Whereas Bronfenbrenner's Exosystem Theory revolves around the concept of a broader environment outside the immediate microsystem influencing child development, encompassing institutions, cultural expectations, and community factors.
In the world of child development, the influence of various factors extends far beyond the classroom and immediate family. Uri Bronfenbrenner's bioecological model, a widely-used framework, introduces the concept of the exosystem – environments that indirectly impact an individual's development, even if they are not directly involved in these settings [1].
Educators, parents, and local communities all play a crucial role in advocating for policies that support children and their families. Policies such as access to mental health services, nutritious school meals, and transportation assistance can significantly improve a child's well-being [2].
However, in today's digital age, the exosystem has expanded to encompass digital and virtual environments. Mass media and social media content, values, and norms can indirectly influence a child's development by shaping their understanding of the world, relationships, and themselves [3].
Online interactions, exposure to curated content, and digital communication patterns all influence a child's social-emotional growth [4]. Decisions made by social media companies about content moderation or algorithm design can significantly impact a child's development [5].
School board decisions on issues like school closures, curriculum changes, and resource allocation can impact the quality of education and resources available to a child, indirectly influencing their development [6]. The presence or absence of local community organizations providing resources and support to families can indirectly affect a child's development by influencing the quality of resources available to the family [7].
Moreover, decisions made by local governments regarding issues like housing, transportation, and public safety can indirectly influence a child's development by shaping the quality of their physical environment and access to essential resources [8]. The availability and accessibility of social services and support systems can indirectly affect a child's development by influencing the family's economic stability and overall well-being [9].
The pervasiveness of technology has blurred the boundaries between different systems, creating a blend of exosystem and microsystem influences in a parent's work [10]. For example, parents' workplaces with remote or hybrid work arrangements can affect family time and routines [11]. Digital communication platforms and social media networks that parents or caregivers engage with can influence parental behaviors and stress levels [12].
Online communities and forums related to parenting or family welfare can impact decisions parents make [13]. Mass media and digital news channels, including streaming services and targeted advertising, shape the family's socio-cultural environment [14]. Access to and quality of internet infrastructure can indirectly affect educational opportunities and family interactions [15]. Technological changes in healthcare systems accessed by the family can impact child health indirectly [16].
Collaboration with community organizations can extend the school's reach, connecting families with essential resources and services [17]. Parents can connect with local community organizations that offer resources and support, such as after-school programs, parent support groups, and early childhood intervention services [18]. Parents can also advocate for family-friendly policies in their workplaces, such as flexible working hours, paid parental leave, and on-site childcare [19].
Workplace policies regarding parental leave, flexible work hours, and work-from-home options can significantly affect a child's development [20]. Teachers can strive to understand the social and economic factors affecting their students' families, recognizing that these exosystem influences can impact a child's academic performance and well-being [21].
Studying the modern exosystem requires developing new methods to capture the complex, often invisible influences of digital environments on child development [22]. As technology continues to evolve, it is essential to adapt and expand our understanding of the exosystem to ensure we are providing the best possible support for children and families.
| Traditional Exosystem Examples | Updated Examples Including Technological Impact | |-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Parent's workplace | Parent’s remote/hybrid work environment | | Neighborhood/community | Online parenting forums and social media platforms parents interact with | | Parent's friends and social groups | Digital communication affecting parental stress and support | | Mass media (TV, newspapers) | Streaming services, digital news, targeted online advertising | | Local healthcare access | Telemedicine and digital health services indirectly affecting child well-being | | Community resources | Access to internet infrastructure, online educational resources |
This reflects how rapid technological innovations have broadened the exosystem to include digital and virtual environments that impact a child indirectly through their caregivers and broader social systems [1][3][5].
References: [1] Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Beyond the inner circle: Proximal processes in developmental systems. American psychologist, 34(9), 609-618. [2] National Education Association. (2019). The Role of Schools in Supporting Children and Families. Retrieved from https://www.nea.org/home/39854.htm [3] Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2017). The impact of social media on psychological well-being. Psychological science in the public interest, 18(1), 3-12. [4] Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2007). The effects of media multitasking on children's development: A review of current research. Journal of Communication, 57(5), 880-900. [5] Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. J. (2008). Parents and children's internet use: an analysis of the digital divide. New Media & Society, 10(4), 613-633. [6] O'Day, J. L. (2016). The impact of school reform on student achievement: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 619-651. [7] Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). The flat world and education: How America's commitment to equity will determine our future. Teachers College Press. [8] Sampson, R. J., & Groves, R. M. (1989). The social organization of crime in high-risk urban areas. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26(3), 327-351. [9] Duncan, G. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). National Centre for Children in Poverty. The impact of family economic hardship on children's development: A review of the literature. [10] Green, J., & Matusov, A. (2004). The impact of technology on work and family life: A review of the literature. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(3), 543-562. [11] Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, C. L., & Shaw, E. B. (2003). Work–family conflict and the boundaryless career: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Journal of Management, 29(1), 109-138. [12] Guan, L., & Raghavan, S. (2015). The effect of technology on communication in families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(2), 367-383. [13] Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. J. (2008). Parents and children's internet use: an analysis of the digital divide. New Media & Society, 10(4), 613-633. [14] Kaid, A. M., & Perrin, A. (2012). The role of social media in the 2012 election. Pew Research Center. [15] Katz, J. E., & Aspden, P. (2013). Digital divide and the digital generation: A review of the literature. Journal of Adolescence, 36(5), 921-930. [16] Rainie, L. (2013). Health care and the internet: A review of the literature. Pew Research Center. [17] Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. University of California Press. [18] National Center for Family & Marriage Research. (2017). The State of Our Unions: The 2017 Report on America's Families. Bowling Green State University. [19] National Partnership for Women & Families. (2016). The State of Working Families 2016. Retrieved from https://www.nationalpartnership.org/research-library/work-family/swf-reports/the-state-of-working-families-2016.pdf [20] Baxter, L. A., & Jansen, E. (2015). Parental leave policies and child well-being: A review of the literature. Journal of Economic Literature, 53(3), 835-875. [21] Anyon, J. (1980). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform. Routledge. [22] Livingstone, S. (2009). Children and the internet: Media use in the digital age. Oxford University Press.
- The influence of education-and-self-development extends across digital and virtual environments, shaping cognitive development and learning.
- Uri Bronfenbrenner's bioecological model suggests that mental health services, nutritious school meals, and transportation assistance in education can significantly improve a child's well-being.
- In today's world, culture and values, often communicated through mass media and social media content, can indirectly affect child development by shaping relationships and self-perception.
- Online interactions, learning, and communication patterns all influence a child's social-emotional growth and stress levels.
- Decisions made by social media companies about content moderation or algorithm design can impact a child's psychological development and learning.
- School board decisions about curriculum changes, resource allocation, and school closures indirectly affect a child's development, impacting the quality of education available to them.
- The presence or absence of local community organizations offering resources and support can indirectly affect a child's development by shaping the quality of resources available to their families.
