The mesosystem is the second structure within Bronfenbrenner’s social ecological model. Bowes & Hayes (1999) describe the mesosystem as the interrelationships between the indivuduals in the microsystem. There is direct collaboration between the individual and their relationships between their microsystem, their behaviors, expectations and values may differ with different experiences (Bowes, Grace & Hayes 2012). Regarding my life transition, the relationships between home and school within the microsystem became stressful, causing a negative impact on myself. Though when looking at figure 2, it is evident that after the stressors had ceased, a strong positive relationship occurred. This example highlights how a negative relationship between two aspects of the microsystem can dramatically change and become a powerful mesosytem agents to the individual effecting their development. Other indirect relationships that still effect the individual are seen in the exosystem.
Garbarino (1992) describes the exosystem as a setting in which the individual is not directly involved with, but still has an effect on them through the meso or microsystem. In terms of my life transition, the relationship with my father and his workplace from figure 1 does not affect me directly, though due to this my relationship with my father lessened throughout my transition to University for his working hours increased causing us to spend less time together.
The outer most relationships shown in figures 1 and 2 are known as the macrosystem. According to Bowes, Grace & Hayes (2012) the macro system is the broad societal or cultural contexts, cultural beliefs systems and values that are passed through our micro and mesosystems. An example of my personal transition is the government fundings for rural students to study away from home which allowed my financial transition to be much smoother. The last key structure to Bronfenbrenner’ social ecological model is known as the chronosystem....
References: Berry, J. O. (1995). Families and deinstitutionalization: An application of Bronfenbrenner 's social ecology model. Journal of Counseling & Development,73(4), 379-383.
Bowes, J, M., Hayes, A. (1999). Children, families and communities: contexts and consequences. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Bowes, J., Grace, R,. & Hayes, A. (2012). The role of context in childrens development. Retrieved from: http://0-www.lib.latrobe.edu.au.alpha2.latrobe.edu.au/ereserve/copyright2014/4140321.pdf
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1997). Ecological models of human development. Readings on the development of children, 1993, 37-43.
Garbarino, J. (1992). Children and families in the social environment (2nd ed.). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Harkness, S., & Super, C. M. (1994). The developmental niche: A theoretical framework for analyzing the household production of health. Social science & medicine, 38(2), 217-226.
Harms, L (2010) Understanding human development: a multidimensional approach. Oxford University Press.
Miller, F., Osbahr, H., Boyd, E., Thomalla, F., Bharwani, S., Ziervogel, G., ..
Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. (2013). Urie bronfenbrenner 's theory of human development: Its evolution from ecology to bioecology. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5(4), 243-258. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12022
Shaffer, D., & Kipp, K
Swick, K. J., & Williams, R. D. (2006). An analysis of Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological perspective for early childhood educators: Implications for working with families experiencing stress. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(5), 371-378.
Tudge, J., Gray, J., & Hogan, D. M. (1997). Ecological perspectives in human development: A comparison of Gibson and Bronfenbrenner. Comparisons in human development: Understanding time and context, 72-105.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document