Ecological Theories of Development - Essay Example

Gibson and Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Theories of Development Many theories in psychology explain the development of human beings, why they behave as they do, what environmental conditions motivate people, and correlation of these factors. Some of the theories base their explanation on physical and social-emotional of people’s earliest years of life. Other theories advance their arguments on effects of environmental influences on families, culture, and community. In addition, other theories focus on learning and thinking process, completion of developmental tasks, and healthiness or ill health shapes people’s behaviour and personality. Ecological theory of developments is one the theories. James Gibson and Urie Bronfenbrenner proposed this theory. Ecological theory holds that several environmental systems influence development of an individual (Weiner, 2003:69). This paper will paper will compare and contrast the Gibson’s and Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theories of development. Ecological theory explains the relationship between an individual and environment to which the development of a person takes place. The theory holds that environment contributes significantly to human developmental stages. The theory proposes that a person’s growth changes with a changing environment. According to ecological theory, environment is a function of a relationship of social, physical, and psychological changes (Shaffer, 2005:84). The theory explains the change that people observe from childhood to adulthood. To get a deeper insight of ecological theory of development, the next sections will analysis the arguments of the two theorists that this paper has described in opening paragraph. Gibson was an experimental psychologist from Yale University. This psychologist had a keen interest in human behaviour and perception. The precision of visually guided behaviour greatly impressed Gibson. His interest in human actions made him to give the mannerisms an ecological approach. Gibson was dedicated to the analysis of perception in his psychological work. He developed a theory of perception in the year 1979 (Tudge et al). The theory holds that people can comprehend matters of perception through looking at the perceived and the perceiver. Gibson theory is an illusion that no factors that mediated perception. According to the theory, the perceiver receives information directly without any interference or distracters. The theory argues that discernment is an association between an organism and its surroundings (Clarke, 2005:63). Gibson describes development as the changes that occur in the life of this organism because of interacting with environment. The theory argues that there is too much information that an organism incorporates in course of its life. The transfer of this information happens through associational learning. Gibson stated that once an organism interacts with environment the information gets to it through subsets. An organism learns skills that break into subsets when they become more sophisticated. Gibson named three concepts to support ecological theory of development. These include affordances, information, and response of organisms to its environment (Heft, 2002:139). Gibson argues that for people to comprehend perception when they should consider the perceiver and the association between the organism and the environment. This shows that there is a close connection between environment and an organism development. Gibson theory proposes that there is a direct link of perception and action. This relates to concept of affordances. Gibson theory describes affordance as probability for action on part of an actor in an environment. It means that the possibility of an action is a function of the restraints of the actor and the constraints of environment. Gibson cites examples such as the rigid of a surface enables movement and the size of an object that provides for holding. The theory portrays affordance relationship as properties of the organism and environment. The theory proposes that an infant will would view a big rigid surface as a crawling surface but not a platform to walk. A mature person will perceive the hard surface as rigid to stroll (Tudge et al). This means infants and adults recognize things differently. The theory argues that perceivers change their action through breaking information to small bits that is pertinent to environment in order to perform some activity. Gibson implies that there is connection between action and environment. The theory portrays that perception guide action. Similarly, a long period of action influences perception. Gibson cites that the perception systems (auditory and visual) of organism enable it to get information from environment (Hurkey, 2002:5). The organisms perceive the information through auditory or optic array. Gibson observes that this direct process does not need any interference or cognitive involvements. He further states that there is enough information in the environment to make sense of the world in a direct way. Gibson theory implies that sensation is perception. It means what the organism sees is what it gets. The implication of the theory is that there is no need to processing or interpretation of information. Gibson’s theory notes that the information from environment is has sufficient details to for interaction with the organism. Environment possesses all the sensory information for the organism to form accurate perception. This means that one cannot separate the environment and the perceiver. Bronfenbrenner developed ecological system theory to explain development in organisms. The theory examines child development within the context of system of relationship that forms his or her environment. It identifies multifaceted layers of environment. Each layer in this theory plays a role in child development. The theory emphasizes that the primary environment influences child development (Derksen, 2004:4). The complex interaction of the child’s biology and the family or societal environment contributes significantly to her or his growth. The theory describes five layers of child association with environment. These comprise of micro system, mesosystem, exosystem, macro system, and chronosystem (Ryan & Paquette, 2002). Micro system is the layer that is very close to the child. It includes the structures with which the child has a direct relationship. The layer takes in the connections and interactions that a child has with immediate environment. Structures in this layer encompass school, neighbourhood, family, peer group, workplace, and childcare environments. The theory holds that the activities and interpersonal relationships between an individual and people around are significant to her/ his development. A child takes many activities in home, school, and church (Swick & Williams, 2006:6). The theory notes that immediate surroundings influence the child behaviour and belief during development. For example, the child’s parents contribute to her or his belief and behaviour. The child mannerism can in turn affect the behaviour of the parents. The theory portrays that this layer the biggest role in development of a child. In addition, this layer has the strongest influence in the child growth (Ahuja, 2003). Mesosystem gives a relationship between the structures of the child’s in the first layer. For instance, this may include the connection between the child’s teacher and his/her parents or the church and neighbourhood. The ecological system theory alludes that the microsystem interrelates with each other during child development. These relationships can enhance or distort the performance of a child (Green & Hogan, 2005:45). The third layer is exosystem that plays a passive role in determining the settings of a child development. For instance, the government build schools may create a micro system environment. The parent workplace schedules and community-based family resources are other factors in this layer. The theory argues that this level does not involve child. However, the child feels the effect of interaction (Bronfenbrenner, 2005:10). The fourth layer is macro system. This is the outermost layer of environment involved in child development. The theory indicates that customs, laws, and cultural values characterise this layer. The theory reveals that developing person encounters many things that shape an individual’s development. This layer influences the child development because of its interaction with all other layers. For instance, in those culture that hold that it is the responsibility of parents to rear their children it is unlikely to support them (Berk, 2006:35). This in turn affects other layers. The overall effect is the parents’ inability to provide the necessary maintenance for their children. The theory allude that the way of life of a community, conviction, opportunities and material resources affect the development of a person indirectly (Shaffer, 2005:86). The fifth layer of theory is chronosystem. This includes the factor of time in the development of a child in a given environment. The theory notes that elements within this layer emanate externally or internally. These external constituents comprise of the timing of the death of parents. On the other hand, the internal elements arise from the mental changes that occur as a child matures. The theory asserts that as the child ages they respond differently to changes in environment. In addition, a child determines on how to react to the environmental changes. The layer relates change or stability of various aspects that have an impact on individual’s development (Kail & Cavanaugh, 2012:17). It is clear that the two theories similarities and well-cut differences. The two theories share similarities. First, the theories focus on the role of environment in the development of an individual. The theorists agree that environment contributes either in positive and negative way to person maturity. Second, the two theories reveal that environment is crucial for one to understand individual’s development. The theorists argue that understanding development of individual require the analysis of the relationship between environment and individual. The theory implies that one should examine both environment and the individual to understand human development fully. There are striking differences between the two theories. To start with, the two theorists give a different definition to environment. Gibson’s theory lays a lot of emphasis to physical environment. The theory focuses on the perception of organism through interaction with environment. The theory endeavours to reveals that one can understand development through studying the perceiver and environment. The ecological system theory looks at the contribution of social environment to development of child. The theory highlights that there are several societal factors, which influence child development (Gabriel, et al. 2010) Second, Gibson’s theory is concerned with the direct involvement of environment and the child. The theory agues that there are no intermediates between what the child perceives from the environment. The theory alludes that the uninterrupted relationship between the perceiver and the environment (Yonas, 2008:34). The child responds immediately after environment conveys information without involving the cognitive factors. The Bronfenbrenner’s theory cites that one cannot understand development of a child through considering the association of physical and social environments. The theory asserts that there are indirect relationships such as cultural, past experiences, and social that influence child growth (Tudge, et al). The two theorists differ in their description of the association between a person and the surroundings. Gibson feels that individuals and environment are inseparable. The theory argues that one cannot consider the perceiver alone or the environment singly to understand the connection between individual and environment. This is because the perceiver has a direct link with the environment (Norman, 2002:75). To understand environment, the theory proposes to specification of characteristics of environment. Bronfenbrenner’s theory is not assertive in the relationship between the environment and an individual. The theory concentrates on the environmental aspects of development but not on the individuals. It gives little information about the growth of organisms. This theory bases its argument on one direction because it lays a lot of emphasis to environment alone. The ecological system theory incorporates both the physical and social environments. The theory depicts the two types of environment as important in development of an individual. Physical environment plays a critical role in advancing the arguments of this theory. The interactions of layers have positive or negative impacts of personal development. Gibson theory concentrates solely on the physical aspect of environment. The theory argues that development of individual results from unmediated relationship of a person and the environment. The theory does not consider the social aspects of environment (Norman, 2002:74). Gibson’s theory holds that environment transfers information to the perceiver in bits across the life period. Gibson allude that an individual acquires a skill that advances to other prowess in course of development (Braund, 2008:124). On contrary, the ecological theory focuses on the development stages of an individual. The theory examines the layers of development from the micro to macro levels (Ryan & Paquette, 2002). This theory looks at the development of an individual as a function of association with other individuals who are either in close proximity or far. The ecological system theory infers that the characteristics of other people around an individual influence his/ her development either indirectly or directly. Bibliography Ahuja, Y. 2003. Bronfenbrenner Ecological Theory. Available from: http://www.mymontessoriacademy.com/newsletters/websitebronfenbrennerecologicaltheory[Accessed 23 Apr 2012] Berk, L., 2006. Development through the lifespan. (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Balcon. Braund, M., 2008. The Structures of Perception: An Ecological Perspective. Available from: http://www.kritike.org/journal/issue_3/braund_june2008.pdf [Accessed 23 Apr 2012]. Bronfenbrenner, U., 2005. The bioecological theory of human development. In U.Bronfenbrenner (Ed.), Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Clarke, E., 2005. Ways Of Listening: An Ecological Approach To The Perception Of Musical Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Derksen, T., 2004. The Influence of Ecological Theory in Child and Youth Care:A Review of The Literature. Available from: http://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/ijcyfs/article/download/2091/736 [Accessed 23 Apr 2012] Gabriel, M., et al., 2010. The Research in Early Child Development Framework. Available from: http://www.upei.ca/cer/files/cer/RECD.Monograph.Framework.pdf [Accessed 23 Apr 2012] Green, S., & Hogan, D., 2005. Researching Children's Experience: Methods and Approaches. London: SAGE. Heft, H., 2002. Ecological Psychology in Context: James Gibson, Roger Barker, and the Legacy of William James's Radical Empiricism. London: Rutledge. Hurkey, S., 2002. Perception and Action: Alternative. Available from: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lormand/phil/teach/mmm/readings/Hurley%20-%20Perception%20and%20Action.pdf [Accessed 23 Apr 2012] Norman, J. 2002. Two visual systems and two theories of perception: An attempt to reconcile the constructivist and ecological approaches. Available from: http://users.auth.gr/paki/files/soundscape/referances/download.pdf [Accessed 23 Apr 2012] Ryan, J. & Paquette, D. 2002. Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory. Available from: http://pt3.nl.edu/paquetteryanwebquest.pdf [Accessed 23 Apr 2012] Shaffer, D., 2005. Social and Personality Development. New York: Cengage Learning. Swick, K. & Williams, R., 2006. An Analysis of Bronfenbrenner’s Bio-Ecological Perspective for Early Childhood Educators: Implications for Working with Families Experiencing Stress. Available from: http://people.usd.edu/~mremund/bronffamily.pdf [Accessed 23 Apr 2012] Tudge, J., et al. Ecological Perspectives in Human Development: A Comparison of Gibson and Bronfenbrenner. Available from: http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/facultystaff/Tudge/jt_eco.pdf [Accessed 23 Apr 2012] Weiner, I., 2003. Handbook of Psychology, Developmental Psychology. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Read More