Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
BRONFENBRENNER’S BIOECOLOGICAL MODEL
This section does not intend to provide an all-inclusive discussion of Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model but serves as a conceptual framework for investigating the risk, protection and resilience factors at the various systems’ levels and the way that they impact on the holistic development the milieu-disabled Sotho primary school child.
Bronfenbrenner introduced the bioecological model to explain development and growth of children and expanded on the theory several times over the years (Bronfenbrenner, 1974, 1977, 1979, 1989, 1993; Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006) (cited in Bjorklund & Blasi, 2012:68). The ecology of human development is described by Bronfenbrenner (2005:107) as the: scientific study of the progressive, mutual accommodation, throughout the life course, between an active, growing human being and the changing properties of the immediate settings in which the developing person lives, as the process is affected by the relations between these settings, and by the larger contexts in which the setting is embedded.
Berns (2016:20) explains that the model facilitates an understanding of how children and their environments interact to produce developmental outcomes. Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model consists of four main components (process, person, context and time or PPCT) and the interactions between them that highlight the complexity of developmental processes as characteristics of person and environment interactions in the course of development (Spencer, Harpalani, Fogley, Dell’Angelo & Seaton., 2003:125; Sigelman & Rider, 2009:10; Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton & Renn, 2010:160). The bioecological model conceptualises development as taking place within a social ecology (context) which contains various systems that can be generalised to any cultural group (Rew, 2005:77). Bronfenbrenner’s (1979:209-259) model describes the environmental context or the natural ecology of child development as a set of nested structures (micro-; meso-; exo-; macrosystems) embedded in each other within which the child participates.
Higher systems levels (exo- and macro level) contain the lower systems levels (micro- and meso level) and all these systems are reciprocally interacting with each other (Visser, 2007:25). The chronosystem represents the dynamic effect that time has on other developmental systems whereby changes in the child or in the ecological context can impact on the path that development is expected to take (Shaffer & Kipp, 2010:65; Hook, 2009:507).
Microsystem
Sigelman and Rider (2012:9) describe the microsystem as “an immediate physical and social environment in which the person interacts face-to-face with other people and influences and is affected by them.” The microsystems level contains important socialisation agents (family, school, peers, religious affiliation, community and neighbourhood) that apply their influence in different ways and at different times in child development (Berns, 2010:46). The quality of interaction of these microsystems with the child will have an effect on how the child grows; the more encouraging and nurturing these relationships and places are, the better the child will be able to grow (Berns, 2013:18). Furthermore how children act or react to these people in the microsystems will affect how they are treated in return (Shaffer & Kipp, 2010:63). The microsystem significantly contributes to support in the form of caring human relationships and resources needed for protection and healthy development of children (Connolly & Eagle, 2009:552).
Greenspan and Wieder (2006:xii) observe that multiple interactions with caregivers that involve exchange of emotions as well as provide an important sense of relatedness are crucial to child development. The family, as the primary social agent provides nurturance, affection, and a variety of opportunities and therefore has the most significant impact on the child’s development (Berns, 2013:18). The family composition, structure and interaction patterns are crucial for the survival, protection, health, education and development of children (Desai, 2010:17). Woodhouse (2006:419) observes that an ecological systems approach “look at the world through a child’s eyes, seeing as family those individuals whom the child knows as family.” The extended family structure is an essential factor that needs to be considered in social work interventions with ethnic minorities (Lewis & Greene, 2009:232). The Sotho child’s collective family structure and parenting styles may significantly differ from that of individualistic independent cultures that needs to be considered in the development of intervention programmes. Collective family structures are much wider than nuclear or western family structures and include caregiving networks which comprises of grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins as vital participants in children’s life transitions (Boon, 2007:29). Caregivers and siblings as the first learning setting in the child’s life provide examples and opportunities for the engagement of linguistic settings, cultural activities and cultural modelling (Maynard, 2005:4). Every day activities (e.g. eating, playing, roles and duties) and their cultural and ecological context are considered as stepping stones in the child’s progression through life (Weisner et al., 2005:43). Family traditions therefore significantly impact on the family resilience as it is the setting where children can gain a sense of stability, comfort and guidance empowering them to cope with daily challenges (McCubbin & McCubbin, 2005:32).
By using an ecological systems approach social workers can also gain an understanding of the family patterns of power, privilege and oppression and in what way it impacts on their social functioning (Lewis & Greene, 2009:233). Social needs shape the way parents treat children that affect their behaviour in return, for example parents in low socioeconomic settings will expect co-operation with others as essential as not much can be achieved on their own with the limited resources they have (Shaffer, 2006:30). Within the microsystems, families who live in milieu-disabled communities will most likely not be able to afford age-appropriate toys and books that can stimulate development and play opportunities. Families may also be less emotionally available due to psychological stress or economic hardship that may lead to harsh parenting styles (Black & Oberlander, 2011:494). Environmental support systems (school, community and extended family systems) that can assist with child rearing are crucial for healthy, holistic development of children as they do not develop in isolation (Jackson et al., 2013:147).
CHAPTER 1:
GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND ORIENTATION TO THE STUDY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY
1.3 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH STUDY
1.4 COMPOSITION OF THE RESEARCH REPORT
CHAPTER 2:
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 RESEARCH APPROACH
2.3 TYPE OF RESEARCH
2.4 QUALITATIVE COLLECTIVE CASE STUDY DESIGN
2.5 QUANTITATIVE PHASE: PRE-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
2.6 PILOT STUDY
2.7 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
2.8 CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
2.9 SUMMARY
CHAPTER 3:
ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS APPROACH: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR HOLISTIC ETHNIC-CENTRIC INTERVENTIONS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 CENTRAL CONCEPTS
3.3 THEORETICAL ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS CONCEPTS
3.4 BRONFENBRENNER’S BIOECOLOGICAL MODEL
3.5 ECOSYSTEMS’ ASSESSMENT: TOOLS AND INTERVENTION GUIDELINES
3.6 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 4:
GESTALT GROUP PLAY THERAPY: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR HOLISTIC ETHNIC-CENTRIC INTERVENTIONS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 KEY CONCEPTS
4.3 GESTALT PRINCIPALS AND CONSTRUCTS
4.4 THE THERAPEUTIC PROCESS
4.5 THE USE OF GESTALT TECHNIQUES
4.6 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5:
THE IMPACT OF EXPOSURE TO VIOLENCE AND MILIEU DISABILITY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRIMARY SCHOOL CHILDREN
5.1 INTRODUCTION
5.2 CONCEPTUALISING MILIEU DISABILITY AND VIOLENCE
5.3 CONTEXTUAL RISK AND PROTECTIVE FACTORS
5.4 THE IMPACT OF VIOLENCE AND MILIEU DISABILITY ON THE HOLISTIC DEVELOPMENT OF PRIMARY SCHOOL CHILDREN
5.5 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 6:
QUALITATIVE FINDINGS AND PRESENTATION
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 RESEARCH SITES AND DEMOGRAPHIC DETAILS
6.3 PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
6.4 CONCLUSIONS
CHAPTER 7:
DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE HOLISTIC ETHNIC-CENTRIC INTERVENTION PROGRAMME
7.1 INTRODUCTION
7.2 RATIONALE
7.3 GOAL OF THE INTERVENTION PROGRAMME
7.4 THEORETICAL BUILDING BLOCKS
7.5 TYPE OF INTERVENTION AND PROCESS INDICATORS
7.6 DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE GROUP
7.7 SESSION AIM, OBJECTIVES AND OUTLINE
7.8 EVALUATION DESIGN
CHAPTER 8:
PILOT TEST OF THE HOLISTIC ETHNIC-CENTRIC INTERVENTION PROGRAMME
8.1 INTRODUCTION
8.2 DEMOGRAPHIC DETAILS AND RESEARCH SITE
8.3 RESEARCH DESIGN
8.4 DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
8.5 PILOT STUDY LIMITATIONS
8.5 CONCLUSIONS
CHAPTER 9:
KEY FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 INTRODUCTION
9.2 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY
9.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES
LIST OF REFERENCES
