4.4 Article

The complex social ecology of academic development: A bioecological framework and illustration examining the collective effects of parents, teachers, and peers on student engagement

期刊

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST
卷 57, 期 2, 页码 87-113

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2022.2038603

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article aims to contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the complex social ecologies that shape students' academic development by proposing more precise conceptualizations of mesosystem effects. By examining collective influences from multiple microsystems, the article identifies three ways in which collective effects can operate and utilizes this framework to review and analyze the effects of parents, teachers, and peers on students' academic engagement. Furthermore, the article explores future directions for the conceptualization and study of complex social ecologies.
In this article, we aimed to contribute to a fuller understanding of the complex social ecologies that shape students' academic development by focusing on richer and more precise conceptualizations of mesosystem effects. First, building on bioecological models, we argued for the importance of collective influences, defined as influences from multiple microsystems that act in concert to shape students' academic functioning and development. We identified three ways collective effects can operate: (1) coactively, (2) contingently, and (3) sequentially. Second, we demonstrated the utility of this framework by using it to organize a narrative review of 32 studies of the effects of parents, teachers, and peers on students' academic engagement. The framework was used to classify studies, integrate findings, identify trends, and suggest directions for future study. Third, we explored next steps in the conceptualization and study of complex social ecologies, by incorporating perspectives that are more developmental, cultural, sociohistorical, and inclusive.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据