North American Ed - The ecology of childhood

1.1 Contexts

People develop in the context of particular times and places. Children are nurtured in many different kinds of families, homes and communities.

The surrounding terrain and available physical resources contribute to the ease or difficulty of everyday life. Geographical variation in Canada is enormous. Think about the differences in geography between southern British Columbia and Nunavut or the prairies and south coast of Nova Scotia. What does it mean for a child’s daily life? And there are many other factors in the environments that surround children that influence their development and lives. For example, think about the different cultural contexts in each family and community. Think about what supports and services are available for families. What about economic opportunities for families and communities? What does it mean for a child’s daily life?

Bioecological Systems Theory

Dr. Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (1979) has shaped current North American study of child development. His theory, commonly depicted as nested circles, describes the relationships and interactions between a child’s immediate context (family, friends and early childhood programs) to larger environmental systems (national economy, political structures, laws, values and culture). Bronfenbrenner later recognized the influence of a child’s own biological system and incorporated that into this theory, renaming it the bioecological systems theory.

Urie Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory is a major influence in early child development research.

Click on the next review game to check your understanding of Bronfenbrenner’s theory.

While the ecological model of child development places an individual (the child) at the center, the model’s basic insight is that the child’s development occurs within a complex matrix of interpersonal relationships and social institutions” (Woodhouse, 2020, p.74).

American economist Dr. Mildred Warner at Cornell University wants us to think about person, place and context when we think about how children develop. She cautions against the notion that we can “insert a little bit of early education” without considering the child, family, neighbourhood and broader community.

Cultural nature of human development

We cannot separate ourselves from our culture. Culture includes our values, our beliefs and our ways of living. It is inseparable from language and in its broadest sense, encompasses everything we have learned from social experience.

Dr. Lev Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist in the early 20th Century, understood individual human development within its social, cultural and historical context.

Dr. Barbara Rogoff (University of California Santa Cruz) and her colleagues (2003) define human development as a cultural process that takes place through changing participation in cultural activities. Childrearing practices are based in culture and reflect local views about the world and how we should ready children to participate in that world. Cultures select tasks for children. Different circumstances result in very different social skills, cognitive abilities and feelings about one’s self and others.

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory of human development views the individual and his or her culture as separate entities. From this perspective, culture influences the individual through characteristics of the home and community or through the more distant contexts of broader societal institutions. By contrast, Rogoff views culture as inseparable from the individual.

Rogoff’s approach merges Bronfenbrenner’s view that the many layers of a child’s environment interact with Vygotsky’s view that children in all communities are cultural participants, who are living in a particular community at a specific time in history.

The ecological model captures a basic truth about human development: there is no one ‘childhood’ just as there is no one ‘adulthood.’ Instead, every childhood is shaped by and experienced within a living context.  A particular social, cultural, and physical geography sets the stage on which childhood is played out” (Woodhouse, 2020, p. 15).

The following video illustrates the importance of family, play and cultural relevance for children’s programs in Inuit and First Nations communities across Canada.

The next reading, from Early Childhood in Focus, describes different cultural approaches to caregiving.

This final video provides a snapshot of the life of a group of young children growing up in rural Afghanistan. They live in a remote area, in an extended family group. As you watch, consider how this context might impact the children.

Intersectionality

Intersectionality is the complex combination of social factors that form a multi-layered and co-existing identity of an individual. These factors are influenced by experience, history, others’ perspectives, events and more, and can emerge into inequities for people.

Explore the Wheel of Privilege and Power from the Government of Canada, below. This wheel demonstrates the multiple social factors of our identities and the collective power, privilege, or marginalization that exists as a result. As you view the diagram, notice the compound impact of various social factors – both positive and negative.  

Now that you have reviewed some social factors that make up a person’s identity, consider your own. Below you will be able to practice how much or how little power and privilege you have in society.

Read more about intersectionality and its impacts on individuals below. 

Funds of Knowledge

While intersectionality can result in inequities, when Funds of Knowledge of families are used in early childhood programs, children can feel meaningfully included. 

Many children and their families have valuable skills and abilities that are assets. These assets are called Funds of Knowledge (FoK). FoK is the accumulation of cultural and social information that includes diverse, unique and personal experiences with values, roles, skills, ideas, knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, perspectives, traditions, rituals, resources and practices, gained through relations at home, or within the larger social community. In their research Moll, et al. (1992) outlined some FoK that could contribute to any learning environment. These included:  

• Agriculture and Mining
• Material & Scientific Knowledge
• Economics
• Medicine
• Household Management
• Religion

Within each of these categories are more detailed knowledge and experiences.  

Families may have many different types of Funds of Knowledge. See other examples of these assets, below.