels of individual structures and functioning (biology, psychology, and behavior) fused dynamically with the ecological systems (Lerner et al., 2002, Bronfenbrenner, 1986; 1989).
Consequently, throughout the last decade of his life, he and his colleagues, in successive stages, continued to refine and integrate other levels of developmental system
into the theory-construct that he finally referred to as “A Bioecological Paradigm of Human Development” (Bronfenbrenner, 1986a, 1986b, 1988, 1989, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1999a, 1999b, 2001, 2004; Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1993, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Crouter, 1983; Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998).
Distinguishing Features of the Bioecological Theory
The distinguishing features of the bioecological model of human development is the “Process-Person-Context-Time (PPCT) model,” which underscores four interrelated components for conceptualizing the integratedness of the developmental systems whose dynamic interactive relationships foster or disrupt the development of an individual (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). Bronfenbrenner and his colleagues designated these four components as the developmental Processes shaped by the characteristics of the Person, and the Context over Time. Together, these four components constitute a PPCT model that function through both distal and proximal processes (Bronfenbrenner, 1999b and Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; 2006). Appendix A presents the components of PPCT in form of nine propositions guiding the theory.
Process
Process is the core element of the bioecological model. It encompasses the
proximal processes, which refers to particular forms of reciprocal interaction between the
organism and the environment (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). The proximal processes operate over time. They are the primary mechanisms producing human development. However, "the power of the proximal processes to influence development varies
"substantially as a function of the characteristics of the developing Person, the immediate
processes take place" (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, p. 994; emphasis in the original). As the engines of development, the proximal processes involve interaction with three features of the immediate environment: persons, objects, and symbols. They transfer energy between the developing person and the persons, objects, and symbols in the immediate environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000). This transfer could be unilateral or bidirectional and could occur concurrently and/or intermittently (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000). Additionally, the proximal processes have the general effect of reducing or buffering against environmental differences. However, this effect is greatest in more advantaged and stable environment than in poor environments (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000). Appendix B provides the distinctive features of the proximal processes.
The proximal processes produce two major kinds of developmental outcomes— competence and dysfunction—which in turn distinguish the proximal process as positive or negative, protective or detrimental. While competence refers to “the demonstrated acquisition and further development of knowledge, skill, or ability to conduct and direct one’s own behavior across situations and developmental domains (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 1999 p. 2000), dysfunction refers to “the recurrent manifestation of difficulties in maintaining control and integration of behavior across situations and different domains of development” (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, p. 1002). Competence “can occur in any domain—intellectual, physical, motivational, socio-emotional, or artistic—either by itself or in combination with one or more other spheres of activity” (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000, p. 2000).
Person
The PPCT model distinguished three types of Person characteristics as most influential in shaping the course of future development through their capacity to affect the direction and power of proximal processes. The first is dispositions or person force,
the second is bioecological resources, and the third is demands characteristics.
Person Forces Or Disposition
Person forces are personal dispositions that can set proximal processes in motion in a particular developmental domain and continue to sustain their operation
(Bronfenbrenner, 1995). According to Bronfenbrenner & Morris (1998), behavioral dispositions can “actively interfere with, retard, or even prevent” the occurrence of proximal processes (p. 1009). They described behavioral dispositions that set in motion and sustain the operation of the proximal processes as ‘developmentally generative” characteristic and those that disrupt, retard or hinder its operation as “developmentally disruptive” characteristics (p. 1009). Bronfenbrenner & Morris (2006) identified examples of developmentally generative characteristics as active orientations such as “curiosity, tendency to initiate and engage in activity alone, responsiveness to initiatives by others, and readiness to defer immediate gratifications to pursue long-term goals” (p. 1009).
On the other hand, developmentally disruptive dispositions include
“impulsiveness, explosiveness, distractibility, inability to defer gratification, or in a more extreme form, ready resort to aggression and violence”—behaviors that are generally categorized as difficulties in maintaining control over emotions (p. 1009). Equally, they classified apathy, inattentiveness, unresponsiveness, lack of interest in one’s
surroundings, “feelings of insecurity, shyness, or a general tendency to avoid or withdraw from activity as evidences of developmentally disruptive dispositions” (p. 1009) and posited, “persons exhibiting either of the preceding propensities would find it difficult to engage in proximal processes requiring progressively more complex patterns of
reciprocal interaction over extended period of time” (p. 1009).On the other hand, developmentally disruptive dispositions include “impulsiveness, explosiveness,
distractibility, inability to defer gratification, or in a more extreme form, ready resort to aggression and violence”—behaviors that are generally categorized as difficulties in maintaining control over emotions (p. 1009). Equally, they classified apathy,
inattentiveness, unresponsiveness, lack of interest in one’s surroundings, “feelings of insecurity, shyness, or a general tendency to avoid or withdraw from activity as evidences of developmentally disruptive dispositions” (p. 1009) and posited, “persons exhibiting either of the preceding propensities would find it difficult to engage in proximal processes requiring progressively more complex patterns of reciprocal interaction over extended period of time” (p. 1009). Table 4.1 presents the three stages of generative person disposition.
Person Resources or Developmental Resources
The next person characteristics that shape development are bioecological
resources or developmental resources. These refer to the developing person’s ability,
experience, knowledge, and skill required for the effective functioning of proximal processes at a given stage of development. These Person characteristics does not involve selective disposition toward something; rather, they “constitute biopsychological
proximal processes” (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, p. 1011). Like Person forces, Person resources are classified into developmental liabilities and developmental assets.
Table 4. 1: 3 Stages of Generative Person Disposition Stage I: Selective Responsiveness
Involves differentiated response to,
attraction by, and exploration of aspects of the physical and social environments.
Stage II: Structuring Proclivities