Bronfenbrenner’s Theory of Ecological Systems analyzes the development of a child within the larger framework of relationships that define the surrounding environment in general. In this regard, Bronfenbrenner classifies the environment into a set of distinct, carefully defined and complex layers, with each having a particular effect on the development of the child. Emphasis is placed on the fact that the biology of the child is a key factor behind his or her growth and development.
The factors at play in the process include the family, both nuclear and extended, which defines the community in which the child finds himself or herself in, the interplay of factors as the child grows biologically, and the societal landscape that affects and shapes the development of the child along particular a trajectory. Alterations in one layer will invariably influence other layers.
As a result, Bronfenbrenner contends that in order to holistically assess the growth and development of the child, it is necessary to not only examine the immediate surrounding environment of the child, but also the interplay of factors in the environment at large as well. This research seeks to analyze the implications of Bronfenbrenner’s theory to a teacher an example. Relevant developmental theories will be used to explain and contextualize the unique teaching challenges that the teacher may face and the principles and practices that might help him or her.
The microsystem has the closest interaction with the child. It is inclusive of the systems and structures that directly affect the child and where a direct interaction is shared with the surrounding environment. The structures and systems in the microsystem include the immediate neighbourhood, the school, the family, and any other systems offering childcare support (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
At this level, relationships affect the child in two distinct ways; towards and away. For instance, the parents influence the behaviour and convictions of the child, and the child does the same to those of the parents.
The mesosystem is the layer at which the structures found within the microsystem interact and connect (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). For instance, it is the level at which the parents and the teachers of the child interact, or where the neighbourhood and the school cross one another’s paths.
The exosystem is the layer at which the direct functioning of the child is more or less virtually impaired, even though his or her growth and development is still influenced through interaction with his or her microsystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
For instance, the working schedules of the parents are an example that influences the microsystem of the child, even though the child is not directly involved in them (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
In effect, both the negative and positive forces that govern interactions in the exosystem influence the child’s microsystem.
The macrosystem can be regarded as the most superficial in the environment of the child. It is made up of the laws, customs, and cultural values that surround the child, even though it is not considered as a particular framework in the strictest definition of the term. The principles defined at this layer exert a ripple effect on the manner in which the other layers interact (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
For instance, if the macrosystem promotes the notion that it is the sole responsibility of the parent to cater for the upbringing of the child, then parents who look up to community support in child rearing are likely to be faced by scarcity of resources (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). In effect, this will influence the structures available to the parent in carrying out this role, thereby ultimately influencing the microsystem of the child.
The chronosystem encompasses the relationship between the child’s environment and time. It therefore has both internal and external dimensions (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
For instance, the physiological transformations that occur in the course of a child’s growth and development are regarded as internal factors, while other equally important factors such as the timing of a parent’s death, are regarded as external factors (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The effect of the chronosystem on the child changes with time, as the capacity to handle and absorb changes in the environment increases.
Research has time and again proven that the higher the degree of involvement of the family and the community at large in the education of the child, the better is the outcome. The role that the parents play is an important determinant of the level of success a student attains in school (Watts, Cockcroft and Duncan, 2009). However, this ideal situation has become hard to attain in the society of today. For instance, in the United States, at least 25% of school-going children are raised by a single parent, and this statistics is higher in African-American families, where up to 55% of children are raised by single parents (Watts, Cockcroft and Duncan, 2009, p.38).
In addition, at least 20% of children in the United States come from families living below the poverty level, with Latinos and African-Americans posting a disproportionately high rate of at least double of this figure (Watts, Cockcroft and Duncan, 2009, p.43).Furthermore, parents, particularly mothers, are increasingly taking up roles outside the home environment, and this has greatly limited their level of involvement in the growth and development of their children.
A rising number of theories focusing on child development concur with the notion that the growth and development of a child are affected by the environment, as well as the biology of the child. Latest theories in this subject presently focus on the particular role that each factor plays, as well as their interplay in the larger context of a child’s development. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model is focused on the child’s immediate environment, with particular emphasis on the context and quality of interactions (Watts, Cockcroft and Duncan, 2009).
He outlines that as the child’s faculties become increasingly complex with respect to ageing, so do the environmental interactions become more complex. Consequently, owing to the fact that the natural progression of growth and development occurs along a particular trajectory, it is necessary to ponder the effect that the surrounding environment has on the child in the process (Watts, Cockcroft and Duncan, 2009). This is the subject matter of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model.
The factory work ethic continues to define the workplace environment of today, despite the fact that the economy has transformed to a technological model, up from an industrial model. Technological advancement has rapidly transformed our society, and even the extraneous measures have been undertaken in an effort to protect the physical environment from the adverse effects of technological advancement, little has been done to cushion the society from the damage arising from such technological transformation (Watts, Cockcroft and Duncan, 2009).
This has resulted in a technology-dominated workplace environment that demands more and more of on one interaction, even as it has concurrently freed workers from the dictates of manual labour. The result has been the relegation of family life to a secondary concern, as the needs of the workplace take precedence.
The problems arising from the “deficit” model that is used to categorize the extent of neediness among struggling families have also been highlighted by Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model (Watts, Cockcroft and Duncan, 2009).
Bronfenbrenner explains that owing to a social system where independence is highly valued, a welfare system where parents must declare deficiency of one nature or another in order to qualify for government support has emerged (Watts, Cockcroft and Duncan, 2009). In effect, the extent of support and the degree of failure necessary to warrant it have a direct relationship. In effect, consequently, the most helpless families are expected to be the most active on welfare support matters, and are similarly expected to benefit the most from such a psychologically draining system (Watts, Cockcroft and Duncan, 2009).
In Bronfenbrenner’s view, this is defeatist. From a critical perspective, this view holds water, as it places undue pressure on families and needlessly complicates the welfare system, thereby obscuring its essence and purpose.
In light of Bronfenbrenner’s postulations, it is necessary to point out that from a teacher’s perspective, the most destabilizing force to a child’s growth and development in the society of today is the unpredictable and unstable family life that has arisen from our economy. According to Bronfenbrenner, society has conspired to deny children the necessary interaction that is required for proper development (Watts, Cockcroft and Duncan, 2009). The bioecological model holds that when there are problems in the microsystem, children end up lacking the opportunity to develop the skills they require to cognitively explore the environment in its entirety. It is the nature of children to constantly seek affirmations from their parents and/ guardians (Watts, Cockcroft and Duncan, 2009). When they lack such affirmations in the appropriate places, they end up seeking them elsewhere. This manifests as deficiencies of one kind or another. For instance, indiscipline, anti-social behaviour, unruliness and self-disorganization can be the manifestation of such deficiencies (Watts, Cockcroft and Duncan, 2009).
Bronfenbrenner’s postulations have massive implications for teachers. For instance, it forces the profession to contemplate whether it can cover the learning, growth and development deficiencies arising in the children’s homes, owing to the nature of society of today. Additionally, it has piled pressure on teachers and schools to provide stable, dependable relationships with students where parents and societies have failed, if only to address the developmental deficiencies brought about by the domination of work life over family life (Martin, Fabes and Fabes, 2009).
The nature of interactions between man and the environment have evolved from those simply driven by a quest for survival to those geared at manipulating and controlling the environment. It is an ongoing philosophical struggle to comprehend human-environmental interactions, in all its complexity, in an effort to define human existence (Watts, Cockcroft and Duncan, 2009).
The works of pioneers such as Erikson and Piaget have investigated the manner in which human cognitive faculties develop.
Brofenbrenner’s postulations can consequently be regarded as the physical domains in which human cognition develops. For instance in Brofenbrenner’s bioecological model, the human body is a constituent of the microsystem (Martin, Fabes and Fabes, 2009). The body mediates our environmental interactions, as well as forms our mobility and life support system. The body has the capacity to affect development in various ways.
Brofenbrenner’s theory, therefore, has important implications for teachers. It is increasingly becoming apparent that teachers and schools need to provide stable, dependable relationships with their students to improve outcomes that extend far beyond the context of the school environment. However, Bronfenbrenner is adamant that the primary relationship with the child needs to be with somebody who can provide a sense of parental concern and care that can last a lifetime (Martin, Fabes and Fabes, 2009). In addition, the relationship should be initiated and maintained by a figure or figures found within the child’s immediate scope of influence.
With these views in mind, it is pertinent to explain that even though teachers and schools play an important educational role in the life of the child and student, they cannot, in the long run, cater for the sophisticated growth and developmental interaction that must take place between children and their parents. This makes it necessary to go to the root cause of the breakdown of the parent-child relationship.
Problems faced by families and students arise from conflict between family life and demands of the workplace environment. Schools and families, and any friction that might arise between the two, is barely implicated in this conflict. As a result, therefore, teachers and schools can do nothing much beyond fostering the creation of a receptive environment for families, as well as encouraging and nurturing this relationship between the students and their parents.
However, teachers and the teaching fraternity in general can play a more active role in championing the creation of a policy that addresses the conflict between family and work. Owing to the realities already highlighted, it is in society’s best interest to advocate for policies that encourage the increased involvement of parents in the growth and development of the child, both from an economic and political perspective. Restricting family life in favour of work and other societal concerns is bound to create serious problems for the young generation and adults alike.
As Bronfenbrenner emphasizes, it is necessary to emphasize the fact that raising a child is the responsibility of the community. As a result, social attitudes that promote the taking of parental and mentorship roles on behalf of children should be encouraged at the level of legislators, teachers, parents, guardians, and the extended family at large.
References
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Martin, C. L., Fabes, R. A., & Fabes, R. A. (2009). Discovering child Development. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Watts, J., Cockcroft, K., & Duncan, N. (2009). Developmental Psychology. Cape Town, South Africa: UCT Press.
