




































Billen 2022 Proof


Educational Renaissance Vol. 11 (2022)

A Bioecological View  of  Cult urally Sust aining 
Pedagogy

Rhet t  Bil len, PhD. California State University, Fresno

     email: rbillen@csufresno.edu

Monica Bil len, PhD. California State University, Fresno

     email: mbillen@csufresno.edu

Feature Article

The purpose of this paper is to bring together two 
fields of study that are often separate in higher 
education, bioecological systems theory 
(Bronfenbrenner, 2005) and culturally sustaining 
pedagogy (CSP) (Paris, 2012) and consider how the 
two theories can be discussed in tandem to allow 
educators and child and family scientists greater 
understanding of home and school contexts. As 
children are influenced by both home and school, 
the two fields of study should connect in the 
theories used to understand and study these 
influences. Though the two theories have been 
linked in the past to discuss the importance of 
culture, (Lee, 2017) a discussion about how CSP is 
rooted in an ecological frame has not been 

shared.

From a bioecological perspective, schools and 
families share a reciprocal relationship, with 
schools serving as centers of academic instruction 
and peer socialization for children, and their 
families, parents, and home life influencing the 
school context (Newman & Newman, 2016). Yet, 
CSP recognizes that school environments reflect 
and are shaped primarily by the dominant culture, 
resulting in the assets of underrepresented 
groups being overlooked. Families in the United 
States are becoming increasingly diverse (U.S. 
Census Bureau, 2018), but students are entering 
classrooms with instruction that is heavily focused 
on mainstream views that do not match or build 

Abst ract  

Culturally sustaining pedagogy (CSP) considers the impacts of schools on communities, explicitly 
calling upon schools to sustain the cultural modalities of communities of color (Paris, 2012). In this 
paper, we argue that one important influence schools should have on families is the awareness and 
knowledge that families? culture are sustained and viewed as official knowledge (Ladson-Billings, 1995) 
in the education system. We do so by including a perspective found in the disciplines of 
developmental science, family science, and education, Bronfenbrenner?s bioecological theory. 
Specifically, we examine the principles of CSP from the Person-Process-Context-Time (PPCT) model 
within bioecological theory. Furthermore, we problematize the traditional practice of assigning 
homework and offer an implication for reimagining homework from a CSP lens.

Keywords: culturally sustaining pedagogy, bioecological theory, homework, family storytelling, PPCT model



BILLEN & BILLEN| A BIOECOLOGICAL VIEW OF CSP

upon the culture and background of a majority of 
our students (Walker-Dalhouse & Risko, 2020).  
Professionals who will be working with children in 
the future, whether from human development 
and family science (HDFS) or education programs, 
should be cognizant of families and the education 
system. 

In this paper, we begin by providing an overview 
of the current and projected demographic and 
cultural landscape in the United States vis-à-vis 
the current educational landscape. We then 
provide a review of CSP and its recommended use 
within schools to create a space more inclusive 
and representative of underrepresented groups. 
Next, we use Bronfenbrenner?s (2005) 
bioecological perspective on human development 
to examine how CSP and bioecological theory can 
build upon one another. From there, we discuss 
tensions when considering the two theories 
together. As the purpose of this article is to be 
used in higher education, we conclude the paper 
by providing higher educators with one practical 
example, namely, homework, as a model for 
merging bioecological theory and culturally 
sustaining pedagogy.  This example could give 
higher educators a concrete educational practice 
to evaluate in theoretical discussions.

Current  Landscape

The year 2014 was notable in American history as 
the nation?s schools reached a majority-minority 
milestone (Maxwell, 2014) wherein the diverse 
population became the majority and the White, 
Non-Hispanic population became the minority 
(National Center for Education Statistics, n. d.). In 
2020, it is estimated that 46% of our students are 
White, 15% Black, 28.9% Latinx, 5.3% Asian/Pacific 
Islander and 3% two or more races. By 2060, our 
nation?s children are expected to be approximately 
36% White, non-Hispanic and 11.3% of our 
children are expected to be two or more races 
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2018). These shifting 
demographics have prompted calls to improve our 
education system to better educate all American 
children (Maxwell, 2014).

However, such calls for improving educational 
outcomes have not considered how school 
districts and educators may leverage family and 
community resources to advance children?s 
learning. A lot of conversations on improving 
education outcomes focus on how to best manage 
the achievement gap, or the disparities in 
standardized test scores among people of color 
and White students. These conversations often 
focus on viewing people of color through a deficit 
lens stating that, ?The parents just don?t care,? or 
?The children don?t have enough 
exposure/experiences,? or ?These families do not 
value education? (Ladson-Billings, 2007, p. 
318-319). Yet, deficit thinking does not seem to be 
doing anyone any good.  Scholars have been 
requesting and arguing to view students? 
backgrounds as strengths and have called for 
instruction  that builds on their existing culture, 
literacies, and skills (see Delpit, 2006; González et 
al., 2006; Ladson-Billings, 1995). Similarly, many 
scholars would argue that the schools in which we 
send our children and the curriculum that we 
provide for our children can be more attributed to 
the gap (see Gay, 2004; Apple, 1990) as our 
classrooms are focused on a monocultural, 
monolingual environment where teachers ?favor 
mainstream cultural values and norms? 
(Walker-Dalhouse & Risko, 2020, p. 307). In fact, 
Gloria Ladson-Billings (2007) stated that just 
focusing on the ?achievement gap? fails to address 
the foundational problem.

We know that families have a strong influence in 
their children?s education (Smith & Sheridan, 2019) 
and we know that educators should include and 
engage families in the education of children 
(Weiss et al., 2013). Yet, education scholars report 
to one another and HDFS scholars speak to one 
another and a framework has not been offered to 
understand the link between family theory and 
educational theory. Bronfenbrenner?s (2005) 
bioecological theory helps us understand the 
influence schools and other contextual factors 
have on the development of individuals. Though 
valuable in considering these multiple contextual 
influences, Bronfenbrenner did not define well 

2



BILLEN & BILLEN| A BIOECOLOGICAL VIEW OF CSP

how larger sociopolitical factors fit in at the 
macrosystem level and how these factors 
influence development via the micro, meso, and 
exosystems. Culturally sustaining pedagogy gives 
us a lens in which to view educational practice. 
Understanding how bioecological theory and CSP 
theoretically align, can add to the conversation 
about how to better educate students. Historically, 
one way that schools have interacted with homes 
is by providing school work for children to 
complete at home. We posit that homework, as it 
is currently enacted, acts as a wedge to further 
divide diverse families from the dominant culture 
of schooling. However, we wonder if reimagined 
homework could be a potential application of 
bioecological theory and CSP. Just as educators 
often ask to bring school work into the home, we 
should also consider how we can bring the home 
into the schools. In the following sections we 
expound on these arguments.

Overview  of  Cult urally Sust ain ing Pedagogy

Culturally sustaining pedagogy (CSP) is a new but 
well known philosophy in the field of education 
that focuses on fostering the pluralistic cultures, 
languages, and literacies of children of whom are 
part of classrooms (Paris, 2012). Although the 
term CSP is relatively new, CSP draws upon 
previous research and literature that focuses on 
equity and access. The terms asset pedagogies 
has been used to describe educational practices 
that view children?s unique individuality as a 
resource, a resource that can be drawn upon and 
used as ?official knowledge? in the classroom 
(Ladson-Billings, 1995, p. 483). Asset pedagogies 
focus on building upon the background 
knowledge of students while teaching them the 
unfamiliar (Villegas & Lucas, 2002).

Several scholars have argued for asset pedagogies 
to be a major part of our schooling and different 
terms have been used to describe this work. In a 
landmark publication in 1995,   Ladson-Billings 
introduced the term culturally relevant pedagogy 
through the report and analysis of her research 
with exemplary teachers.   Ladson-Billings (1995) 
identified eight teachers in predominantly black 

communities, who had been identified as 
excellent teachers by parents and administrators 
and sought to understand their practice. Through 
her work, she identified effective teachers as 
those who helped their students become 
successful in academics, while also becoming 
culturally competent, and sociopolitically critical.   
Ladson-Billings argued that ?teachers [should] 
systematically include student culture in the 
classroom as authorized or official knowledge? (p. 
483).   Ladson-Billings? work was preceded and 
influenced by others. Au and Jordan (1981) used 
the term culturally appropriate when describing 
the work they engaged in with Hawaiian children. 
The authors engaged children in a reading 
program that used teaching strategies that were 
very similar to those used in their home, and 
teachers mirrored major speech events called 
?talk story?, common in the students? culture. The 
authors found that the instruction was effective 
because of the appropriateness and relation to 
the background of the students. Likewise, Mohatt 
and Erickson (1981) studied teachers and students 
and found that teachers who used language 
patterns similar to those of the students, the child 
experienced positive academic outcomes. The 
authors used the term culturally congruent to 
explain this work as the teachers were focusing on 
congruence with the children with which they 
worked. In addition, the terms culturally 
responsive (Erickson & Mohatt, 1982) and 
culturally compatible (Vogt et al., 1987) have also 
been used.

Though asset pedagogies and culturally relevant 
pedagogy have been amongst educators? 
vocabulary for quite some time, almost twenty 
years after her seminal publication, 
Ladson-Billings (2014) no longer viewed her theory 
as pertinent and argued that it is time for a 
?remix? of asset pedagogies (p. 74), and the 
?remix? is culturally sustaining pedagogy as 
presented by Paris (2012). Various asset 
pedagogies described above, though influential in 
their time, were much needed concepts in the 
trajectory of understanding culture and education. 
However, these concepts lack the sustaining 

3



BILLEN & BILLEN| A BIOECOLOGICAL VIEW OF CSP

element of CSP.   CSP is defined by Paris (2012) as 
a pedagogy that ?seeks to perpetuate and 
foster--to sustain--linguistic, literate, and cultural 
pluralism as part of the democratic project of 
schooling? (p. 93).

The notion of sustaining culture is quite different 
than simply trying to connect content to the 
culture of students, or making content relevant, 
and it is more than ?checking a celebrating 
?culture? or ?diversity? box? (Algava, 2016, p.51).  
When educators aim to sustain the culture of 
students, the goal is to consider how to foster the 
various cultures in the classroom rather than 
occasionally connecting to the various cultures. 
For example, a culturally relevant teacher in a 
Hmong community might read a book about 
Hmong New Year to connect to the culture of their 
Hmong students, yet continue with reading, math, 
and science curriculum that is rooted in the 
dominant culture.  Yet a culturally sustaining 
teacher would first seek to better understand the 
community languages and valued practices of all 
represented cultures and then center these 
practices across units and projects throughout the 
school year.

Paris and Alim (2014) stated, ?culturally sustaining 
pedagogy attempts to shift the term, stance, and 
practice of asset pedagogies toward more 
explicitly pluralist outcomes? (Paris & Alim, 2014, 
p. 87). Focusing on pluralist outcomes requires a 
shift in thinking; that education is aiming to create 
a new generation of multicultural and multilingual 
groups and beings rather than education is aiming 
to make everyone as much like the White, 
dominant culture as possible. After shifting to a 
pluralistic goal, educators can aim to ?fully see 
their students in order to nourish their whole 
selves? (Doucet, 2017, p. 196).

In order to truly see students and sustain their 
culture, we must understand their heritage and 
their contemporary practices. Ladson-Billings 
(2014) explained this idea very clearly by giving 
examples of individuals and groups. There are 
three generations of Hmong individuals living in 
the United States: one generation who spent a lot 

of their life in Laos, the next generation who 
transitioned from Laos to the United States, and 
the third generation who was born and raised in 
the United States. The third generation, while 
inextricably tied to their heritage, also have 
contemporary culture that is quite different than 
their grandparents. Paris and Alim (2014) 
asserted, ?we believe equity and access can best 
be achieved by centering pedagogies on the 
heritage and contemporary practices of students 
and communities of color? (Paris & Alim, 2014, p. 
87). CSP is fluid and supports students? evolving 
identities while advancing ?pluralistic ways of 
being? (Doucet, 2017, p. 196).  Additionally and 
lastly, CSP aims to view pluralistic ways of being as 
important while concurrently providing 
opportunities to better understand the dominant 
culture (Paris & Alim, 2014).  While CSP educators 
aim to sustain the culture and language of their 
students, allowing and introducing the culture and 
literacies of the dominant culture is important.

Overview  of  Bioecological Theory

Many who learn about Urie Bronfenbrenner?s 
bioecological theory of human development 
(Bronfenbrenner, 2005) associate his work with 
the visually appealing diagrams representing a 
person, often a child, nested within concentric 
circles of contextual influence. The first and most 
immediate is the microsystem, consisting of the 
parts of a person or child?s life with whom they 
may have regular (i.e., daily) contact. Examples of 
microsystems include a child?s place of residence 
and their classroom. The mesosystem consists of 
the relationships and connections with a person?s 
own microsystem, like a parent-teacher 
conference, and is sometimes represented as a 
separate circle surrounding the microsystem, and 
other times is represented through bidirectional 
lines within microsystem settings. The next circle 
represents the exosystem, which consists of 
settings that have indirect influences on a 
developing person, such as a school district, 
parent work environment, or neighborhood. Next 
is the macrosystem, which is the broadest social 
system in Bronfenbrenner?s model and consists of 

4



BILLEN & BILLEN| A BIOECOLOGICAL VIEW OF CSP

culture, systems of governance, and social norms. 
Finally, the chronosystem, often depicted as a 
directional force encompassing all other systems, 
includes all of the normative and nonnormative 
changes and continuities which occur over time 
within each layer of context. The relationships 
between each of the nested systems are 
bidirectional, as well as both direct and indirect, in 
their effects. The bioecological model, overall, 
suggests that in order to understand behavior, 
one must understand the contextual features 
where the behavior occurs (Newman & Newman, 
2016).

However, as noted by Tudge and colleagues (2009; 
2013; 2016), any use of or reference to 
Bronfenbrenner and ecological systems theory 
without acknowledging his model of 
Person-Process-Context-Time (PPCT) could be 
considered a misuse of the theory. Indeed, 
diagrams of the bioecological model generally 
only illustrate the context (C) aspect of PPCT. The 
person aspect of PPCT simultaneously emphasizes 
the backgrounds, physical characteristics, 
dispositions, and resources of each individual, 
which are determined both by one?s biology and 
one?s environment. Process (also referred to as 
proximal processes) refers to any and all 
interactions between a person and their 
environment. Processes change over time, are 
cumulative in impact (Newman & Newman, 2016), 
and are considered the primary contributors to 
development (Smith & Hamon, 2022). Time 
(originally referred to as the chronosystem) can be 
analyzed and understood within and between 
each layer of context, generally demonstrating 
that as children develop over time, so do their 
environments (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). 
Within bioecological theory, time involves ?what 
happens over the course of both ontogenetic and 
historical time.? (Rosa & Tudge, 2013, p. 254).

Indeed, ontogenetic development is a primary 
concept in bioecological theory (Smith & Hamon, 
2022) and includes the biological and genetic 
components of the maturation process. 
Environmental conditions, such as the proximal 

processes experienced within various 
microsystems, play a key role in determining 
which ontogenetic capacities are expressed or 
suppressed within an individual. In addition, it 
should be noted that individuals are active 
participants and not passive recipients within their 
environments and in their own development. This 
notion is central to the concept of adaptation, a 
core concept of bioecological theory (Smith & 
Hamon) which accounts for the modifications 
humans make to their environments in order to 
achieve specific outcomes. 

Int egrat ing Cult urally Sust ain ing Pedagogy and 
Bioecological Theory

Those who view education through a CSP lens 
view students? background and cultural 
inheritance as assets to be sustained in the 
classroom (Paris, 2012). Bronfenbrenner?s (2005) 
bioecological theory views children?s development 
as positioned within multiple contexts with which 
individuals engage. Bronfenbrenner?s theory 
explicates that an individual?s family and culture 
impact one?s development, but what if the culture 
and ways of being are silenced in a school that 
only values the dominant culture? If students? 
culture is not represented in schools, then the 
processes and interaction between systems may 
interfere with one?s development.

CSP has been identified as rooted in an ecological 
frame, ?in the sense that these constructs are 
asking teachers to take into account aspects of 
youth?s lives outside the classroom not only as 
resources, but as targets of learning to be 
sustained.? (Lee, 2017, p. 262). However, in what 
ways CSP is rooted in the ecological frame has not 
been explicated in literature, nor has CSP been 
integrated with Bronfenbrenner?s PPCT model. In 
this section, we use the PPCT model from 
bioecological theory to demonstrate the 
conceptual and empirical footing of CSP in a 
common HDFS perspective. However, we present 
these examples in a different order than PPCT as a 
rhetorical device in which we can then segue into 
our treatment of how the practice of assigning 
homework illustrates the concept of process 

5



BILLEN & BILLEN| A BIOECOLOGICAL VIEW OF CSP

within a CSP frame. Specifically, we integrate 
bioecological theory and research with CSP by 
highlighting (a) the centrality of context; (b) the 
importance of identity; (c) the role of 
sociohistorical time and place; and (d) process as a 
mechanism of development.

The Cent ralit y of  Cont ext

As previously noted, context is a key element of 
Bronfenbrenner?s PPCT model and is illustrated in 
the diagram of nested ecological systems. 
Context, then, is understood as both the broadest 
sources of influence, such as culture and social 
norms, as well as the most immediate contexts a 
developing person engages in, such as their family 
or classroom. The central position of context 
within a bioecological perspective of a developing 
person is illustrated by Bronfenbrenner?s own 
efforts when he advocated for a program to fight 
poverty that would focus on the education of 
children, their families, and their communities. His 
endeavors led to the creation of Head Start 
(Tregaskis, 2015), which has supported 
low-income children and families in the areas of 
school readiness, health, and family well-being 
since 1965 (Office of Head Start, 2018).

In order to enact CSP in a classroom setting, 
educators should first be aware of the immediate 
familial contexts of their students, their heritage, 
and their modern culture and create a student-led 
context within the classroom. Educators can 
better understand the fluid nature of students? 
culture and familial context by asking students to 
reflect and share about their background. One 
specific strategy we discuss later which integrates 
this approach is that of family storytelling 
(Strekalova-Hughes & Wang, 2019).

A student-led context allows for individuals to 
have a voice in the classroom, which creates a 
space for various cultures to be a part of the 
classroom culture. The antithesis of a student-led 
context is teachers using a scripted curriculum 
(created by someone from the dominant culture) 
that explicates what to focus on with one option 
of what the students should do (e.g., fill out a 

worksheet).

In a student-led context, however, students have 
choice in what is learned, in what mode learning 
occurs, and/or in what mode students express 
learned material. For example, a teacher may 
have several different topics to be covered in a 
given semester.  To initiate a student-led context, 
the teacher can ask students to choose a topic 
that they are most interested in, become an 
expert in this topic, and teach the rest of the class 
about the chosen topic.  The student can also 
choose the mode of their creation, (e.g., create a 
video, slideshow, verbal presentation, play). 
Additionally, a student-led context can also be 
facilitated by learning more about the students via 
family storytelling, and using specific attributes of 
cultures to be used in and across curriculum.

 In an analysis of four different studies, 
Wynter-Hoyte and colleagues (2019) highlighted 
the importance of creating critical spaces (or 
contexts) for both children and teachers. Within 
these spaces, CSP can be enacted as children and 
teachers engage in critical conversation and build 
upon one another?s knowledge. In this space, 
individuals can ?disrupt the notion that they enter 
classrooms lacking knowledge and meaningful 
experiences? (p. 434). Context is a crucial element 
of Bronfenbrenner?s theory and CSP seeks to 
connect the context of home in the context of 
school.

The Im por t ance of  Ident it y

At the center of every version of the bioecological 
model is a developing person. Bronfenbrenner?s 
view was that a person consists of three types of 
characteristics. First, demand features, such as 
age, gender, skin color, or body type, each of 
which can either invite or discourage interactions 
with the environment (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 
2006; Rosa & Tudge, 2013). Second, dispositions 
(AKA force characteristics) such as motivation, 
temperament, and self-efficacy, which can 
influence a person?s own desire and readiness to 
engage in their environments (Newman & 
Newman, 2016). Third, resource characteristics, 

6



BILLEN & BILLEN| A BIOECOLOGICAL VIEW OF CSP

such as intelligence, skills, and abilit ies, which can 
either limit or enhance the effectiveness of a 
person?s interactions with their environment. 
Although identity was not a concept explicitly 
identified in Bronfenbrenner?s work, we posit that 
a person?s identity is formed, experienced, and 
expressed at the intersection of the three person 
characteristics identified by Bronfenbrenner.

As a product of both biology and environment, a 
developing person?s identity emerges as they 
interact daily with their environment. According to 
Bronfenbrenner (2005), however, a person plays 
an active role in their own development. We claim 
identity formation is central in this process. 
Umaña-Taylor and colleagues (2014) identified the 
variety of contexts relevant to how children 
develop ethnic and racial identity. Navigating 
multicultural contexts and transitioning from one 
dominant culture to another during childhood can 
have profound effects on identity development 
(Baldwin-White et al., 2017; Paat, 2013). For 
example, Hayes and Endale (2018) demonstrated 
the advantages of using Bronfenbrenner?s PPCT 
model to examine how adolescents navigate their 
identities as immigrants and refugees. Specifically, 
the authors found that migrant and refugee youth 
developed a unique newcomer identity as they 
balance macrosystemic influences from two 
cultural contexts. Similarly, Misoska (2014) found 
that the effects of contact programs meant to 
promote inter-ethnic understanding among 
children raised in areas of political conflict varied 
widely depending on their ethnic identity and the 
views of the intergroup relations to which they 
had become accustomed. Identity is indeed a 
central component of the developing person, 
which is influenced by the complexity of the 
person?s context and sociohistorical conditions.

CSP places a heavy focus on the identity of 
individuals and the inclusion of the multiple 
identities in the classroom context. In order for 
educators to actually sustain the culture of 
individuals, the individual?s evolving identity must 
be considered in the process. Paris and Alim 
(2014) and Ladson-Billings (2014) both highlighted 

the notion that we must understand individuals? 
heritage but must also realize their unique 
individual identities. What we cannot do, is try to 
understand the complex identities of various 
individuals in classrooms as one singular culture. 
According to Ladson-Billings (2014) CSP, 

Pushes us to consider the global identities that 
are emerging in the arts, literature, music, 
athletics, and film. It also points to the shifts of 
identity that now move us toward a hybridity, 
fluidity, and complexity never before 
considered in schools and classrooms. (p. 82).

In Bronfrennbrenner?s theory, we understand 
identity to be an influential aspect of development, 
and CSP explicates the complexity of identity while 
arguing that the whole child must be understood 
and considered in education (Doucet, 2017).

The Role of  Sociohist or ical Tim e and Place

The time component of PPCT serves as the 
recognition that people, systems, and the 
relations between people and systems change 
over time (Rosa & Tudge, 2013). A major element 
in how scholars have incorporated change over 
time as a vital aspect of properly using 
bioecological theory has been to encourage the 
study of children and families longitudinally 
(Tudge et al., 2009; Tudge et al., 2016). Change 
over time includes both naturally occurring 
changes due to biological maturation as well as 
social changes due to advances in knowledge and 
technology, declines in resources, and shifts in 
societal structures such as education (Newman & 
Newman, 2016). Some examples of changes over 
time related to the education of children include 
the desegregation of schools, the implementation 
of standardized testing, and efforts to end 
discrimination based on disability.

One sociohistorical feature of schools and families 
in the twenty-first century is the prevalence of 
digital screens in the lives of children. Although 
some have decried the ubiquity of digital screens 
in the forms of televisions, computers, and mobile 
devices as a threat to children, their development, 
and their relationships within their families (e.g., 

7



BILLEN & BILLEN| A BIOECOLOGICAL VIEW OF CSP

Cleveland Clinic, 2019; Park, 2019), others have 
approached the conversation more optimistically, 
treating screens and technology as an asset and 
opportunity to engage children in new and 
exciting ways (e.g., Lovato & Waxman, 2016). From 
bioecological and CSP perspectives, however, the 
conversation shifts toward the consideration of 
how the emergence and prevalence of mobile 
device technology and access to screen-based 
entertainment is an additional source of social 
stratification for children from families whose 
income is in the lowest income bracket. What 
might be a common social and educational trend 
during a specific time, such as laptops or tablets 
for students and Smart Boards in the classroom 
(Bowles, 2018), may only reflect norms achievable 
by schools and families with access to sufficient 
financial resources.

Paris and Alim (2014) explain that CSP is focused 
on sustaining both individual heritage and 
individuals? evolving culture over time. As 
mentioned in a previous section, as families 
immigrate to America, their heritage, while 
exceedingly important, evolves throughout 
generations.  In other words the culture of a first 
generation immigrant will be much different than 
the culture of a third generation immigrant who 
was born and raised in the country. The authors 
offered the terms community practices to 
describe the fluid nature of culture and continued, 
?These terms are based in contemporary 
understandings of culture as dynamic, shifting, 
and encompassing both past-oriented heritage 
dimensions and present-oriented community 
dimensions? (p. 90). Culture is fluid and culture 
shifts and changes over time.  Though 
Bronfenbrenner specifically discusses the 
influence of time on the development of an 
individual (Rosa & Tudge, 2013), CSP focuses on 
how time influences the lived culture of 
individuals. 

Process as a Mechanism  of  Developm ent

Bronfenbrenner (2005) referred to proximal 
processes, or interactions between individuals and 
their environment, as the engines of development.  

These constant small interactions are the primary 
mechanisms that drive a person?s trajectory in life. 
This same mentality is evident in a quote 
attributed to Booker T. Washington, in which he 
provided his view on the foundation of success: 
?Success in life is founded upon attention to the 
small things rather than to the large things; to the 
everyday things nearest to us rather than to the 
things that are remote and uncommon.? (as 
quoted in McCreadie, 2010, p. 46). Although the 
perspectives of Bronfenbrenner and Washington 
focused on how day-to-day interactions shape an 
individual person, others have emphasized the 
snowballing effects of sustained, collective efforts 
at broader levels. Indeed, the power of small, 
cumulative efforts to enact major changes is well 
documented in popular press media such as The 
Tipping Point (Gladwell, 2006) and Freakonomics 
(Levitt & Dubner, 2009). First 5 California (2019), a 
state sponsored initiative of coordinated services 
and programs for children prenatal through age 5, 
has prioritized the importance of process during 
the first five years of a child?s life as demonstrated 
through their ?Talk. Read. Sing.? campaign, which 
emphasizes the power of ?three small and free 
interactions? to promote a child?s brain 
development.

We assert that those who advocate for CSP to be 
enacted in schools are asking to shift the proximal 
processes as teachers interact with individual 
children in meaningful ways. More specifically, 
teachers are focused on sustaining the cultures of 
their children through daily interactions. As noted 
previously, educators who seek to sustain the 
cultures of their students must do more than 
spend a day, a week, or a month on cultural 
appreciation. Sustaining culture must become a 
daily endeavor to ensure that schoolwork and 
learning can become a relatable and familiar 
experience. The majority of school-aged children 
spend much of their time at home and at school, 
each of which then becomes a central part of a 
child?s microsystem. In the next section we 
examine homework as an aspect of school-aged 
childrens? mesosystems which can illustrate how 
to integrate bioecological theory and CSP.

8



BILLEN & BILLEN| A BIOECOLOGICAL VIEW OF CSP

Connect ion Bet ween CSP and Bioecological 
Theory: Ret hink ing Hom ework

The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to 
two well-known theories in two separate fields 
and begin a conversation about how these 
theories can be discussed together to enlighten 
educators and family scientists.  Our aim is that 
these theories can be used in the field of 
education and HDFS and taught to college 
students who will be working with children.  One 
commonly known educational phenomenon, 
homework, can be used to illustrate the tensions 
between the two theories and consider how we 
can reimagine homework to sustain the culture of 
our students and create a stronger mesosystem 
for children. Our goal is that through this 
discussion, readers will critically examine other 
educational practices and how they are connected 
to children?s culture, identity, and family 
experiences. 

Homework has been defined as ?school 
prescribed tasks undertaken by children and 
usually under the supervision of an adult, most 
often a parent/parents within the home? (Farrell & 
Danby, 2015, p. 250). Historically, homework has 
been used as an avenue to advance educational 
rigor in our society. At the end of the 19th century, 
schools focused on recitation and memorization 
and as students became aware of their duty to 
recite their lessons in school, children began 
spending hours preparing at home. Some families 
could afford for members of their family to be 
engaged in hours of memorization rehearsal, 
while others could not as they were needed for 
household duties and chores. Throughout the 
next century, the pendulum swung between the 
public arguing for and against homework and still 
the argument continues today (Vatterott, 2018).

Thousands of published peer-reviewed articles 
have examined whether homework is an effective 
strategy for promoting student achievement and 
learning (for a meta-analysis, see Ba? et al., 2017). 
In addition, thousands of other articles have been 
published examining the roles of parents in 
promoting, encouraging, and facilitating the 

completion of homework assignments (for a 
meta-synthesis, see Wilder, 2014). Although this 
level of attention is warranted for the sake of 
promoting positive student outcomes, what has 
largely been overlooked is how the practice of 
assigning homework affects families. Attitudes 
towards homework in the United States have been 
largely unfavorable for several decades, with 
certain periods of heightened critique (for a 
history, see Vatterott, 2018). Nevertheless, the 
practice of assigning homework, even in the 
youngest grades and in the most diverse 
classrooms, has persisted as a standard 
pedagogical practice. Indeed, teachers and 
schools continue sending home packets of 
worksheets and activities for elementary aged 
students to complete at home and bring back to 
the classroom (Clarke & Comber, 2019). 

According to the Family Adjustment and 
Adaptation Response (FAAR) model (Patterson, 
1988; 2004), families become vulnerable when the 
demands placed upon them exceed their 
capabilit ies. In general, homework assignments 
may increase stress and anxiety levels for parents 
and households. Recent studies have shown that 
homework assignments contribute to the overall 
sense of strain within a household and can 
therefore be an undue burden on families 
(DiStefano et al., 2020). Additionally, homework 
has shown to cause significantly greater levels of 
stress and problems for working class parents 
(Clarke & Comber, 2019) and for parents with 
lower levels of self-efficacy and emergent bilingual 
parents (Pressman et al., 2015). As an integral part 
of a child?s microsystem (Bronfenbrenner, 2005), 
we assert that schools have a responsibility for 
building the capabilit ies of their students and 
limiting the demands placed upon them and their 
families.

Earlier in this paper we introduced four concepts 
in the PPCT model including, (a) the centrality of 
context; (b) the importance of identity; (c) the role 
of sociohistorical time and place; and (d) process 
as a mechanism of development. We argue that 
educational practices should identify how they are 

9



BILLEN & BILLEN| A BIOECOLOGICAL VIEW OF CSP

addressing context, identity, time and place, and 
process.  We assert that the way in which 
homework has historically been done (Clarke & 
Comber, 2019) fails to bolster one?s identity or 
strengthen their context, and does not adequately 
consider time and place nor process. Additionally, 
through a CSP lens, homework done in this way 
fails to sustain the culture of most children. We 
suggest that educating professionals who work 
with children in the principles of CSP using the 
PPCT framework from bioecological theory will 
encourage us to question if other educational 
practices consider context, identity, time and 
place, and process while sustaining the culture of 
children in the schools. 

Im plicat ions, Lim it at ions, and Fut ure 
Direct ions

Implications for Educators

Rather than choosing an avenue to connect school 
and families that may or may not be connected to 
academic achievement and may be causing 
families stress, it seems that other proximal 
processes are needed to involve families and 
communities (Doucet, 2017). One example, family 
storytelling, has been used as a culturally 
sustaining practice and a way to better 
understand the culture of others 
(Strekalova-Hughes & Wang, 2019). Additionally, 
we assert that family storytelling considers the 
major elements of the PPCT model 
(Bronfenbrenner, 2005). 

Family Storytelling as Homework

Storytelling is one of the oldest ways in which 
people have maintained their culture over many 
generations (Ladson-Billings, 2013). Family 
storytelling is a way in which individuals can 
engage in intergenerational learning and literacy 
as individuals tell and retell stories to family 
members. Additionally, family storytelling is a way 
that educators could learn about the cultures and 
literacies of their students, as they seek to sustain 
culture in classroom settings. Through storytelling, 
educators who are not a part of the culture of 
their students can learn about the heritage and 

evolving culture of the individual 
(Strekalova-Hughes & Wang, 2019). In a study of 
refugee children?s perspectives of family 
storytelling, Strekalova-Hughes and Wang (2019) 
identified three families from Nepal, Somalia, and 
South Sudan and sought to understand the 
perspectives of children. The researchers engaged 
the participants in both interviews and family 
storytelling sessions. Children in this study viewed 
the notion of storytelling as a way to maintain 
family language and were optimistic about sharing 
stories at school in hopes of peer acceptance, 
although none had done so. Children and families 
valued storytelling and noticed differences 
between the stories their family told and the 
stories that were told at school.

Though engaging communities and families in 
storytelling could be seen as time consuming, if 
the time spent gathering homework, assigning 
homework, collecting homework, and grading 
homework were displaced with truly seeking to 
understand the cultures within a classroom, it 
seems it would be time well spent. This could 
result in children who are more capable of making 
deeper connections through proximal processes 
of school and family. This could potentially be 
accomplished through cultural interviews 
(Grier-Reed & Williams-Wengerd, 2018) or family 
interviews (Algava, 2016). Furthermore, it should 
be noted that family storytelling as a 
CSP-informed strategy is inclusive and therefore 
benefits all students. White students, who 
sometimes view themselves as acultural, likely are 
unknowingly carrying on cultural traditions in their 
own home, such as wedding practices or foods 
served during holiday observances. Giving 
students opportunities to tell these kinds of 
stories can provide a means by which they may 
make an individual connection to their cultural 
background. 

Storytelling in the Classroom

Culturally sustaining pedagogy highlights the 
importance of sustaining the culture of all 
students in a classroom setting, rather than 
continuing to only sustain the culture of the 

10



BILLEN & BILLEN| A BIOECOLOGICAL VIEW OF CSP

dominant culture. The point of storytelling is to 
allow students to have their unique voices heard. 
In order to sustain the culture of students, the 
teacher must first understand the various cultures 
represented in the classroom.  Storytelling can be 
used as an avenue to understand individuals who 
may be quite different than the teacher.

Storytelling could be used in a variety of ways as 
teachers embark on a journey to sustain the 
cultures of their students.  Teachers could simply 
ask students to interview family members, create 
a family story and share it with the class.  This 
would allow student voice and student culture to 
at least be a part of the classroom.  To take it 
further, teachers could analyze student stories 
and find ways to connect those stories to various 
aspects of the curriculum over the course of the 
semester or year.  For example, if one student 
shared a story about making tamales during the 
holidays with their family, a teacher could 
highlight this family story during a math lesson on 
measuring volume (e.g. ?  cup). Storytelling has 
innumerable uses. However, we suggest that it is 
one practical strategy for teachers as they seek to 
sustain the culture of students so that the 
classroom context can feel more reflective of their 
home environment. 

Implications for Human Development and Family 
Science Scholars

Scholars in HDFS and family life educators likely 
are familiar with Bronfenbrenner?s bioecological 
model and the PPCT model. In addition, although 
HDFS scholars and family life educators may be 
familiar with principles of social justice, equity 
mindedness, and cultural sensitivity,  they are 
potentially less familiar with CSP as an educational 
framework. Though CSP is mostly written about in 
regards to adolescents, we believe it is important 
for all learners.  For this reason, we encourage 
family life educators and HDFS scholars to 
integrate principles of CSP into their teaching and 
research practices.

In a university setting, professors can peruse their 
curriculum and identify if their existing 

coursework has natural spaces to incorporate 
student culture.  Toward the beginning of the 
semester, we recommend finding a way to learn 
about the fluid culture of students.  Professors 
could ask students to engage in family storytelling, 
an autobiographical piece, or a how-to piece 
wherein students teach others about how to do 
something in their culture. Allowing the students 
to share about their background may help 
students learn about their peers and may help 
professors better understand how to continually 
use student background throughout the semester 
as they aim to sustain culture. For example, after 
engaging students in family storytelling, the 
professor could use this experience to explore the 
concept of developmental tasks from family 
development theory. The professor may be able to 
build on the storytelling experience as a way for 
the learners to understand concepts from other 
theories students learn in the future, while citing 
specific examples from students? lives in their 
specific classroom. This gives students a voice and 
also helps them better understand how content is 
connected to their own culture.

In family life education settings, educators can 
heavily consider the community in which they are 
presenting.  Similar to professors, family life 
educators must find ways to better understand 
the culture of their participants.  The content that 
the educators wish to impart will be much more 
powerful if connected to the community practices, 
literacies and knowledge. Depending on the 
structure of the family life education setting, 
educators could consider sending out qualitative 
surveys to participants prior to the course.  At this 
point educators can find how the theoretical 
information and practical strategies can be 
connected to the culture of the participants while 
keeping in mind that pluralistic outcomes can be 
the goal.

Limitations and Future Directions

We acknowledge that CSP and bioecological 
theory are based in differing epistemological 
perspectives, with CSP operating from a critical 
epistemology and bioecological theory from a 

11



BILLEN & BILLEN| A BIOECOLOGICAL VIEW OF CSP

constructivist epistemology. As such, integrating 
these perspectives is not without certain tensions 
and limitations. For instance, we discussed specific 
components of the theories such as culture, 
identity, and sociohistorical time and place as 
commensurable between the two. However, given 
their divergent epistemological orientations, one 
might contend that doing so overlooks the 
differences in viewing cultural and identity issues 
from the lenses of understanding and 
interpretation (constructivist) versus social justice 
and empowerment (critical). Although these 
constructs may not be commensurable in all 
cases, we maintain our position that these two 
perspectives compliment each other in ways that 
allow scholars, educators, and other professionals 
to more fully understand one another 's points of 
view when working with children, families, and 
broader social issues that affect them. As HDFS 
scholars do more to incorporate CSP into their 
research and scholarship and as education 
scholars find ways to integrate the PPCT model 
from bioecological theory into theirs, we 
contribute to the increasingly interdisciplinary 
nature of these disciplines. Future scholarship can 
help refine these and other constructs as they are 
used within differing epistemological frameworks.

Conclusion

We have shown bioecological theory and CSP to 
be compatible and complementary perspectives 
for examining the variety of ways that schools, 
classrooms, and teachers influence students and 
their families. The synthesis of these perspectives 
fits within developmental science, family science, 
and teacher education, whose interests converge 
around the prerogative to promote child 
development, particularly for students from 
underrepresented and underserved backgrounds. 
Although others have framed CSP within an 
ecological view (see Lee, 2017), we have 
specifically identified areas of research and 
application from Bronfenbrenner?s PPCT model 
which coincide with the aims of CSP. Scholars and 
educators can benefit from this interdisciplinary 
integration as they internalize these principles and 

integrate them into their research and teaching. 
We postulate that through a recreation of 
homework, namely family storytelling, educators 
can better understand the cultures (both heritage 
and evolving culture) of their children.

In this paper, we have also identified implications 
for the mesosystem connecting teachers and 
parents. The expectation of understanding and 
completing traditional homework assignments 
with young children places demands on families 
which can tip their family adjustment towards a 
cascade of crisis (Patterson, 2004). Our position is 
that teachers and schools should reconsider the 
practice of assigning homework, especially for 
their elementary-aged students. As teachers 
consider the principles outlined in the 
bioecological theory and CSP, they will be better 
equipped to work in harmony with families to 
promote positive outcomes in their children.

As our nation becomes increasingly diverse, it is 
important that we seek to better understand how 
our education system is meeting the needs of all 
our students. In the past, relations between 
schools and families have been characterized as 
?worlds apart? (Lightfoot, 1978). By utilizing the 
principles of CSP from a bioecological perspective, 
teachers can be prepared to work with families as 
?natural allies? (Hong, 2019).

?

12



BILLEN & BILLEN| A BIOECOLOGICAL VIEW OF CSP

References

Apple, M. (1990). Ideology and curriculum (2nd ed.). 
Routledge.

Algava, A. (2016). Beyond child-centered 
constructivism: A call for culturally sustaining 
progressive pedagogy. Occasional Paper Series, 
2016 (35). https://educate.bankstreet.edu/
occasional-paper-series/vol2016/iss35/5

Au, K., & Jordan, C. (1981). Teaching reading to 
Hawaiian children: Finding a culturally 
appropriate solution. In H. Trueba, G. Guthrie, 
& K. Au (Eds.), Culture and the Bilingual 
Classroom: Studies in Classroom Ethnography 
(pp. 139-152). Newbury. 

Baldwin-White, A. J. M., Kiehne, E., Umaña-Taylor, 
A., & Marsiglia, F. F. (2017). In pursuit of 
belonging: Acculturation, perceived 
discrimination, and ethnic--racial identity 
among Latino youths. Social Work Research, 
41(1), 43?52. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svw029

Ba?, G., Senturk, C., & Cigerci, F. M. (2017). 
Homework and academic achievement: A 
meta-analytic review of research. Issues in 
Educational Research, 27(1), 31.

Bowles, N. (2018). The digital gap between rich and 
poor kids is not what we expected. The New 
York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018
/10/26/style/digital-divide-screens-schools.html

Bronfenbrenner, U. (Ed.). (2005). Making human 
beings human: Bioecological perspectives on 
human development. Sage.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The 
bioecological model of human development. In 
R. M. Lerner & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of 
child psychology. 6th ed. Vol. 1. Theoretical 
Models of Human Development (pp. 793-828). 
John Wiley & Sons. 

Clarke, C., & Comber, B. (2019). How homework 
shapes family literacy practices. The Reading 
Teacher, 73(5), 563-573. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1879

Cleveland Clinic. (2019, February 4). Too much 
screen time harmful for kids? development 
(especially those under age 5). 
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/too-much-
screen-time-harmful-for-kids-development-
especially-those-under-age-5/

Delpit, L. (2006). Other people's children: Cultural 
conflict in the classroom. The New Press.

Dewitt, S. (2017, April). 3 fears about screen time for 
kids ?  and why they're not true [Video]. TED. 
https://www.ted.com/talks/sara_dewitt
_3_fears_about_screen_time_for_kids_and_why
_they_re_not_true?language=en

DiStefano, M., O?Brien, B., Storozuk, A., Ramirez, G., 
& Maloney, E. A. (2020). Exploring math 
anxious parents? emotional experience 
surrounding math homework-help. 
International Journal of Educational Research, 99, 
101526. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijer.2019.101526

Doucet, F. (2017). What does a culturally sustaining 
learning climate look like?. Theory Into Practice, 
56(3), 195-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00405841.2017.1354618

 Erickson, F., & Mohatt, G. (1982). Cultural 
organization and participation structures in 
two classrooms of Indian students. In G. 
Spindler (Ed.), Doing the Ethnography of 
Schooling (pp. 131-174). Holt, Rinehart & 
Winston.  

Farrell, A., & Danby, S. (2015). How does homework 
?work? for young children? Children?s accounts 
of homework in their everyday lives. British 
Journal of Sociology of Education, 36(2), 250-269. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2013.814532

First 5 California. (2019). Boosting your baby's 
brainpower starts with you. Retrieved February 
12, 2020 from http://www.first5california.com/
learning-center.aspx?id=9&sub=111

Gay, G. (2004). Multicultural curriculum theory and 
multicultural education. In J. A. Banks & C. M. 
Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research in 
multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 30?49). 

13

https://educate.bankstreet.edu/occasional-paper-series/vol2016/iss35/5
https://educate.bankstreet.edu/occasional-paper-series/vol2016/iss35/5
https://educate.bankstreet.edu/occasional-paper-series/vol2016/iss35/5
https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svw029
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/style/digital-divide-screens-schools.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/style/digital-divide-screens-schools.html
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/too-much-screen-time-harmful-for-kids-development-especially-those-under-age-5/
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/too-much-screen-time-harmful-for-kids-development-especially-those-under-age-5/
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/too-much-screen-time-harmful-for-kids-development-especially-those-under-age-5/
https://www.ted.com/talks/sara_dewitt_3_fears_about_screen_time_for_kids_and_why_they_re_not_true?language=en
https://www.ted.com/talks/sara_dewitt_3_fears_about_screen_time_for_kids_and_why_they_re_not_true?language=en
https://www.ted.com/talks/sara_dewitt_3_fears_about_screen_time_for_kids_and_why_they_re_not_true?language=en
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.101526
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.101526
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2017.1354618
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2017.1354618
https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2013.814532
http://www.first5california.com/learning-center.aspx?id=9&sub=111
http://www.first5california.com/learning-center.aspx?id=9&sub=111


BILLEN & BILLEN| A BIOECOLOGICAL VIEW OF CSP

Jossey-Bass.

Gladwell, M. (2006). The tipping point: How little 
things can make a big difference. Little, Brown.

González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2006). 
Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in 
households, communities, and classrooms. 
Routledge.

Grier-Reed, T., & Williams-Wengerd, A. (2018). 
Integrating Universal Design, culturally 
sustaining practices, and constructivism to 
advance inclusive pedagogy in the 
undergraduate classroom. Education Sciences, 
8(4), 167. 
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8040167

Hayes, S. W., & Endale, E. (2018). ?Sometimes my 
mind, it has to analyze two things?: Identity 
development and adaptation for refugee and 
newcomer adolescents. Peace and Conflict: 
Journal of Peace Psychology, 24(3), 283?290. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000315

Hong, S. (2019). Natural allies: Hope and possibility 
in teacher-family partnerships. Harvard 
Education Press.

Hymes, D. (1971). On linguistic theory, 
communicative competence, and the 
education of disadvantaged children. In M. L. 
Wax, S. Diamond, & F. O. Hearing (Eds.), 
Anthropological Perspectives on Education. Basic 
Books, Inc. 

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of 
culturally relevant pedagogy. American 
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491. 
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465

Ladson-Billings, G. (2007). Pushing past the 
achievement gap: An essay on the language of 
deficit. The Journal of Negro Education, 316-323.  
www.jstor.org/stable/40034574

Ladson-Billings, G. (2013). Critical race theory - 
What it is not! In M. Lynn & A. Dixson (Eds.), The 
handbook of critical race theory in education (pp. 
34?47). Routledge.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant 

pedagogy 2.0: aka the remix. Harvard 
Educational Review, 84(1), 74-84. 
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.
p2rj131485484751

Lee, C. (2017). An ecological framework for 
enacting culturally sustaining pedagogy. In D. 
Paris, & H. S. Alim (Eds.), Culturally sustaining 
pedagogies: Teaching and Learning for Justice in a 
Changing World (pp. 261-273). Teachers College 
Press.

Levitt, S. D., & Dubner, S. J. (2009). Freakonomics. 
Harper/Collins.

Lightfoot, S. L. (1978). Worlds apart: Relationships 
between families and schools. Basic Books.

Lovato, S. B., & Waxman, S. R. (2016). Young 
children learning from touch screens: Taking a 
wider view. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1078. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01078

Maxwell, L. (2014, August 19). U.S. school 
enrollment hits majority-minority milestone. 
Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/ew/
articles/2014/08/20/01demographics.h34.html 

McCreadie, K. (2010). Robert Collier's the secret of 
the ages: A modern day interpretation of a 
self-help classic. Infinite Ideas.

Misoska, A. T. (2014). Giving children space to 
express themselves: Exploring children?s views 
and perspectives of contact programmes in 
Northern Ireland and the Republic of 
Macedonia. Compare: A Journal of Comparative 
and International Education, 44(5), 778-800. 
https://doi-org/10.1080/03057925.2013.792665

Mohatt, G., & Erickson, F. (1981). Cultural 
differences in teaching styles in an Odawa 
school: A sociolinguistic approach. In H. Trueba, 
G. Guthrie, & K. Au (Eds.), Culture and the 
Bilingual Classroom: Studies in Classroom 
Ethnography (pp. 105-110). Newbury.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2013, 
December). Enrollment and percentage 
distribution of enrollment in public elementary 
and secondary schools, by race/ethnicity and 

14

https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8040167
https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000315
https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40034574
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01078
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/08/20/01demographics.h34.html 
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/08/20/01demographics.h34.html 
https://doi-org/10.1080/03057925.2013.792665


BILLEN & BILLEN| A BIOECOLOGICAL VIEW OF CSP

region: Selected years, fall 1995 through fall 2023. 
Retrieved February 10, 2020, from 
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables
/dt13_203.50.asp

Newman, B. M., & Newman, P. R. (2015). Theories of 
human development. Psychology Press.

Office of Head Start. (2018, May 18). About the 
office of head start. U. S. Department of Health 
and Human Services, Administration for Children 
& Families. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/
ohs/about

Paat, Y-F. (2013). Working with immigrant children 
and their families: An application of 
Bronfenbrenner 's ecological systems theory. 
Journal of Human Behavior in the Social 
Environment, 23(8), 954-966. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2013.800007

Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A 
needed change in stance, terminology, and 
practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93-97. 
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12441244

Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking 
to sustain through culturally sustaining 
pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard 
Educational Review, 84(1), 85-100. 
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.982l873k2ht
16m77

Park, A. (2019, January 28). Too much screen time 
can have lasting consequences for young 
children?s brains. TIME. https:// time.com/
5514539/screen-time-children-brain/

Patterson, J. M. (1988). Families experiencing 
stress: The family adjustment and adaptation 
response model. Family Systems Medicine, 5(2), 
202?237. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0089739

Patterson, J. M. (2004). Integrating family resilience 
and family stress theory. Journal of Marriage 
and Family, 64(2), 349-360. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00349.x

Pressman, R. M., Sugarman, D. B., Nemon, M. L., 
Desjarlais, J., Owens J. A., & Schettini-Evans, A. 
(2015). Homework and family stress: With 

consideration of parents? self confidence, 
educational level, and cultural background. The 
American Journal of Family Therapy, 43(4), 
297-313. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187
.2015.1061407

Rosa, E. M., & Tudge, J. R. H. (2013). Urie 
Bronfenbrenner?s theory of human 
development: Its evolution from ecology to 
bioecology. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5, 
243?258. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12022

Smith, S. R., & Hamon, R. R. (2022). Exploring family 
theories (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Smith, T. E., & Sheridan, S. M. (2019). The effects of 
teacher training on teachers? 
family-engagement practices, attitudes, and 
knowledge: A meta-analysis. Journal of 
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 
29(2), 128-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10474412.2018.1460725

Strekalova-Hughes, E., & Wang, X. C. (2019). 
Perspectives of children from refugee 
backgrounds on their family storytelling as a 
culturally sustaining practice. Journal of 
Research in Childhood Education, 33(1), 6-21.

Tudge, J. R. H., Mokrova, I., Hatfield, B., & Karnik, R. 
B. (2009). Uses and misuses of 
Bronfenbrenner?s bioecological theory of 
human development. Journal of Family Theory & 
Review, 1, 198?210. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1756-2589.2009.00026.x

Tudge, J. R., Payir, A., Merçon-Vargas, E., Cao, H., 
Liang, Y., Li, J., & O'Brien, L. (2016). Still misused 
after all these years? A reevaluation of the uses 
of Bronfenbrenner 's bioecological theory of 
human development. Journal of Family Theory & 
Review, 8(4), 427-445. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12165

Tregaskis, S. (2015, May 15). 50 years later, 
recalling a founder of Head Start. Cornell 
Chronicle.https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/
05/50-years-later-recalling-founder-head-start

Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Quintana, S. M., Lee, R. M., 
Cross Jr, W. E., Rivas-Drake, D., Schwartz, S. J., 

15

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_203.50.asp
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_203.50.asp
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ohs/about
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ohs/about
https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2013.800007
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12441244
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.982l873k2ht16m77
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.982l873k2ht16m77
https://time.com/5514539/screen-time-children-brain/
https://time.com/5514539/screen-time-children-brain/
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0089739
https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2015.1061407
https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2015.1061407
https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12022
https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2018.1460725
https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2018.1460725
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2009.00026.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2009.00026.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12165
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/05/50-years-later-recalling-founder-head-start
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/05/50-years-later-recalling-founder-head-start


BILLEN & BILLEN| A BIOECOLOGICAL VIEW OF CSP

Syed, M., Yip, T., Seaton, E.,  & Ethnic and Racial 
Identity in the 21st Century Study Group. 
(2014). Ethnic and racial identity during 
adolescence and into young adulthood: An 
integrated conceptualization. Child 
Development, 85(1), 21-39. https://doi.org/
10.1111/cdev.12196

U.S. Census Bureau. (2018, May 13). Older people 
projected to outnumber children for first time in 
U.S. History.  https://www.census.gov/
newsroom/press-releases/2018/cb18-41-
population-projections.html

Vatterott, C. (2018). Rethinking homework: Best 
practices that support diverse needs. ASCD.

Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing 
culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the 
curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 
20-32. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053001003

Walker-Dalhouse, D., & Risko, V. J. (2020). Culturally 
responsive literacy instruction. In D. Kern (Ed), 
Best Practices of Literacy Leaders: Keys to School 
Improvement, (pp. 304-321). Guilford Press.

Weiss, H. B., Lopez, M. E., Kreider, H., & 
Chatman-Nelson, C. (Eds.). (2013). Preparing 
educators to engage families: Case studies using 
an ecological systems framework. Sage 
Publications.

Wilder, S. (2014). Effects of parental involvement 
on academic achievement: A meta-synthesis. 
Educational Review, 66(3), 377-397. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.780009

Wynter-Hoyte, K., Braden, E. G., Rodriguez, S., & 
Thornton, N. (2019). Disrupting the status quo: 
Exploring culturally relevant and sustaining 
pedagogies for young diverse learners. Race 
Ethnicity and Education, 22(3), 428-447. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2017
.1382465

16

https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12196
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12196
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/cb18-41-population-projections.html
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/cb18-41-population-projections.html
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/cb18-41-population-projections.html
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053001003
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.780009
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2017.1382465
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2017.1382465

	Billen 2022 Proof
	Page 1
	Page 2
	Page 3
	Page 4
	Page 5
	Page 6
	Page 7
	Page 8
	Page 9
	Page 10
	Page 11
	Page 12
	Page 13
	Page 14
	Page 15
	Page 16


