Locus of Control
Direct belief about oneself as an active agent both in relation to the self and to the environment. Involves increasing capacity to conceptualize experience. This is the same concept as locus of control (Rotter, 1966) and self-efficacy belief (Bandura, 1977).
Developmental liabilities refer to conditions that restrict or distort the functional integrity of the organism (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; 2006). Such conditions include genetic defects, low birth weight, physical handicaps, severe and persistent illness, or damage to brain function through accident or degenerative processes (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, p. 1011).
Conversely, developmental assets refer to the abilities, knowledge, skills, and experiences that progressively develop over time and extend to various domains through which the proximal processes can do constructive work. Overtime, these assets become another source of the “progressively more complex patterns of interactions forming a defining attribute of the proximal processes (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). Obviously, there is a striking similarity between the two types of developmental
resources—liabilities versus assets—and the two types of developmental outcomes— dysfunction versus competence—in the Process domain of the bioecological model. This similarity derives from the ability of the Person characteristics to exist in three levels of the bioecological model—first as a defining attribute of the model and second as developmental outcomes. Hence, developmental outcome 1—Person resources of developmental liability—indirectly influences developmental outcomes 2—dysfunction arising from unstable and disadvantaged proximal processes, that is, inability to engage in effective reciprocal interaction due to predisposed liabilities. Figure 4.1 depicts the
bidirectional interaction between developmental outcomes from the process component and developmental resources in the person component of the module.
Developmental Outcomes—Competence and Dysfunction from Process +
Developmental Resources—Assets and Liabilities from Person =
Assets Competence Protective Proximal Processes
Liabilities Dysfunction Detrimental Proximal Process
Figure 4.1: Developmental Outcomes vs. Developmental Resources in High school Students’ Academic Performance
Person Demand Characteristics
The demands characteristics refer to person characteristics that are capable of
inviting or discouraging reactions from the social environment. These characteristics can foster or disrupt the operation of the proximal processes thereby facilitating or hindering the psychological growth of the individual (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; 2006).
Examples of demand characteristics include a fussy vs. a happy person, attractive vs. unattractive physical appearance, or hyperactivity vs. passivity (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, p. 1011). Allport (1937) referred to these demand characteristics as “social stimulus value” (quoted in Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, p. 1-12). The complex role of person demand characteristics in human development underscore the importance of those proximal processes that do not involve interpersonal interaction, but instead “focus on progressively more complex reciprocal interaction with objects and symbols. Because these are “solo activities” that are performed alone, the behavior of other participants does not affect the magnitude and effectiveness of the proximal processes
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; 2006). Furthermore, these “solo activities” significantly change the processes required in their performance, their outcomes, and the elements of the environments needed for their performance (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; 2006). Through person demand characteristics, this study will focus on individual student’s effort toward completing independent versus group tasks.
The differentiation between these three forms of person characteristics leads to their combination in patterns of person structure that can further account for differences in the direction and power of resultant proximal processes and their developmental effect (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). Likewise, “the contrast in all three domains requires a focus on human relationships and on task completion (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). Summarily, in the bioecological model, the characteristic of the person functions both as an indirect producer and as a product of development (Lerner, 1982, Lerner & Busch- Rossnagel, 1981).
Contexts
Drawing from Lewin's theory of psychological field, Bronfenbrenner (1977; 1979) conceived the ecological environment as a set of nested structures, each inside the other like a set of Russian dolls, moving from the innermost level to the outside. Consequently, in his bioecological model as well as in its earlier prototypes, he identified the
environment as relevant to developmental processes and conceptualized it as a nested structure of four interconnected systems known as microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and an overarching chronosystem. Because of the purpose and duration of this study, the chronosystem aspect of contexts is limited to time in between policies, pedagogy, programs, and curricular requirements within the setting of the study.
Microsystem
The microsystem refer to the innermost of the environmental structures and the immediate setting in which the individual lives and develops. It includes patterns of activities, social roles, and interpersonal relations that the developing person experiences in a given direct, face-to-face setting with significant physical, social, and symbolic features that can invite, permit, or inhibit the growing person’s engagement in sustained,
progressively more complex interaction with the immediate environment
(Bronfenbrenner, 1994). Examples of the microsystem include such setting as family, school, peer group, and workplace. Within the microsystem, the proximal processes operate to produce and sustain development. However, the power of the proximal processes to do this depends on the content and structure of the microsystem. As
than those of the environmental contexts in which they occur” (p. 39). Nevertheless, this effect varies with the level of advantages within the ecological niche.
Mesosystem
The mesosystem is the second level of Bronfenbrenner's ecological structure. It refers to the cross-relationships and lateral connections between two or more settings containing the developing person (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). Examples of mesosystems are the relations between home and school, school and workplace. In other words, the mesosystem is a system of microsystems or the effect of the interaction between the microsystems. Whenever a developing person moves into a new setting, she or he forms a new mesosystem or extends an existing one. Bronfenbrenner (1994) referred to the
movement into a new mesosystem as an “ecological transition.” The interconnections between settings in a mesosystem is not limited to only those made by the developing person, but also include links between other persons who actively participate in two or more settings containing the developing person, such as parents involvement in the child’s school life, intermediate links in a social network, various forms of
communication among settings, and indirect connections via the “grapevine” or social network (Bronfenbrenner, 1977b, 1979a).
Similar to the interactions that occur within settings at the microsystem level, the processes of interchange between settings in a mesosystem are regarded as reciprocal. In some cases, there are consistencies between activities and interpersonal relations in the various microsystems within which the individual lives and develops. In other cases these linkages are less consistent. Moreover, the interaction of developmentally instigative or inhibitory features and processes present in each setting of a mesosystem are also likely
to create synergistic effects that impact the individual’s development (Bronfenbrenner, 1986a, 1993). The social richness of an individual’s mesosystem derives from the number and quality of its connections. Individuals participating in a large and diversified set of microsystems enjoy special opportunities for rich and stimulating experiences. When there is a range of interpersonal interconnections between two or more of the settings and total agreement in their values, these developmental opportunities are enhanced.
Mesosystem risk is defined first by the absence of connections and second by conflicts of values between one microsystem and another (Garbarino & Abramowitz, 1992).
Exosystem
The exosystem is third level of the ecological structure. It comprises of the linkages and processes taking place between two or more settings, at least, one of which does not contain the developing person, but in which events occur that indirectly
influence processes within the immediate setting in which the developing person resides (Bronfenbrenner, 1993). An example of a high school student’s exosystem includes the parent's workplace, economic systems, mass media, laws, educational systems and policies, political systems, industry, government, social welfare services. Consistently, research depicts three exosystem levels as of great importance in the development of children and youths through their impact on the school and peer groups. These are parent's workplace (Eckenrode & Gore, 1990), family social network (Cochran et al., 1990), and neighborhood-community contexts (Pence, 1988).
In the bioecological perspective, participation in exosystem is both a product and a cause of development. It creates possible interconnections among settings in a
1994). Multisetting occurs when the same person engages in activities in more than one setting, for example, when a child spends time at home, at school, and in the
neighborhood peer group. Since such participation necessarily occurs sequentially, multisetting participation can then be defined as the existence of a direct or first order social network across settings in which the developing person indulges in active
processes within the immediate setting in which she or he lives (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). This first order social network across settings becomes a kind of exosystem that
indirectly exposes the developing person to broader societal structure as she or he
actively processes the often progressively more complex information that emanates from his or her interactions with these multisettings (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998).
Exosystems can impoverish and enhance developmental processes taking place at micro- or mesosystem levels. The exosystem exerts these impacts in two ways. The first is through the significant others,17 in the developing person’s life, whose active
involvement in settings that the person might never enter brings with them experiences that impoverish or enhance the significant others’ behaviors in the microsystems they share with the person (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). The second source of exosystem
influences is through decisions made in those settings, which affect other peoples’ day- to-day experiences. Examples include decisions of the school boards, church councils, planning commissions and other centers of power that impact on the social and physical context in which people live their everyday life. These decisions directly and indirectly influence the individual’s development and achievement (Garbarino et al., 2002).
17 According to Bronfenbrenner (1994 significant others refer to other people in the environment whose
development is not under investigation. He posited that the PPCT model that captures the developmentally relevant features of the developing person can be applied as well to the developmentally relevant features
Macrosystem
The fourth level of the environmental context is the macrosystem. It consists of
the overarching pattern of micro-, meso-, and exosystems characteristic of a given culture or subculture, with particular reference to the belief systems, bodies of knowledge, material resources, customs, life-styles, opportunity structures, hazards, and life course options that are embedded in each of these broader systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). The common sharing of similar belief systems, bodies of knowledge, material resources, customs, lifestyles, opportunity structures, hazards, and life course options defines a macrosystem. Hence, it is thought of as a societal blueprint for a particular culture and subcultures, which incorporates values, customs, laws, and resources that influence the way life is organized. These are usually passed down through social, religious, and government institutions.
From this perspective, social class, ethnic or religious groups, or persons living in particular regions, communities, neighborhoods, or other types of broader social
structures constitute a macrosystem whenever the interaction between them meets the above conditions (Bronfenbrenner, 1989; 1994). The macrosystems are carriers of values and ideology that can impede or promote human development. Such risks at the
macrosystem level include an ideology or cultural alignment that threatens to impoverish individuals’ micro- and mesosystems and set exosystems opportunities and promises that enrich development against them (Garbarino & Abramowitz, 1992a). These could be in the form of a national economic policy that tolerates or even encourages economic dislocation and poverty for subgroups of people within the society versus one that gives special financial priority to subgroups of people within the society. Or, a pattern of racist
or sexist values that lower some individuals’ status and dignity versus a pluralistic ideology that welcomes diversity and increases self-worth (Garbarino & Abramowitz, 1992a). As Bronfenbrenner (1994) posited, the underpinnings of the macrosystem point to the necessity of going beyond the simple labels of class and culture to identify more specific social and psychological interactions at the macrosystems level that ultimately affect the particular conditions and processes occurring in the microsystem. In this case, the chronic academic failure of majority of minority and low SES students at the high school level. Such macrosystem's level factors include social and educational policies, economic and political situations, mass media and social networks, and global
technological advancement (Bronfenbrenner, 1986a; 1986b; 1988; 1989; 1993).
Time
The “Time” dimension is the final defining attribute of the bioecological model and the characteristic that “moves it farthest beyond its predecessor” (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, p. 995). The assumption underlying this concept of time is that
environments influence the reciprocal interaction between an individual and her or his developmental outcomes not only in terms of the available resources within these environments, but also in terms of the degree to which the environments foster stability and consistency of the resources that the proximal processes need to function effectively over time (Bronfenbrenner, 1999; Bronfenbrenner and Ceci, 1994).
The principle that proximal processes require environmental stability for optimal human development is embodied in Proposition 2 of the bioecological model: “To be developmentally effective, proximal processes must occur on a fairly regular basis over extended periods of time” (Bronfenbrenner, 2001; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).
Moreover, in a corollary of Proposition II, Bronfenbrenner and Evans (2000) suggested that the duration, frequency, interruption, timing and intensity of exposures to people, objects, and symbols play critical roles in determining the proximal processes and their resultant developmental outcomes.
The element of Time underscores the idea that processes producing human development are not instantaneous; rather they occur over time. These processes are, in turn, largely affected by the impact of changes in both the characteristics of the
developing person and the nature of the environmental Context (Bronfenbrenner, 2001).
In the bioecological perspective, the individual’s lifelong development is embedded in an ever-changing set of contexts at every layer of the entire ecological environment, from changes within and between the settings at the level of the micro-, meso-, and exosystems to changes at the broader macrosystems level. Within the PPCT model, time appears on three successive levels of the multidimensional structure namely: Microtime, Mesotime, and Macrotime (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998).
Microtime refers to continuity versus discontinuity within ongoing episodes of
proximal processes. The importance of microtime was presented in Wachs’s (1979) study of the features of the environment most associated with individual differences in
cognitive competence. His findings identified “responsive environment, presence of sheltered areas, instability and unpredictability of events, the degree to which the physical set-up of the home permits exploration, low level of noise and confusion, and the degree of temporal regularity (Wach, 1979) as strongly associated with individual differences in cognitive ability. Drawing from this study, Bronfenbrenner and Ceci (1994) concluded that proximal processes—reciprocal interaction between organism and environments—
cannot function effectively in environments that are unstable and unpredictable across space and time.
Mesotime is the periodicity of episodic events across broader time intervals, such
as days and weeks (Bronfenbrenner, 1995). The cumulative effects of unstable and unpredictable episodes at the mesosystem level have the tendency of seriously
jeopardizing the course of human development because at this next higher level of the environmental structure, similar disruptive characteristics of interconnected microsystems tend to reinforce each other (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). Drawing from studies by Pulkkinen (1983), Pulkkinen and Saastamoinen (1986), Moorehouse (1986) and other studies that found high correlations between environmental mesosystem level events and children’s developmental outcomes, Bronfenbrenner and Morris (1998) formulated another corollary of the bioecological model as follows:
The degree of stability, consistency, and predictability over time in any element of systems constituting the ecology of human development is critical for the
effective operation of the system in question. Extremes either of disorganization or rigidity in structure or function represent danger signs for potential
psychological growth, with some intermediate degree of system flexibility constituting the optimal condition for human development. In terms of research, this proposition point to the importance of assessing the degree of stability and instability, with respect to characteristics of Process, Person, and Context, at each level of the ecological system (p. 1020).
Finally, “Macrotime focuses on the changing expectations and events in the larger
and outcomes of human development over the life course” (Bronfenbrenner, 1995, p. 995; emphasis in the original). The bioecological corollary referenced above also “applies at the macrolevel dimension of Time both during the individual’s life course and through the historical period in which the person has lived” (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, p. 1020). Proposition 2 first alluded to this property of the model in the stipulation, “To be effective, the interaction must occur on a fairly regular basis over extended periods of time” (Bronfenbrenner, 2001, p. 3).
In the article, “Socialization and Social Class through Time and Space,”
Bronfenbrenner (1958) reanalyzed the contradictory findings on social class differences in patterns and outcomes of child rearing. Based on his results he concluded that the observed difference in children’s behavior was a result of gradual systematic change over time. According to him, within the period just after the World War II until the late 1950s, middle-class parents moved away from originally more authoritarian child rearing
patterns toward greater permissiveness and lower-class parents move in the opposite direction. Based on this finding and the findings of Elder’s (1974) study of the children of the great depression, Bronfenbrenner and his colleagues extrapolated Elder’s four
defining principles of the life course and their implications for corresponding research design into the bioecological model. The first of these principles refers to historical time
and place. It states: The individual's own developmental life course is seen as embedded
in and powerfully shaped by the historical times and events they experience—conditions
and events occurring during the historical period through which the person lives
The second principle refers to timing in lives, “A major factor influencing the
course and outcome of human development is the timing of biological and social
transitions as they relate to the culturally defined age, role expectations, and opportunities occurring throughout the life. Thus, the developmental impact of a succession of life
transitions or events is contingent on when they occur in a person’s life (Bronfenbrenner
1999; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; 2006; emphasis in the original). The third principle linked lives and asserts, lives are lived interdependently and social and
historical influences are expressed through this network of shared relationships. Hence,
the life of all family members are interdependent. How each family member reacts to a particular historical event or role transition affects the developmental course of the other family members both within and across generations (Bronfenbrenner 1999;
Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; 2006; emphasis in the original). The fourth of Elder’s life course principle adopted into the bioecological model refers to human agency. It