The following academic paper highlights the up-to-date issues and questions of Bronfenbrenner Microsystem. This sample provides just some ideas on how this topic can be analyzed and discussed.
Bronfenbrenner’s theory known as the ecological systems theory views at a child’s development the perspective of the system of interactions that form his or her environment (Addison, 1992). He describes intricate ‘levels’ of environment, each one having consequences on a child’s development. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system theory looks at the child’s environment in terms of its quality and context.
Recently there has been a shift as some have renamed the theory “bioecological systems theory” to stress that a child’s own biology is a principal environment fueling her/his development.
Thus, a child’s development is stimulated and steered by the associations between factors in the child’s maturing biology, such as his immediate family/community environment, and the societal landscape (Addison, 1992). Alterations or clash in any one layer will ripple all the way through the other layers.
According to Bronfenbrenner, for one to be able to learn a child’s development then, he must look not only at the child and her immediate environment, but also at the interaction of the larger environment as well.
The ecological theory as articulated Bronfenbrenner identifies four types of systems that contain roles, norms and rules that shape development. The systems comprise a microsystem, mesosystem, ecosystems, and macrosystem. The microsystem covers the associations and interactions a child has with her immediate environment.
Microsystem includes structures such as family, school, neighborhood, or childcare surroundings in which the child is operating (Berk, 2000). Within this echelon interaction impacts in two directions- both away from the child as well as toward the child.
For instance, the parent of the child can affect the child’s beliefs and behavior in as much as the child can affect the behavior and beliefs of the parent/s. it is acknowledged that at the microsystem echelon, bi-directional influences are strongest and have the most impact on the child. The mesosystem is two Microsystems interacting, for instance the link between a child’s home and school, connection between the child’s teacher and his parents, between his church and his neighborhood, etc. Thus, it offers the connection between the structures of the child’s microsystem (Berk, 2000).
The exosystem comprises of an environment in which a child is not directly concerned and is external to his/her experience however, it affects him anyway. Structures in this stratum affect the child’s development by interact with some structure in her microsystem (Berk, 2000). An example of exosystem is a parent’s workplace or community-based family resources (Edwards, 1992). Whereas the child may not be openly implicated at this level, but he/she does experience the positive or negative force involved with the interaction with his own system.
The macrosystem is considered as the outermost layer in the child’s environment. This stratum does not offer specified framework however, it comprises cultural values, customs, and laws (Berk, 2000). The impacts of larger values described by the macrosystem have a cascading manipulation among the interactions of all other layers. For instance if the society holds a belief that, a parent is solely responsible for bringing up their children, then it is obvious that the society is less probable to offer resources to help parents (Edwards, 1992).
This consequently influences the structures in which the parents function, similarly affecting the child’s microsystem. The chronosystem – this system covers the measurement of time as it relates to a child’s surroundings. Elements determining this system can be either external, for instance, the timing of a parent’s death, or internal, such as the physiological variations which appear as a child ages. As children advance in age, they may respond in a different way to changes in environment and may be more capable to establish more how that change will influence them (Henderson, 1995). How I was personally influenced
It was only through the influences of the five environmental systems as outlined by Urie Bronfenbrenner’s theory of ecological systems that I was able develop and join graduate school to obtain my masters degree. Immediate members of my family were the first to shape me. At the tender ages, my parents proved to be caring but also useful in my development. They made sure that whomever I had contact with was not a person of wanting behavior. At the family set up, my father not only made sure that the family’s economic background was stable but also ensured that, we were well supplied with the basic needs that made smooth our living environment.
My mother on the other hand was full of advice as far as the correct behavioral attributes were concerned. She ensured that we were fed well, on top of affording the much-required filial love for a developing child. Both parents were influential in according us protection. When I entered school, my father this time started to play a very crucial role in showing me how to tackle assignments in as well as encouraging me to have determination in whatever I was doing. This encouragement formed upon which modeled me to enter graduate school in the later years.
The school environment was very encouraging, as far as peers seemed to be cooperative. Generally, there was mood of co-existence among ourselves, working in harmony as well helping one another whenever our teachers requested us to do something. Our teachers always reminded us that discipline was the key to success in any academic setting. The teachers made sure that they demonstrated best behavioral standards required of us. Our teachers standard of perfection was exceptional thus to us they served as role models in our development.
This type of interaction constituted what Urie Bronfenbrenner referred to as microsystem of development On the subject of mesosystem, my parents used to correspond with my teachers on issues associated with my academic progress as well as my behavior. My teacher could inform my parents on the areas I required to put more pressure as far as academia was concerned, a feature of which I belief facilitated in shaping my development towards this end. My parents in rejoinder furnished my teachers with the significant information touching on the development of my behavior.
I can vaguely recollect that at one time, my father was called by my teacher where he was highlighted on the substance of ensuring that I was accorded free time from house chores so that I could do my assignments, as this could help improve my grades. My father was affirmative on the proposal and after this discussion, house chores were transferred to other members of our family. The teachers in general were very challenging and encouraging. For instance, our psychology teacher impressed me through his presentation of ideas as well as ideologies.
His attitude of arrangement, for instance he could chronologically evaluate child development issues very brilliantly and plainly throughout the important development stages in a very touching manner. I came to admire him most and I was determined to follow his footsteps. My father’s place of work was also influential in shaping my development, as my father worked five hours, four days a week. This kind of structure ensured that my father had ample time with his family. In time of need, my father’s employer showed concern and permitted him to attend whatever was required of him at home. Our country’s school policy was also imperative in shaping me towards this end. Through the state, I was able to acquired a scholarship. Save for the same, I could have been affected badly financially.