See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303406860

ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM AND ITS EFFECTS ON EARLY CHILDHOOD

DEVELOPMENT

Article · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

0 7,221

1 author:

Muhammad Obaidullah Khan Wahedi

Medical college for women & hospital
21 PUBLICATIONS   38 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Outcome Base Neurofeedback Treatment in Autism View project

Review View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Obaidullah Khan Wahedi on 22 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ORIGINAL ARTICLE

ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM AND ITS EFFECTS ON

EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT
MOK Wahedi1, MBBS DCH MSc (ECD) MRCP (UK) MRCPCH FRCPE; Rafeza Khanam2, MBBS DCH MCPS FCPS

ABSTRACT
Introduction: Development is a process by which humans change qualititatively and
quantitatively over time. Several prominent contrasting theories about child development are
present and each is based on research and a set of assumptions about the nature of human
experiences. Bronfenbrenner uses the word "ecology" to refer to the settings and institutions that
influence the growing human being. These ecological systems interact with one another and the
individual child. There are multiple layers of ecosystem, micro, meso, exo and macrosystem. The
interaction of these layers of ecosystem influences childs development. Methods: It is a
observational study done on four selected children. Four children from different living
environments were selected, two of them were from well to do families and two of them are
from a low socioeconomic group. The parents were interviewed with a pre-tested questionnaire
and observations of four selected children in different settings were recorded. Children were
observed for two domains of development, motor and social domains and data were collected.
Anthropometrical measurements of height, weight, OFC, MUAC, developmental milestones, and
few cognitive functions were recorded on data collection forms for consideration of the overall
development. Results: Total four children were included in the study. Two set of children were
taken. Each set of children are of same age and sex but from different social and economic
parameter. Marked variations are observed in the four children, and in their development. Parvez
and Belly come from a low-socioeconomic group, and are also less privileged, but their motor
skills look a bit more developed than Shane and Sharita, who come from a privileged class and
better economic conditions. Social performances vary as well among them, Parvez and belly
seems more competent in managing themselves, whereas Shane and Sharita seem more
dependant on caregivers. In communicating and understanding, there seems to be no particular
differencein academic, and but institutional performances Shane and Shariata seemed better.
Conclusion: In Urie Bronfenbrenners ecological system theory, it is clear that, early childhood
development depends not only on individual growth and behaviour, but also on the settings and
institutions (the family, community, the school, the political system referred to as ecology) within
which the child lives.
[J Med Coll Women Hosp 2012; 10(1): 23-30]
Key words: Ecology Microsystem Mesosystem Exosystem Macrosystem Development
INTRODUCTION about child development are present and
Development is a process by which humans each is based on research and a set of
change qualititatively and quantitatively over assumptions about the nature of human
time. Several prominent contrasting theories experiences. No single, universally
1. Professor & Head, Dept. of Paediatrics, Medical College for Women & Hospital, Plot-4, Road-9, Sector-1, Uttara Model
Town, Dhaka-1230, Bangladesh, Email: wahediok@yahoo.com (Author for correspondence).
2. Registrar, Dept. of Paediatrics, Medical College for Women & Hospital, Plot-4, Road-9, Sector-1, Uttara Model Town,
Dhaka-1230, Bangladesh.
23 JMCWH, Vol 10, No 1, January 2012
 Ecology of child development
accepted theory exists. Some theories are
interrelated and complimentary; others offer
conflicting perspectives on childhood.
Ecological systems theory focuses most
directly on child and adolescent development
within the larger world and states that
development is influenced by the personal,
social, and political systems within which
children live. Interactions between the family,
school, community, social and political
system, and the individual child will
determine developmental outcomes. Urie
Bronfenbrenners (1995), the leading
proponent of this theory, has been critical of
psychologists and educators who focus on
only individual growth and behavior without
regard for social, political, or economic
conditions in which children grow up1.
Bronfenbrenner uses the word "ecology" to
refer to the settings and institutions that
influence the growing human being. He
suggests that there are multiple ecologies -
that is many different settings - that affect
the development and the ecologies lie in
distinct layers of ecological systems around
the developing human (Figure-1)2. These
ecological systems interact with one another
and the individual child. The first layer
(Figure-1), the microsystems most directly
affects development, and is comprised of all
institutions, experiences, and influences
within the child's immediate environment.
These include family, pediatric services,
social services, the school, teachers or
childcare providers, and peers. The child
both influences and is influenced by these
persons and institutions. According to
ecological system theory, when strong
supportive linkages exist among the persons
or organizations in the micro system,
positive child and adolescent development
are enhanced. The second ecological layer is
the mesosystem (Figure-1), and comprises
the interconnections between the micro
JMCWH, Vol 10, No 1, January 2012
system and exosystem. The third layer of
ecological system (Figure-1), the exosystem,
comprises institutions and persons that do
not actually touch the children's lives but
they indirectly affect their experiences. For
example the legal service system, a friend of
the family, or the public assistance office may
not directly promote social or intellectual
growth of the children. However, they may
enhance the mental physical health of the
family, provide resources needed for
adequate nutrition or shelter or improve the
effectiveness of parents3. These positive
influences will, in turn, promote healthy
child development. The final ecosystem is
the macrosystem, which contains
overarching values, ideologies, laws,
worldviews, and customs of a particular
culture or society (Figure-1)4.
METHODOLOGY
To observe the effect of ecological system
theory on child development, children were
selected from different settings.
Sample
Four children from different living
environments were selected (Table-1). Two
of them are from high and two of them are
from a low socioeconomic group. To
include the variations of the settings and
institutions around the children in which
they grow, socioeconomic condition,
education, and the occupation of the
parents were considered.
Design
It is a cross sectional study done on
four selected children. The parents or
caregivers were interviewed with a pre-
tested questionnaire to note the
defined settings of their life and elicit
some of the developmental parameters.
24

Procedure of Data Collection
The main procedure was an interview of
parents with a pre-tested questionnaire and
observations of four selected children in
different settings. Children were observed
for two domains of development, motor
and social domains and data were collected.
Anthropometrical measurements, height,
weight, Occipitofrontal Circumference
(OFC), Mid Upper Arm Circumference
(MUAC), developmental milestones, and
few cognitive functions were recorded on
data collection forms for consideration of
the overall development. No specific
instrument was used to test either of the
domains of development. Children were
observed closely and the activities in the
25
Ecology of child development
child's daily routines were noted,
referencing to different domains. Usual
developmental milestones were observed
and recorded to assess the child's
development. An open format was used to
record milestones under the gross headings
of domains of development.
RESULTS
Total four children were included in the
study. Two set of children were taken. Each
set of children are of same age and sex but
from different social and economic
parameter (Table-1). Background social
information and developmental findings are
elaborated in the given tables.
JMCWH, Vol 10, No 1, January 2012
Ecology of child development

JMCWH, Vol 10, No 1, January 2012 26

 Ecology of child development

27 JMCWH, Vol 10, No 1, January 2012

 Ecology of child development
DISCUSSIONS
In Urie Bronfenbrenners ecolological
system theory, it is clear that, early
childhood development depends not only
on individual growth and behaviour, but
also on the settings and institutions (the
family, community, the school, the political
system referred to as ecology) within which
the child lives. Marked variations are
observed in the four children, and in their
development, some differences are well
marked, in some domains of their
development (Table-4). Parvez can hop, go
upstairs and catch bounched balls where
shane has difficulty. Since they come from
different social context besides some
common activities their competency in
social domain varies. Parvez can dress,
undress, wash him self, go to toilet wipe
himself, take food by hands, follow orders,
go to shop, buy things, handle money, and
bring back changes, understand his position
in the house where as Shane can tell story,
know some nursery rhymes, handle knife
and fork, and play with other children and
also play computer. Parvez and Belly come
from a low-socioeconomic group, and are
also less privileged, but their motor skills
look more developed than Shane and
Sharita, who come from a privileged class
and better economic conditions (Table-1).
Social performances vary as well among
them (Table-4), Parvez and belly seems
more competent in managing themselves,
whereas Shane and Sharita seem more
dependant on caregivers. This may be due
to the over caring attitude and continuous
assistance of these caregivers, which may
interfere with the children's own
participation5. The two children from the
low socioeconomic condition, seem to be
able to manage well by themselves, and
seem socially more developed (Belly sells
flower, Parvez can shop and exchange
JMCWH, Vol 10, No 1, January 2012
money). This again may be due to their
family's needs and their exposure to their
neighborhood, community i.e. the layer of
ecology6. The ecological systems within
which they live are obviously different.
Micro, meso and exo systems also differ
among the three children (Table-3).The
immediate environment, home conditions,
parental occupation and neighborhoods,
schooling, and interactions among them, i.e.
the ecosystems are different which they live
and affects Parvez and Belly differently
from Shane and Sharita. Although the meso
system mostly is the same, as they live in the
same country, same city, and same vicinity
of the city.
In communicating and understanding, there
seems to be no particular difference in
academic, and institutional performances of
Shane and Shariata seemed better. It is very
hard to deduce any inference among these 4
cases of the cause and effect of their
outcomes and differentiate them much in
regards to their attainment of
developmental milestones in context to
their environment, but obviously it can be
said that the development among children
living in different environment and different
social and economic context varies, even in
such a small group of population. Thus,
from these small observations, we can say
that Bronfenbrenner's theory obviously is
accurate in describing how the child's
environment and larger world influences
development7. However, it is difficult to
identify which part of the system affects
what aspects of a child's development. In
comparison to other theories of
development, Bronfenbrenner's theory
encompasses much more of those areas
that affect development, including global
politics, religion and wider issues of morals
28

and values, in addition to the child himself
and his family. It also takes child
development from the home to the schools
and neighborhoods, to the community and
nation, and ultimately involves all
policymakers and others' roles in child
development. Since its spectrum is wider,
precision becomes narrower, and therefore,
outcomes may be less unpredictable. There
may be variation in finding if the children
and their family can be supported in
different ways8. Collecting data from all the
systems and determining implications from
the data can be very expensive and time
consuming.
CONCLUSION
It is hard to deduce any inferences in
development when data include
observations from only four cases and two
domains of development. Most children
attain normal developmental milestones and
it is hard to differentiate among them with
only four children under study. However, as
a social study even with this small sample, it
can be said that differences exists among
them. As far as other areas of development,
even in such a small group, much variation
is noted. Thus, it can be said that
Bronfenbrenner's theory describes
development as being influenced by the
personal, social, and political systems within
which children live. Interactions between
the family, school, community, social and
political system, and the individual child will
determine developmental outcomes.
RECOMMENDATIONS
This is a small trial approach to see the
echological effect on Early Child
Development (ECD). A large group trial
can be given to see the Bronfenbrenner's
ecological systems theory to enhance these
29
Ecology of child development
programs for the optimal development of
all children. Further studies can be
undertaken to see the variations of layers of
ecology in Bangladesh and their effect on
child development for better planning of
the early childhood care and development
programs.
REFERENCES
1. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology
of Human Development: Experiments
by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
2. Trawick- Smith, Jeffery W. Early
Childhood development. 4th edition,
Pearson Prentice Hall, Ohio. 2006 p55
3. Richard, Sabates and Shirley Dex.
Multiple risk factors in young children's
development. Cenre for longitudinal
studies Institute of education,
University of London, Feb 2012.
4. Dede Paqquette-John Ryan:
Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems
Theory. Bronfenbrenner's/ webquest/
index.htm.
5. National Scientific Council on the Developing
Child. (2007). A Science-Based Framework
for Early Childhood Policy: Using Evidence
to Improve Outcomes in Learning,
Behavior, and Health for Vulnerable
Children. Center on the Developing Child,
Harvard University (http://
www.developingchild.net/ pubs/ persp/
pdf/ Policy_Framework.pdf)
6. Centre for Community Child Health
(2006). Services for young children and
families: an integrated approach. Policy
Brief 4, 2006. Melbourne, Victoria:
Centre for Community Child Health,
Royal Children's Hospital.
( h t t p : / / w w w. r c h . o r g.
au/emplibrary/ccch/PB4_Children-
family_services.pdf).
JMCWH, Vol 10, No 1, January 2012
 Ecology of child development
7. Moore, T. (2006). Early childhood
development and long term
development: The importance of the
early years. Prepared by Dr Tim Moore,
Centre for Community Child Health,
Murdoch Children's Research Centre,
Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne,
Victoria, June for the Australian
Research Alliance of Children and
Y o u t h .
(http://www.aracy.org.au/AM/Commo
n/pdf/Topical%20Papers/Importance.
pdf)
JMCWH, Vol 10, No 1, January 2012
View publication stats
8. Moore, T. (2007). Supporting Young
Children and their Families: Why we
Need to Rethink Services and Policies,
CCCH Working Paper, prepared by Dr
Tim Moore, Centre for Community
Child Health, Murdoch Children's
Research Centre, Royal Children's
Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria. July.
(http://www.rch.org.au/ccch/resources
.cfm?doc_id=10544).
30