Challenging Taken-for-Granted Ideas in Early Childhood ... · “ecological niche” is prevalent in Bronfenbrenner’s theory and models and used extensively within child development

Challenging Taken-for-Granted Ideasin Early Childhood Education: A Critiqueof Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological SystemsTheory in the Age of Post-humanism

Sue Elliott and Julie M. Davis

ContentsIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Pivotal Career Moments from Our Professional Narratives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Bronfenbrenner: An Ecological Model for Human Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

A Theoretical and Discipline Milieu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Iterations on the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Considering Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Bronfenbrenner’s Model and Early Childhood Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Theories Driving Our Reevaluation of Bronfenbrenner’s Models in Early ChildhoodEducation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Systems Theory Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Post-humanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14New Materialism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Critical Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16New Sociology of Childhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

What Might New Ecological Models of Human Development Look Like? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Model 1: Overlay Bronfenbrenner’s Model with UNESCO’s 4 Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Model 2: Add a Biosystems Level as All Encompassing Around Bronfenbrenner’sMacrosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Model 3: Add a Biosystems Level Both Centrally and Outside Bronfenbrenner’sMacrosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Some Resolutions to Addressing the Shortcomings of Bronfenbrenner’s Theory inContemporary Early Childhood Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

S. Elliott (*)University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australiae-mail: [email protected]

J. M. DavisQueensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australiae-mail: [email protected]

# Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018A. Cutter-Mackenzie et al. (eds.), Research Handbook on Childhoodnature,Springer International Handbooks of Education,https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51949-4_60-2

1

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/978-3-319-51949-4_60-2&domain=pdf

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51949-4_60-2

Our Analysis Linking Practice to Our Reconceptualized Bronfenbrenner Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Conclusion: Rethinking the Theoretical Tenets in Early Childhood Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Cross-Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

AbstractA significant theorist in the early childhood education field is Urie Bronfenbrennerwho, in 1979, proposed his “ecological systems theory,” sometimes referred to asthe “ecological framework for human development.” This theory offers a multi-dimensional systems model for understanding the influence of family through toeconomic and political structures; thus, it presents a way of understanding thehuman life course from early childhood through to adulthood. In this theory, theecological framework enables the mapping of information about individuals andtheir contexts over time in order to understand their diverse systemic interconnec-tions. A critique of this model, however, from a childhoodnature stance, is that itignores consideration of human-nature interconnections. Thus, it is a deeplyanthropocentric model of human development that is at odds with emergentpost-humanist thinking that seeks to de-center the human condition. In thischapter, we argue that the pervasiveness of this human-centered systems approachworks against sustainability, in that it reinforces the sociocultural, political, andeconomic dimensions of being human at the expense of environmental intercon-nections. Drawing on systems theory, post-humanist theory, new materialism, acritical lens to pedagogy, and new sociology of childhood, we propose alternativeways of approaching Bronfenbrenner’s work that, both, facilitates human connec-tions and strengthens children and nature connections that have implications forearly childhood education philosophy and pedagogy.

KeywordsBronfenbrenner · Systems theory · Post-humanist theory · Critical theory · Newmaterialism · Sustainability · Early childhood education · Anthropocentricism

Introduction

The most telling criterion for evaluating the health of a society is “the concern of onegeneration for the next.” (p. 1) (Bronfenbrenner, p. xii cited in Pence, 1988)

In 1979, Urie Bronfenbrenner proposed his “ecological systems theory,” some-times referred to as the “ecological framework for human development.” This theoryis a multidimensional systems model for understanding human development withinsociopolitical and cultural contexts and has significantly impacted the early child-hood education field over almost four decades. Bronfenbrenner’s model (1979) isoften foregrounded as core to understandings of young children’s developmentboth in research (Ballam, 2013; Dillon-Wallace, 2011; Rodgers, 2009) and early

2 S. Elliott and J. M. Davis

childhood education practice (Arthur, Beecher, Death, Dockett, & Farmer, 2015;Bowes, Grace & Hodge, 2012; Sims & Hutchins, 2012). In particular, the child isperceived as both influenced and influential within the nested social systems theyinhabit in this ecological model. The mapping of the dynamic interconnectionsbetween individuals and their contexts over time has invited a deepening of educa-tors’ understandings about each child’s human-centered ecologies and trajectoriesin life.

As a psychologist, Bronfenbrenner was embedded in a significant period ofchange in the 1970s when shifts from developmental to sociological approachesfirst emerged, from describing and explaining human development to promoting thebest for human development through examining individual-context relations (Ler-ner, 2005). He advocated the linking of human development to questions of socialpolicy, in other words creating a theory-application bond. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979)model was recognized as groundbreaking and transformative at the time. It must alsobe acknowledged that Bronfenbrenner’s model (1979) signaled a revision of theimages of children, from children as objects of developmental study to their posi-tioning as socially active participants in the world and investigated in context. Thisrevision was subsequently strengthened by the United Nations Convention on theRights of the Child (UNCRC) (UNICEF, 1989), theories of new sociology (Corsaro,2005), and images of children as agentic (Jones, 2009; James, Jenks, & Prout, 1998).As co-authors, we are not the first to call for revisions to Bronfenbrenner’s model.For example, Christensen (2010) has proposed her own enhancement of his modelbased on her critique of the place of the individual’s role in relation to other actors,while Stanger (2011) has questioned the absence of ecological influencers in thishuman-centric model and argued for eco-sociological models. However, our exam-ination focuses on nonhuman interrelationships. While much has been achieved withBronfenbrenner’s model (1979) based on human-human interconnections, now, fourdecades later in the new global epoch of the Anthropocene (Steffen, Crutzen, &McNeill, 2007), we can no longer ignore human-nature interconnections as imper-atives when considering young children’s development and well-being.

Bronfenbrenner’s model (1979) stands as an anthropocentric model of humandevelopment; thus, it is not conducive to understanding or underpinning mattersconcerned with global issues and global futures in the current epoch that is definedby the now dire and detrimental impacts of humans on the Earth. The continuingprioritization of human needs, wants, and relations is untenable when the strongestevidence is that humans are continuing to support lifestyles, systems, and structuresthat are destroying the life-giving capacities of the planet. Because we humans seemto need constant reminding, humanity’s ecological footprint has already exceededthe Earth’s capacity to regenerate and risen to the point where 1.6 planets are neededto provide resources sustainability. Further, the biodiversity index has fallen by morethan 50% (World Wildlife Fund (WWF), 2016) as populations of nonhuman speciescontinue to decline, greenhouse gas emissions have almost doubled, and diverseclimate change impacts have become increasingly apparent (Howes, 2017; Oppen-heimer & Anttila-Hughes, 2016).

Challenging Taken-for-Granted Ideas in Early Childhood Education: A Critique. . . 3

Allied with ecological footprint impacts, there is clear evidence of rising inequal-ities on a number of indexes within and between countries and regions, with strongevidence of increasing gaps between generations (Currie & Deschenes, 2016;Olshansky et al., 2005). This final point makes a clear link between our concernsabout sustainability and the ideas of Urie Bronfenbrenner who, as illustrated in theopening quotation to this chapter, himself, comments that the concern of onegeneration for the next is the true measure of societal health. Thus, we have takenthe liberty of drawing on Bronfenbrenner’s own words as our starting point for thiscritique of his ecological model for human development, in the belief that he wouldhave some measure of understanding of our concerns about its shortcomings in theera of (un)sustainability. This affords us the opportunity to think further aboutBronfenbrenner’s concept of the chronosystem, as a way of thinking more criticallyand expansively about the time dimension in human development.

Further, Bronfenbrenner’s model is counter to emergent post-humanist think-ing that has arisen in the humanities and in education in recent times that seeks tode-center the human condition (Taylor & Hughes, 2016). We argue thatBronfenbrenner’s (1979) more human-centered systems model works against sus-tainability – and, by extension, the development and well-being of children – in thatit reinforces the sociocultural, political, and economic dimensions of being human atthe expense of human-environmental interconnections. As outlined in the UNESCO(2010) dimensions of sustainable development framework, all dimensions are inte-gral to achieving global sustainability, clearly identified as one of the “wickedproblems” (Rittel & Weber, 1973) that impacts us all, but more so on children andfuture generations who will be around the longest bearing the brunt of (un)sustain-able ways of living. This necessitates radical solutions – both in thinking, actions,and relationships to promote childhoodnature.

Lerner (2005) describes the reciprocity of relations fundamental toBronfenbrenner’s model as “exchanges between the person and his or her ecologythat function to benefit both” (p. xix). In this phrasing, “ecology” refers to a person’ssocial context; we note this may be feasible or optimal in the social worlds ofhumans, but humans have overstepped the mark in their relational reciprocity withthe Earth. This incomplete appreciation of reciprocity within a human-centered ideaof ecology is a point of interest for us and is reflected in solid rather than broken linesdepicted in the concentric circles of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) hierarchical systems(Rogoff, 2003). Similarly, Stanger (2011) has argued for a recasting of the modelstating “if we are to use ecosystem-based language, it needs to describe the complexinterrelationships that support the long-term integrity of living systems rather thanthe short term singularity of human-designed marketing” (p. 167). He advocates theinclusion of humans and the physical/natural environment at each system level andalso introduces a nanosystem level to denote the ecological systems beyond thenaked eye. These points have caused us to think further about Bronfenbrenner’s useof the language of ecology.

“Ecology” was coined in the mid-1860s by German Scientist Ernst Haeckel, withconnections to ancient Greek philosophers such as Hippocrates and Aristotle andtheir studies in natural history. Modern ecology became a more rigorous science in


the late nineteenth century, with a surge in interest in 1960s commensurate with therise of the environmental movement (Dritschilo, 2004). There are now stronghistorical and scientific ties between ecology, environmental management, andprotection. The scope of ecology is organized into a nested hierarchy from themicro (genes and cells) to species, populations, communities, and ecosystems,through to the planetary (biosphere).

The idea of an “ecological niche” dates to 1917 with advances in the conceptattributed to Hutchinson (1957) who defined the ecological niche as the relationalposition of a species or population in an ecosystem. The physical environmentis seen as an integral part of the niche because it influences how populations oforganism’s affect, and are affected by, resources and competitors. Use of the term“ecological niche” is prevalent in Bronfenbrenner’s theory and models and usedextensively within child development literature. Berthelsen (2009), for example,writes “Bronfenbrenner argued that every child’s ecological niche is unique becauseeach child experiences and takes part in different relationships and processes ofinteractions across proximal contexts” (p. 4). Further, in the context of new sociol-ogy theory, children are identified as “co-constructors, active creative social agentswho produce their own unique children’s cultures while simultaneously contributingto the production of adult societies” (Corsaro, 2005, p. 3). Given such widespreadusage to explain the uniqueness of children’s experiences, however, it is perhapssurprising that interactions with physical or natural environments in shaping chil-dren’s experiences is mostly absent from his model of human development.

Ecology is as much a human science as it is about the nonhuman and has led tothe parallel/intersecting field of human ecology. Rachel Carson, for example, in her1962 seminal book Silent Spring was one of the first biologists/ecologists to raiseawareness of the power of humans to significantly alter the world. Similarly, at thetime Ehrlich (1968) was the first to question population growth and the capacityof the Earth to sustain exponential human population growth. Human ecology isviewed by many as a truly interdisciplinary science that attracts psychologists,sociologists, anthropologists, geographers, and epidemiologists, for example,whose interests lie in human relations and natural systems. In the seminal work ofhuman ecologist Gerald Young written in 1974, human ecology commonly has threeways of thinking about human-nature relationships: (1) the study of humans as theecological dominant in plant and animal communities and systems; (2) humans assimply another animal being affected by and affecting the physical environment;and, (3) humans as different from animal life in general with interactions with thephysical environment in a distinctive and creative way (Young, 1974). A trulyinterdisciplinary human ecology most likely addresses all three perspectives. Thehuman and ecological transformations of the so-called Anthropocene has ushered ina new science referred to as “coupled human and natural systems” (Liu et al., 2007)reflecting a somewhat earlier systems theory notion of structural coupling (Maturana& Varela, 1987). This is described as two-way interactive relationships whereby theorganism and the context change, recognizing that each impacts the other over timeas in coevolution. Critically, the context is not inert or passive as viewed from aposition of human dominance over nature, and in the epoch of the Anthropocene,


this contextual view is blatantly untenable. Thus, the field of human ecology mustseek to generate new integrated knowledges aimed at understanding the complexi-ties of human-nature interactions as central to the quest for both human well-beingand global sustainability.

It is interesting, however, that Bronfenbrenner’s use of terminology including“ecology,” ecological systems, and niches is unrelated to ecology’s predominantlinks with nature and natural systems. Of interest is that while the study of ecologyis not treated as separate or distinct from humans by ecologists, Bronfenbrenner’s useof ecological terms as a psychologist was not inclusive of nature and natural systems,although he does make reference to “particular physical and material characteristics”of a microsystem setting (1979, p. 22). This oversight, we presume, is because the fieldof ecology was only becoming popularized at the time of his writing (Dritschilo,2004). However, contemporaries of Bronfenbrenner were theorists with an interest inhuman-nature relationships including systems theorist Bateson (1979), deep ecologistBerry (1988), and, most notably, Lovelock (1979) and his Gaia hypothesis. Further,Berry (p. 240) explicitly stated “the natural world is the larger sacred community towhich we belong. To be alienated from this community is to become destitute in allthat makes us human. To damage this community is to diminish our own existence.”Undoubtedly, there are systemic impacts for human development to be recognizedhere. We can only surmise that while Bronfenbrenner was obviously aware of the field,he was not able or prepared to incorporate key ideas about human-nature interactionsinto his thinking and model of human development at the time.

Pivotal Career Moments from Our Professional Narratives

In further articulating this critique of one of early childhood educations’ “holy men,”both authors recognize pivotal career moments when we – quite separately – hadreasons to question or found shortfalls in Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systemsmodel (1979). Davis was co-lecturing in an early childhood education courseconducted in Papua New Guinea (PNG) with local early education “trainers” whowere adding to their qualifications and experiences as elementary teacher educators.The unit of study combined families and community studies with a focus onBronfenbrenner’s model (1979), sustainability aspects employing the UNESCOfour-dimensional model of sustainable development (2010), and health promotioneducation – using both an ecological health-promoting schools model andHancock’s mandala of health model of the human ecosystem (Hancock 1985).While the combined content fitted well together, Davis questioned the lack ofrecognition of the physical/natural environment in discussions aboutBronfenbrenner’s work especially when this was so much a part of the livelihoodsand knowledge systems of many PNG families and communities (Department ofNational Planning andMonitoring (DNPM), 2010). Recognition of their dependenceon market gardens and subsistence farming that nurtures family and communityhealth and well-being was unrepresented when using Bronfenbrenner’s model(1979) yet was clearly evident in the sustainability and health models being


considered. Similarly, Elliott who led the establishment of early childhood environ-mental education in Australia during the mid-1980s (Elliott & Emmett, 1991) canrecall many attempts to seek appropriate literature to support practitioners in the fieldto think about environmental and sustainability issues as having pedagogical rele-vance with young children. She was captured by the title “ecological” inBronfenbrenner’s work only to be disappointed that the model did not include anyaspects of the physical or natural environment. Sharing these past career momentscemented our resolve to offer this critique, and potentially, new ways forward inthinking about how the theories and practices of early childhood education andeducation for sustainability can be brought together to better fit with the challengesand opportunities of the twenty-first century (Figs. 1 and 2).

Thus, in this chapter, we draw on our academic, professional, and researchexperiences as well as our theoretical leanings toward systems theory, post-humanisttheory, new materialism, critical theory, and new sociology of childhood to chal-lenge Bronfenbrenner’s model (1979). We begin by offering an overview of hisecological systems model. Next, we outline the relevant theoretical underpinnings toour critique then offer specific critiques from our axiological and ontological stance.We attempt to offer some resolution to our concerns with vignettes from currentearly childhood education practice that challenge ways of facilitating children and

Macrosystem

Exosystem

Microsystem

IndividualChild

Laws

ExtendedFamily

History

Parent’sWork

Environ-ment

PeersFamiliy

SchoolBoard

CultureNeighborhoods

SiblingsMassMedia

SocialConditions

Economic System

Fig. 1 Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model of human development (1979). Retrieved from https://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=PMC2676270_1471-2458-9-94-1&req=4


https://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=PMC2676270_1471-2458-9-94-1&req=4

https://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=PMC2676270_1471-2458-9-94-1&req=4

nature connections with implications for early childhood education philosophy andpedagogy.

Bronfenbrenner: An Ecological Model for Human Development

In examining Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model, we firstly contextualize hismodel within the theoretical and discipline milieu of the time and then offer anoverview of the model’s iterations with links to sustainability. We further providesome examples identifying how this model has variously been employed within theearly childhood education sphere.

A Theoretical and Discipline Milieu

We acknowledge that there has been some literature investigating Bronfenbrenner’stheory and model(s). For example, Tudge, Mokrova, Hatfield and Karnik (2009)discussed the uses and abuses of his theory, but there appears to be a lack of rigorousacademic critique (Taylor, 2016). We are aware of the work of Boon, Cottrell, King,

Fig. 2 UNESCO (2010) four dimensions of sustainability model Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_gs/mod0a.html # UNESCO, 2010. All Rights Reserved


http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_gs/mod0a.html

http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_gs/mod0a.html

Stevenson, and Millar (2012) who found value in applying his theory in a field alliedwith sustainability – natural disasters and community resilience. However, we arguethat our discussion is the first to critique his work from the perspective of earlychildhood education and sustainability.

As previously acknowledged, although his initial model was recognized to begroundbreaking and transformative at the time of publication – perhaps even atheoretical disruption – we recognize that it occurred when shifts toward sociocul-tural theorizing were underway within the field of human development (Vygotsky,1978). Perhaps Bronfenbrenner can be seen as a pioneer in breaking down thedisciplinary silos of the time. Vygotsky’s theories of social constructivism and socialconstructionism, first translated in 1978, had instigated a movement away fromearlier developmental theorizing (Gesell, 1950; Piaget & Inhelder, 1962). The fieldof human development was evolving at this time as demonstrated by Berthelsen,Lunn, and Johansson (2009, p. 184), and this strengthens our argument for an urgentreevaluation now, four decades later, when anthropocentric models are ill-equippedto foster sustainable futures for all. As has been already commented upon,“Bronfenbrenner moved the field from being an area of scholarship that describedwhat ‘is’ in human development to a science that, through its collaborations withpolicy makers, practitioners, and other social change agents, envisioned what ‘couldbe’ about human development” (Lerner, 2005, pp. xii–xiii). Similarly, we questionwhat “could be” and what “must be” envisioned about human development in theglobal epoch of the Anthropocene (Steffen et al., 2007).

In essence, the point we make here is that Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecologicalmodel was framed within the human-centered sociopolitical-environmental contextof its time. Concerns about the state of the environment were only beginning to beunderstood, for example, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962) had just beenreleased, and Erhlich’s (1968) population predictions were alarmingly dire. How-ever, concerns as a global issue and connections between human health and well-being were yet to be widely recognized. The United Nations Conference on theHuman Environment (Stockholm Conference) in 1972 was the UN’s first majorconference on international environmental issues and marked a turning point in thedevelopment of international environmental politics. Also, pertinent to this milieuare the then-contemporary environmental education initiatives such as TheBrundtland Report (WCED, 1987) and Agenda 21 (UNCED, 1992) which demon-strated a shift in thinking toward sustainability as comprising multiple dimensions,namely, economic, social, and environmental; and this prompted longer-term humanthinking and action for the intergenerational equity of all species. Concurrently in thefield of health promotion was the World Health Organization’s Ottawa Charter forHealth Promotion (1986) that emphasized that “Good health is a major resource forsocial, economic and personal development and an important dimension of qualityof life. Political, economic, social, cultural, environmental, behavioural and biolog-ical factors can all favour health or be harmful to it” (p. 1). We question, wasBronfenbrenner (1999, 2001) aware of these shifts as he continued to reframe hisoriginal ecological model, through the 1990s, to become the bioecological model of2001? We see our reevaluation of his model as being in the same vein.


Iterations on the Model

In referring to Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model, it is important to recognize thatthe first iteration published in 1979, and most often referred to in the literature, wasnot the only version. This initial model is frequently described as contextuallyfocused acknowledging the diverse social contexts influencing human development.Bronfenbrenner depicted these social contexts as concentric nested circles compris-ing the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem. The microsystemalerts us to the child’s immediate settings, those settings that a child participates in ona daily basis including his/her home, school, or early childhood center. The meso-system is about interactions and interrelationships between the microsystems, and inour tertiary teaching experience this is a somewhat perplexing system level given thelack of specific settings or entities. The exosystems are those social structures orsettings both formal and informal where a child is not directly involved but may haveindirect impacts for a child such as a parent’s workplace or extended family. Themost outer system is the macrosystem that comprises the broader level policies,political institutions, and cultural beliefs that have import for all systems. Thesesystem-level contexts and interactions were initially reflected as given points in time,but Bronfenbrenner subsequently added the chronosystem to denote dynamic systemchanges over the human life span. Also, although he aligned the model with nestedRussian babushka dolls (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 3), the various systems or struc-tural levels are not discrete, but integrated throughout the course of human devel-opment. Bronfenbrenner (1999, 2001) engaged in an ongoing reassessment andcritique of his original model leading to various iterations over time. Here wehighlight key aspects of these iterations relevant to our critique.

A focus in Bronfenbrenner’s later 1990s theorizing is the person-process-context-time (PPCT) model where the interrelationships between these four concepts cometo the fore (Lerner, p. xv), overriding the contextual-only focus of his originalmodel (1979). In this later iteration, interrelationships were framed as proximalprocesses – reciprocal, enduring, and increasingly complex (Bronfenbrenner,1995, 1999) – such descriptors resonate well today.

However, we raise concerns when such interrelationships most often allude toeveryday anthropocentric objects and symbols such as toys and hobbies(Bronfenbrenner, 1999) when it is obvious that people also interact intimately on amoment-by-moment basis with the physical environment, for example, dailyweather ranging from the inconvenience of rain or wind to extreme weather eventsimpact human lives. Only now with climate change modeling are the impacts ofchanging weather patterns on human life courses, particularly children’s, evident andthe reciprocity of these interrelationships with the physical environment beingrecognized (Zivin & Shrader, 2016). In addition, while the PPCT model acknowl-edges the personal or dispositional characteristics that any individual brings to theiractive interactions in social contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1995), he describes suchactive interactional focus as “proclivities to set in motion, sustain and enhanceprocesses of interaction between the organism and particular features of persons,objects and, symbols in its environment” (Bronfenbrenner, 1995, p. 634). We hold


no argument with such proclivities and view them as core to transformative pro-cesses for sustainability. We consider that these dispositional characteristics do notgo far enough. Our main argument is that a deeper and broader interpretation ofenvironment needs to be part of systems where these tendencies are enacted. In thecontext of our critique, might we now include sustainable worldviews, ethics, andvalues held by the individual?

Considering Time

In support of his theorizing, Bronfenbrenner (1999) also offered four guiding lifecourse principles that highlight change over time. He acknowledges each individ-ual’s life course is shaped by conditions and events during their historical life period,and the timing of biological and social transitions throughout this period is key. InBronfenbrenner’s (1917–2005) own lifetime, the challenges of human-centeredsocial and economic change ranging from world wars to industrialization andevolving family dynamics were at the fore as evidenced by his examples(Bronfenbrenner, 1999). As we have indicated previously, the current global histor-ical period of the Anthropocene (Steffen et al., 2007) and the now ongoing transi-tions in human lives attributed to climate change (Currie & Deschenes, 2016) offer acompelling rationale for rethinking Bronfenbrenner’s model and its various itera-tions (1979, 1999, 2001). Bronfenbrenner (p. 22) reminds us in Life Course Princi-ple 4, for example, that “within the limits and opportunities afforded by thehistorical, cultural and socioeconomic conditions in which they live, human beingsthemselves influence their own development – for better or for worse -through theirown choices and acts.” The inherent sentiments are clear; our argument is to alsoinclude nonhuman environmental conditions and to consider all “choices and acts”as having consequences beyond those of current individuals, i.e., to consider theintergenerational legacy of our choices and acts.

Furthermore, in reviewing his original model, Bronfenbrenner (1979) recognizedthe role of biological determinants of the individual, and a bioecological model wasproposed (Bronfenbrenner, 2001), thus, bringing together human social ecologiesand individual human biological determinants into a more comprehensive whole.However, we argue that this development is still not comprehensive enough forthose advocating for childhoodnature aligned worldviews that integrate humans andnature and who have concerns for long-term intergenerational sustainable futures.Stanger (2011) has previously stated that the chronosystem must be extended toinclude evolutionary time scales. Further, we might provoke, is the nonhuman and/orphysical environment potentially framed beyond these nested human systems and allencompassing, or situated within and impacted by human social systems, or integraland across all nested systems. Reframing these intersections over more than a humanlifetime offers a unique challenge that we return to in later pages of this chapter.

Lastly, we do not purport to offer a comprehensive overview of Bronfenbrenner’stheorizing and iterations here but have targeted those aspects that most invite bothcritique and offer support from our global sustainability and eco-centric stance. We


acknowledge the challenges inherent in this approach as others have cautioned aboutthe overly simplistic interpretations of Bronfenbrenner’s work which abound in bothresearch and practitioner literature (Tudge et al., 2013). Nevertheless, we are inspiredby Bronfenbrenner to proceed when he states “the possibilities of ecologies as yetuntried . . . hold a potential for human natures yet unseen, perhaps possessed of awiser blend of power and compassion than has thus far been manifested” (1979,p. xiii).

Bronfenbrenner’s Model and Early Childhood Education

Along with the theories of Vygotsky (1978), Bronfenbrenner’s theory (1979) hasbeen significant in shaping early childhood education worldwide (Härkönen, 2003;Sims & Hutchins, 2012; Penn, 2005) including in early childhood teacher education,as a theoretical basis for early childhood education curriculum and pedagogy andin research. The following diverse examples offer insights into the range and depthof impacts.

In the early 1960s, for example, Bronfenbrenner was specifically engaged withthe early childhood education field through the American government-funded HeadStart program (American Psychologist’s Association, 2004). At a time of nationalsocial justice concern, the program aimed to address the deficits experienced byyoung children living in poverty through early intervention. The program involvedcoordinated efforts by professionals, communities, and parents (Hinitz, 2014), andthe intent was to offer a more holistic approach to promoting young children’sdevelopment through early childhood education. The Head Start program has beensustained over decades now and facilitated interventions with some 32 millionchildren (Head Start Office, n.d.). Multiple research studies have identified benefits,but questions are still raised about the longer-term outcomes for children (Hinitz,2014). Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) approach to human development as occurringwithin multiple interactive social systems continues to underpin the Head Startprograms today, but rethinking is needed given continuing social inequities andespecially those being exacerbated with climate change (Currie & Deschenes, 2016).

More recently, Krishnan (2010) described a Canadian provincial early childhooddevelopment-mapping project that utilized an Early Development Index (EDI)instrument based on Bronfenbrenner’s model (Janus & Offord, 2007). The overallEDI aim was to offer estimates of child development at the time of school entry witha focus on the multilevel systems and interactions that accounted for each child’sdevelopment. Implementation of the mapping project led to development of aconceptual ecological model taking into consideration individual and environmentalfactors, again with a focus on addressing social inequalities. In reporting this project,Krishan (2010) recognized the “physical environment” as a variable within the broadscope of neighborhoods and community, proffering examples including urbaniza-tion, nonprofit organizations, and transportation resources, thus retaining an anthro-pocentric lens. However, Krishan (2010, p. 14) notes as a concluding limitation tothe conceptual ecological model “Among other things, an aspect not addressed in the


proposed model but critical to children’s development is that of physical environ-ment, including exposure to toxins and pesticides in a variety of contexts.” Thislimitation offers a glimpse into a less anthropocentric lens, akin to the health modelspreviously noted, but from our stance much more is feasible.

Further, we highlight an early childhood education tertiary text, one of a numberciting Bronfenbrenner’s model (1979) as foundational to the publication (Arthuret al., 2015; Bowes et al., 2012; Page & Tayler, 2016). The text by Sims andHutchins (2012) focuses on program planning for infants and toddlers supportinga holistic approach to embracing the multiplicity of systems and interactions thatcritically impact on early development. Advocacy for infant and toddler programs tobest support their learning and development is applauded; however, these authorsonly refer to the physical environment for the establishment of appropriate indoorand outdoor playspaces. This is not the global physical environment related toenvironmental and sustainability crises that we identify as a “blind spot” (Wagner,1993) for many early childhood education authors. We argue that continued refer-ence to Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) anthropocentric model fails to fully convey theimpacts of the physical environment in the Anthropocene (Steffen et al., 2007). Forexample, Zivin and Shrader (2016) state that higher global temperatures are linked toincreasing global rates of childhood disease, plus water and food scarcity withpotential to seriously impede early development leading to lifelong consequences.This is not to deny the complexity of human social, economic, and political systemfactors impacting very young children but to argue for a more inclusive andeco-centrically informed consideration of all local and global factors.

In these examples, we note how Bronfenbrenner’s model has contributed toshaping early childhood education as anthropocentric, and its use continues almostwithout question to create explicitly human-centered approaches when examiningchildren’s learning and development. One exception is McCrea and Littledyke’s(2015) adaptation of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) model that offers practical guidancefor educators seeking to link his model to education for sustainability and thepillars of sustainability with a focus on children’s health and well-being. Whilethis adaptation offers much potential, our intent here is to more deeply theorize ourconcerns for the early education more broadly, particularly with reference to post-humanist thinking. Overall, the exemplars above give little or no place for moreeco-centric and holistic views of human/child interests as shaped both by andwith the physical environment. The world has changed since the 1970s, andBronfenbrenner’s work needs reconceptualizing or disrupting to account for thecontemporary challenges of the Anthropocene (Steffen et al., 2007).

Theories Driving Our Reevaluation of Bronfenbrenner’s Modelsin Early Childhood Education

In this section, we discuss five theoretical perspectives that have influenced ourcritique of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) model and offer a way forward for addressingthe dilemmas that have become evident through this critique. We believe these offer


new insights into thinking about and enacting early childhood education in light ofthe sustainability challenges and complexities of lived experiences and relationshipsin the twenty-first century.

Systems Theory Perspective

Systems theory is core to the discussions here, and we recognize the contemporarysystems theorists who built interdisciplinary bridges by examining mathematicalsystems, biological systems, and human social systems. In particular, Bateson(1979), and Maturana and Varela (1987) identified the primacy of relationshipsover objects in the interweaving of social and ecological systems in a holisticmanner. “A system may be defined as a set of elements standing in interrelationamong themselves and with the environment” (Von Bertalanffy, 1972, p. 417). A keytenet of systems is that they self-regulate to maintain stability through a constantmessaging and responsive recalibration to promote ongoing stability and adaptive-ness. If humans and nature are considered as a dualism, as was the case in the 1970sand still is for many, we can posit humans as unable to perceive, respond, andadaptively recalibrate. The resulting disequilibrium now has a name, theAnthropocene (Steffen et al., 2007). The current disequilibrium reflects dynamicsystems theory (Thelen & Smith, 1994), which emphasizes the ongoing fluctua-tions of systems over an extended time frame from simplicity to complexity andback again.

Further, the persistence of dualism can be linked to the conceptualization ofsystems as open or closed proposed by Von Bertalanffy (Weckowicz, 2000). Anopen system is characterized by ongoing exchanges between internal elements of thesystem and the environment, whereas closed systems are discrete or removed.Perhaps for too long, humans have perceived their existence within closed“human-centric systems” like Bronfenbrenner’s model (1979), removed from thephysical environment and without responsibilities for ongoing reciprocal exchanges.Bateson doubted we could survive as a species if humans persisted in viewing theworld in terms of dualisms. He asserted (Bateson, 1979) that mind and nature wereone organism and the influential interrelationships between mind and nature pro-moted stability as in one whole organism akin to Lovelock’s (1979) Gaia hypothesis.Humans are only part of the Earth’s systems and can never control them; hence, thedynamics and reciprocity of interrelationships between humans and nature must berecognized in any theorizing about human development.

Post-humanism

As previously noted post-humanist thinking seeks to de-center the human conditionand challenge entrenched human-nature dualisms. Post-humanism is not one distinctparadigm with a readily traceable lineage, but “a constellation of different theories,


approaches, concepts and practices” (Taylor, 2016, p. 6). Links are evident toecofeminism, queer theory, Indigenous theories, deep ecology, systems theory,new materialism, and eco-centrism. In essence post-humanism invites an explorationof different ontologies about being in the world with a relational and ethical focus toothers, both human and more-than-human. In moving beyond dualisms, Latour(2004) proposed “common worlds” as collective and relational spaces with sharedagencies. Common worlds are “full of entangled and uneven historical and geo-graphical relations, political tensions, ethical dilemmas and unending possibilities”(Taylor, 2013, p. 62). Bronfenbrenner’s model (1979) does suggest as entanglementof human interrelationships over time, but we echo post-humanist Braidotti (2013) inseeing the “potential to contest the arrogance of anthropocentrism and the excep-tionalism of the humans” (p. 66). The implications of post-human theorizing are nowbeing acknowledged in the education field (Taylor & Hughes, 2016). Commonworld pedagogies aim to avoid children-as-subjects learning about nature-as-object;it is about learning with or becoming worldly with the others in the human and more-than-human collective (Taylor, 2013). Further, Rooney (2016) describes “commonworlding” as a pedagogical approach to exploring these messy, shared, andenmeshed worlds with generative potential for thinking differently about ethicsand relations. Post-humanist thinking brings a unique ethical lens to how humansperceive themselves in the world with others and challenges the anthropocentricfoundations of Bronfenbrenner’s model (1979).

New Materialism

Closely aligned with post-humanist thinking, “new materialism” – also sometimesreferred to as socio-materialism – is a term applied to a series of theoreticalmovements across several fields including philosophy, biology, and the humansciences that critiques anthropocentrism and links social and material conditions(social relations, other species, physical context, objects) to human consciousnessand learning (McKenzie & Bieler, 2016). Such a critique challenges the long-heldidea of human exceptionality over other entities (Weldemariam, 2017). It empha-sizes the self-organizing powers of many nonhuman processes, explores dissonantrelations between such processes and human/cultural practices, rethinks the sourcesof ethics beyond the human, and commends the folding of a planetary dimensionmore overtly and regularly into studies of global, international, and national and stategovernance (Connelly, 2013). A new materialist perspective, rather than promotingnature/environment as something to be saved, controlled, or mastered, emphasizesthe mutually constitutive and entangled relationships between humans within a“common world” (Latour, 2004; Taylor, 2013). Exploration of relations from anew materialism framework does dramatically portray the fragility of “materials”and relationships today. As a theoretical tool, it forces us to problematize anthropo-centric thinking and invites us to rethink human relationships with the physicalworld/environment.


Critical Theory

Critical theory is a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as awhole, in contrast to theories oriented only to understanding or explaining howsocieties and social structures work or don’t work. Critical theory provides a basisfor investigating power relationships, and, as a result, it has a strong focus on themarginalization of some social groups (Freire, 1999 first published 1972; Habermas,1971). Historically, these groups have included the poor, women, people of color,and gays and lesbians. Critical theories aim to dig beneath the surface of social lifeand uncover the assumptions that keep us from a full and true understanding of howthe world works. Critical theory can be recognized today in many feminist theoriesand feminist approaches to conducting social science, critical race theory, culturaltheory, gender and queer theory, and in media theory and media studies. It has alsoinfiltrated the ways that scholars do research with, for example, critical actionresearch and critical discourse analysis (CDA) being just two approaches derivedfrom applying a critical orientation to research problems.

As it relates to environmental and sustainability matters, marginalized groupsinclude children, future generations, as well as nonhuman species (Borkfelt, 2011),places, and even natural elements, such as water, soil, and air. There is a significantbody of work that investigates and theorizes, specifically, issues of the environmentfrom a critical theoretical lens, for example, Luke (2003).

Critical theory also assists in understanding how education systems have playedtheir part in this marginalization (Stevenson, 2007). In particular, Stevenson (2007)argues that there is a fundamental contradiction in purpose and practice betweenwhat schools do, i.e., primarily construct a workforce to build and maintain capital-ism perceived by many as the root cause of the problems, and issues confronting theglobe; thus, growing inequalities and environmental/climate disruptions are evident.The goals of a critical education are to seek to empower learners to identify the socialand cultural issues that lead to such exploitation and to change things for the better.The application of Freirean ideas of emancipation – with a focus on giving voice,engaging in dialogue and transformation – has been embraced by several education-alists (Apple, 1996; Giroux, 1992; McLaren, 1989) and is known as critical peda-gogy with application across a broad range of schooling subjects (Haque, 2007).These principles are also deeply embedded in approaches to environmental andsustainability education. In McLaren’s recent work (2015), he has updated hisdiscussions linking environmentalism and critical pedagogy and now uses the term“critical ecopedagogy” that is discussed later in this chapter.

New Sociology of Childhood

Lastly, we refer to the new sociology of childhood (Corsaro, 2005) and perceive thistheoretical lens as firmly aligned to the empowerment of learners and change for thebetter as described above. Childhood is most often recognized as a predeterminedbiological stage, but James et al. (1998) have long-argued childhood is constructed,


culturally determined, and changes over time. Emerging in the 1980s alongside theUNCRC (1989), new sociology of childhood departed from traditional images ofchildhood where children were seen as incomplete individuals disconnected fromsociety at large, or as a universal cohort passively enculturated by adults (Corsaro,2005). New sociology positions children as active contributors to and interpreters oftheir social worlds; they are social actors in globally diverse social systems withindividual accounts and voices to be valued, respected, and responded to by others(James et al., 1998). These accounts largely resonate with Bronfenbrenner’s model(1979), but across the spheres of early childhood education and education forsustainability, such images strongly impact educators’ pedagogical approaches andoffer potential for researching with children. Christensen and James (2000) initiallypromoted a shift toward authentically recognizing young children as research par-ticipants and experts about their experiences; and, this approach often underpinsearly childhood education for sustainability research (Davis & Elliott, 2014). Inthese contexts, children are perceived as more than participatory individuals acrossmultiple social systems; they are active social change agents with potentially farreaching impacts (Mackey, 2014).

In summary, we argue – through the alternative theoretical perspectives intro-duced above – that continued reliance on Bronfenbrenner’s theory of child devel-opment in early childhood education works against ideas embedded insustainability and education for sustainability (EfS). These include ideas abouthumans as interrelated with nature and the more-than-human world rather than asseparate from; humans as critical thinkers and ethical social beings with collectivepotential for change rather than as disempowered individuals; and, humans asintegral to the dynamics of interactive global systems beyond human life times.Reliance on human-centric systems is both outdated and deeply inadequate in thetwenty-first century we postulate and serves to alienate and disempower childrenin dealing with contemporary lives and challenges as much as it has served tosupport and nurture their development in positive ways. However, as stated earlier,we consider that Bronfenbrenner’s idea of the chronosystem offers a bridgebetween human-centric ideas of growth and development and our contemporaryconcerns with sustainability because of the reference to time, the future, andintergenerational connections.

What Might New Ecological Models of Human Development LookLike?

As we have researched for, and authored, this chapter, we have played with severalmodels of our own about how to represent Bronfenbrenner’s ideas within thecontemporary milieu of sustainability. In our reconceptualization of new ways oflooking at the work of Bronfenbrenner (1979), we have engaged in a playful dialogicof models. Here we share our initial possibilities for (re)presenting his work. Wehave not come up with a “best” model. Indeed, we have three models – each usingBronfenbrenner’s more recent bioecological model (2001) as a starting point.


Model 1: Overlay Bronfenbrenner’s Model with UNESCO’s4 Dimensions

Initially struck by the circularity of both the UNESCO (2010) model of sustainabilityincorporating four dimensions and Bronfenbrenner’s (2001) model, can we simplysuperimpose one on the other? If so, all dimensions of sustainability are overtly seento overlay and impact all the hierarchical systems levels of Bronfenbrenner’s socialmodel (2001), adding significant depth and relational complexity. For example, thenatural/conservation dimension which comprises “all living things resources and lifesupport systems” (UNESCO, 2010) intersects and can be mapped to the individual,the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem at any point in time andover time as the hierarchical human systems and natural world evolve and changeenmeshed together (Fig. 3).

NATURALPO

LIT

ICAL

SOCIAL ECONOMIC

History

SocialMass

MediaNeighborhoods

ServiceManagement

Family

Peers

Siblings

Culture

Laws

ExtendedFamily

Parent’sWork

Environment

MESOSYSTEM

MICROSYSTEM

EXOSYSTEM

MACROSYSTEM

INDIVIDUALCHILD

EconomicSystem

Fig. 3 Model 1: Overlay Bronfenbrenner’s model with UNESCO’s 4 dimensions


Model 2: Add a Biosystems Level as All Encompassing AroundBronfenbrenner’s Macrosystem

Another possibility is to recognize biosystems (physical and nonhuman elements) asan additional hierarchical level for Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model (2001),depicted as an additional outer concentric circle. Hence, biosystems become allencompassing beyond the macrosystem of human-centric policies, values, andcultural beliefs. The outer biosystems level has impacts at all levels in the human-centered hierarchy of systems, and, equally, humans are impacting the biosystems asrealized in global climate change. We move beyond broken lines to depict thepermeability of the hierarchical systems (McCrea & Littledyke, 2015; Rogoff,2003) to a shaded model depicting systemic embeddedness. These changes acknowl-edge that the dynamics of biosystems ultimately determine human development andglobal sustainability as a whole (Fig. 4).

MESOSYSTEM

MICROSYSTEM

EXOSYSTEM

MACROSYSTEM

EARTH’S BIOSYSTEM

INDIVIDUALCHILDFamily

Siblings

Culture

Laws

Parent’sWork

Environment

ExtendedFamily

MassMedia

ServiceManagement

Neighborhoods

History

Peers

EconomicSystem

Social

Fig. 4 Model 2: Add a biosystems level as all-encompassing around Bronfenbrenner’smacrosystem


Model 3: Add a Biosystems Level Both Centrally and OutsideBronfenbrenner’s Macrosystem

There may also be merit in strengthening human interrelationships with biosystemsby recognizing biosystems centrally in Bronfenbrenner’s model (2001) as well asbeyond the macrosystem as in Model 2. The individual at the center is intimately anddaily actively interacting with local biosystems, whether or not humans are aware ofthis relationship – with capacities to drive agentic change that may ripple outward.This combined model reflects the “act local, think global” maxim of the environ-mental movement and identifies individuals and the microsystems they inhabit withcapacities for action and change across the hierarchies of social systems and com-plexities of global interrelationships over time (Fig. 5).

MESOSYSTEM

EXOSYSTEM

MACROSYSTEM

EARTH’S BIOSYSTEM

INDIVIDUALCHILD’S LOCAL

BIOSYSTEM

History

MassMedia

Neighborhoods

ServiceManagement

FamilyPeers

Siblings

EconomicSystem

Culture

Laws

ExtendedFamily

Parent’sWork

Environment

MICROSYSTEM

Social

Fig. 5 Model 3: Add a biosystems level both centrally and outside Bronfenbrenner’s macrosystem


We have no one preferred model or response at this time, but are keen to continueplaying with Bronfenbrenner’s model to give it relevance for today in early child-hood education.

Some Resolutions to Addressing the Shortcomingsof Bronfenbrenner’s Theory in Contemporary Early ChildhoodEducation

From our positions as specialists and researchers in early childhood education forsustainability over the past 25 years, we know that there is a small but growingnumber of educators who have engaged with newer frames of early childhoodeducation with sustainability in mind. In this section, three vignettes contributedby leading educators in early childhood pedagogical practice demonstrate howreimagined Bronfenbrenner (1979, 2001) models that account for a sustainabilityparadigm might look in practice. Following the vignettes, we offer a tabulatedanalysis of links between the approaches described in the vignettes and ourcritiques and theorizing. For the time being, we collectively call such approaches“critical eco-pedagogies for early childhood education,” after the work ofMcLaren (2015).

Vignette 1: Bubup Wilam Aboriginal Child and Family Centre, Victoria LisaG. Thorpe, Gunditjmara, Gunnai woman CEO and Angie Zerella, Educationand Training ManagerBubup Wilam is a self-determined Aboriginal Child and Family Centre cateringfor the education, health, and well-being needs of Aboriginal children aged6 months to 6 years and their families. The purpose and the philosophy ofthe Centre was developed by the local Aboriginal community for Aboriginalpeople. Underpinned by Aboriginal, social justice and rights-based pedagogies,we aim to support children in collaboration with their families to build strong andproud Aboriginal identities as their foundation for lifelong learning health andwell-being.

With the inequities in health, well-being, and educational outcomes for Aborig-inal people in Australia, Bubup Wilam strives to provide children and theirfamilies with the support they need to be self-determining in their own livesenhancing their opportunity to reach their full human potential. This requires aholistic pedagogical approach which is underpinned by an Aboriginal perspective.This is inclusive of children’s spiritual connection to country, connection to kin,and connection to where they are from and who they are. This incorporates waysof the past, present, and future and respects those that have walked this land beforethem, those that walk with them now, and those that will walk this land in thefuture.

Our connection to country program supports children’s spiritual connection totheir world and respects the interdependence between human, animal, and nature.


It challenges them to critically reflect on their custodianship rights and responsibil-ities. Our children respect the spirit of the land and are taught not take anything offcountry as you remove the spirit and disrupt the space. We only use what we needwhile on country and leave as little damage behind as is possible. The hierarchy ofhuman as dominant is challenged as the life and spirit of all things is acknowledged,and respect and equity for everything in our space is embedded in the way interac-tions occur within it.

Modern-day tools are not used due to the damage they would inflict on whateverthey come into contact with. When relationships are formed with land, life is given tothe two parties and the interactions are respectful and considerate. Our children learnabout all living things that they share their space with, and they research habitats,respect potential dangers, and learn to live respectfully and in unison with all aspectsof their world and all who share it with them. They learn to appreciate the complex-ities of life and their responsibility in keeping their world healthy, well, clean, andnourished.

Our children know the country they are from and the extra responsibility theyhave as traditional owners of that land. This gives them strength and connects themstrongly to their identity as young Aboriginal children. They know that when onother people’s country, they have responsibility to respect their country to lookafter it and ensure it is cared for. For our children, we are on Wurundjeri countryand we acknowledge this every day. This naturally ensures a world for sustain-ability is embraced; this is through a relationship of historical connections, respect,and equity.

The challenge for our center in embracing this pedagogy is the cost of takingour children out on country in local bushlands, but this is far outweighed bythe outcomes for our children and their families. Many of our families partic-ipate in the program which brings a richness of knowledge that is shared withthe children. Being on country enables our children to connect to nature in amuch richer way than in the yard at our service as they have a much deeperrespect for the way they interact with their world and are activists for socialchange in sustainability as there is so much to protect. Connecting with countryso richly has changed the way both children and educators interact withcountry back at our service where we extend on the richness of learningprovided to us.

Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model focuses on the impact of human con-nections and relationships on the lives of children. This is also inclusive of thepolitical context and the time, era, and place that the child grows up. However, itsilences the importance of the natural world and the impact this has on children’slives. For our children this is central to their healthy life outcomes and to theiridentity. Family connections and ancestry is vital in developing strong identities,but this is never in isolation to knowing the land one is from and the stories of thatland over time. Protecting land through an Aboriginal lens is central to health andwell-being. A true ecological systems theory cannot silence the importance of this(Fig. 6).


Vignette 2: Bunyaville Environmental Education Centre, Queensland NoeleenRowntree, PrincipalBunyaville Environmental Education Centre (EEC) sits in the middle of the forest.To enter this forest, you rumble along a dirt road with car wheels crunching ongravel. As you step out from your vehicle onto the earth, you are surrounded andimmediately dwarfed by very tall gum trees. The many bird sounds chatter aroundyou. You have arrived in the “classroom” of the Bunyaville EEC – the forest and thebush. Bunyaville EEC is a Department of Education and Training of Queenslandfacility. Bunyaville EEC accommodates all ages from birth to adult, formal schoolyears P-Year 12, kindergarten, and early childhood from birth to 5 years.

At Bunyaville EEC we value a world where people care for themselves, others,and place (connecting to country), taking learning outside through experiencing,connecting, and enabling everybody to be part of sustainable futures. For us, it isabout learning naturally and relationships matter, both to others and the Earth(country). Bunyaville as a place is very important, and it is the place that shapesour pedagogy across all age groups. As all of us from birth onward live more andmore urban lives, connection and/or reconnection to natural places needs to bescaffolded. Across the years perceived fears of the bush have shaped our programdesign particularly in the early years. Most children are with us for the whole daywith children from birth to 5 years spending 2 h with us outside. Whatever the age,it is important for the experience to be positive and joyous. For our visitors, timebecomes irrelevant once we have entered the forest. Time doesn’t seem to matteras we explore, play, discover, learn, tell stories, feel, smell, and touch the naturalworld with each person immersed totally in the moment of being in the natural

Fig. 6 Bubup Wilam Aboriginal Child and Family Centre, Victoria


world. It is this total immersion that suspends time. We believe this full immersionprovides the experiences and helps connect individuals to the natural world.

What does it look like when place is at the center of your pedagogy? Purposefulprogram design and teacher pedagogy scaffold the learning for everyone. Thelearner, no matter what their age, is placed at the center of the learning seen as acomponent and capable problem-solver. Purposeful program design moves thelearner from the familiar into the less familiar forest experience. Every learnerspends time in the forest. So, if I am 2, 3, or 4 years of age, I arrive to see somefamiliar things that I can do. Maybe there is a cardboard box, storybooks, woodenblocks, paint brushes, and water that I can use immediately. This invites youngchildren to engage in readily recognizable opportunities for play. Remembering thatthis may be my first time as a child to have been in a forest, the familiar provides aneasy place to start. Meanwhile, the forest sits and waits, going nowhere while I playwith the familiar. Ever present the forest waits, and in a very short time we all eagerlytransition seamlessly into the forest.

When in the forest, it is the many different places that drive the learning. Everyplace in the forest provides different opportunities. The natural materials, thespecial animal homes, the fallen log, and giant tree become the places for learning.Being attentive to the many parts, developing stories, adopting an inquiryapproach, being in naive fellow, or empowering children to look, touch, feel, andsee and encouraging children to ask questions, by answering with a question suchas “I wonder . . .,” can deepen the engagement, the experience, and ultimately, theconnection.

Knowledge of the place matters here also. This is knowledge of what works bestin what part of the forest. For example, knowledge of where to sit children comfort-ably to tell a story, where to invite children to explore freely, and how to setboundaries with children when there are no walls. Knowledge of where conversa-tions are best had and where might the wallaby sleep on a hot day? Where will weneed extra equipment to add to the captured moment? How to help children to see themicro in the vastness of the forest? Also, knowing the coolest route to walk aftera hot morning. The teacher needs to understand and to have experienced the place.The place drives what you do. As the teacher, the place speaks to you aboutthe relevant pedagogy as you flow through the natural area. It is when you areoutside in the forest that humans begin to see that they are part of the whole, and notthe whole itself.

From being in the forest human-nature interconnections develop and deepen. Theteacher extends the learning by being in, doing, resting, reflecting, and questioning.Children may arrive wondering what “monsters lurk in the corners of the ponds” anddepart telling you that they want to stay forever as they want to be a plant to help theforest. In a very short space of time, fears about the forest melt. Children understandthe interconnections of the natural world, understand ecological issues, understandthe environmental issues and problems and, most importantly, understand their roleand how they can make a difference. It is not a case of waiting until I am grown up todo something. It is about right now; and, this is what I can do.


This approach works; however, the biggest challenges are adult perceptionsabout learning outside. Many adults perceive no learning happens outside of fourwalls, and in the formal school years, teachers can be told to stay inside to learn.In the before school years, adults and caregivers may feel afraid of being outside,and it is the adult fears that become the barriers. When teaching a pedagogy ofplace, the teacher trusts the learner as being competent and capable. The teacher isa co-learner and model with each child. If the teacher is content focused only,the human-nature interconnections is diminished as naming and labeling moveslearning into the head and away from the heart and hands – the experience andconnection. The program design and pedagogy slows time for the learner. Twohours is but a moment (Fig. 7).

Vignette 3: Quirindi Preschool Kindergarten, New SouthWales Director AlisonThompsonQuirindi Preschool Kindergarten is a rural community-based not-for-profit preschoolwith a commitment to EfS, community connections, arts in nature, and bush pro-grams. Our learning framework values play-based learning, sensory integration, andlearning-style groups organized around how each child learns. When consideringthese groups, educators observe children at play and reflect on how much space eachchild needs and how actively engaged they need to be to learn. Each educator’sintentional teaching practices scaffold children’s learning to promote an inclusivelearning environment where each child’s play skills and communication areextended. Our pedagogy includes a commitment to indoor/outdoor learning where

Fig. 7 BunyavilleEnvironmental EducationCentre, Queensland


the spaces invite the groups to move through the preschool environment designed toabsorb the activity of the children.

Our preschool has also made a commitment to being active within the communityto make the children’s learning visible with the aim of strengthening communityconnections. Together educators, children, and their families are developing agrowing awareness of our community, the community in which we live, and seeingour community landscape as being our broader family. Our definition of communitylandscape is what makes up our community the bush, the urban, and the social;collectively this is our natural environment. Thus, we are exploring the notion that anatural environment is not only related to our bushland program but makes up ourcommunity, for example, farming, transport, employment, buildings, bushland,community groups, businesses, and government initiatives at a local, state, andfederal level. Also, using different art forms, for example, ephemeral nature-basedart incorporating all our sensors, promotes children’s sharing of their stories whilelooking beyond the surface of the community landscape. Our “Collaborationswith Children” 2015 and 2016 project with artist Shona Wilson was successfulin holistically promoting children’s senses and stronger dispositions for learn-ing, critical thinking, while also building the foundations for environmentallyengaged adults.

Our service philosophy is our recipe. A traditional recipe offers a strong founda-tion of ingredients and methods but also strength for change. Our recipe ingredientsare educators who value children’s ability to play plus their wonder and curiosity,take time to listen and value children’s perspectives, and also value families’traditions and community connections. Blended together, these are the basis forchallenging and promoting educational change.

Further, collaboration between educators, children, and families promotes edu-cators’ strengths to step outside our space and to view the world beyond what we seeon top but to look beneath and above. The aim is to view our learning communityand our broader local community as all part of a community ecosystem, and each oneof these parts is interconnected. Our small community is also part of a larger globalcommunity. If you take away one part of the many parts of the world that intercon-nect, there is a chance it will perish. We need to explore, imagine, reflect, andevaluate with separate views, but if EfS is to be strong, we need to bring theseviews together to merge as a community of thinkers striving for the connectionsbetween EfS and larger social change.

We draw on pedagogical sources (Carter & Curtis, 2008; Edwards, Gandini, &Forman, 1998) that promote connectedness to community and a belief that educatorsare in a strong position to foster relationships with children, families, and people ofour community, urban, commercial, and natural worlds. Educators are in a strongposition through positive engagement and listening to children. They are able tounderstand individual children and feel empowered to challenge children and them-selves with provocations. Provoking conversations encourages shared thoughts,questioning, and interests that can strengthen our thinking, creativity, and ideas, sothat together we strive to see the interconnections between education and largersocial change. Teaching intentionally from observing and actively being with


children and collaboratively with community, thus, give our teaching energy to learntogether and to want to learn more. To critically engage with children around EfS,educators need to use their imagination, act with ethical ingredients and challengethemselves to step outside their spaces, just as we ask the children to challenge andextend their thinking.

First and foremost, we are a community preschool which is strongly reflected inour philosophy and practices and links our preschool to the Bronfenbrenner model.The community system connections flow through our work and support children tounderstand what makes up their unique community landscape. Our educational teamis learning that EfS is a growing journey for children, families, and educators.Services whose early childhood settings are situated in the city, on top of buildings,or in metropolitan areas have to create their own journeys in EfS. Our educationalteam feel strongly that if you value community and explore and document yourcommunity, you will find there are many possibilities to share the exciting, chal-lenging, and risk taking journey of “EfS” (Fig. 8).

Our Analysis Linking Practice to Our ReconceptualizedBronfenbrenner Model

In Table 1, we offer our analysis of these three vignettes of contemporary earlychildhood educational practice using the theoretical frames outlined earlier that takeus beyond the anthropocentrism inherent in Bronfenbrenner’s models (1979, 2001)of human development.

Fig. 8 Quirindi Preschool Kindergarten, NSW


Table

1Linking

critiqu

eswith

theories

andcriticalecop

edagog

iesforearlychild

hood

education

Critiq

ueTheory

Key

ideas

Practiceim

plications

Vignette

exam

ples

Language

Criticaltheory

aslin

kedto

critical

discourseanalysis

Contextualizinglanguage

andthe

dynamicsof

changing

meanings

Interrogatinglanguage

andmaking

meaningswith

child

ren

QP–ou

rdefinitio

nof

community

land

scap

eiswhatmakes

upou

rcommunity

thebu

sh,the

urba

n,an

dthe

social;collectivelythisisournatural

environm

ent

QP–educatorswho

valuechild

ren’s

abilityto

play

plus

theirwon

deran

dcuriosity,taketim

eto

listen,

andvalue

child

ren’sperspectives

New

sociolog

yof

child

hood

Childrenrecognized

asactiv

esocial

participantsandtheirperceptio

nsvalued

Positioningchild

renas

skilled

and

know

ledgeablesociallearning

participants

BEEC–thelearner,no

matterwhat

theirag

e,isplaced

atthecenter

ofthe

learning

seen

asacompetent

and

capableproblem-solver

Con

texts

and

relatio

nships

Post-humanism

Encom

pass

more-than-hum

anrelatio

nships

Examiningwhatdefinesethical

relatio

nships

with

thehuman

andmore-

than-hum

anworld

with

child

ren

throug

hpedagogicalpractices

for

sustainability

BW

–whenrelatio

nships

areform

edwith

land

,life

isgivento

thetwo

parties,an

dtheinteractions

are

respectfu

landconsiderate

New

materialism

BEEC–relatio

nships

matter,both

toothers

andtheEarth

(country)

QP–educatorsarein

astrong

positio

nto

foster

relatio

nships

with

child

ren,

families,a

ndpeopleof

ourcommunity,

urban,commercial,and

naturalw

orlds

Ethicalrelatio

nships

Invitin

gim

mersion

innaturalcontexts

tofacilitaterelatio

nships

BEEC–webelieve

thisfullimmersion

provides

theexperiencesan

dhelps

connectindividu

alsto

thena

tural

world


Systems

Systemstheory

Systemsas

interactionalatalllevels

andnotentityfocused

Ackno

wledg

ingand/or

mapping

all

relatio

nships

with

child

ren

BW

–child

ren’sspiritu

alconnectio

nto

country,connectio

nto

kin,

and

connectio

nto

where

they

arefrom

and

who

they

are

Post-humanism

BW

–respectstheinterdependence

betweenhu

man,a

nimal,a

ndna

ture

New

materialism

Systemsas

comprisinghuman

and

nonhum

anentitiesand

interrelationships

Recognizing

thereciprocity

and

responsiveness

ofinterrelationships

asintegralto

thefunctio

ning

ofopen

system

s

BEEC–itiswhenyouareou

tsidein

theforestthat

humansbeginto

seethat

they

arepa

rtof

thewho

le,a

ndno

tthe

wholeitself

Systemsas

open

andno

tclosed

orhuman-centriconly

QP–theaimisto

view

ourlearning

community

andou

rbroa

derlocal

community

asallpa

rtof

acommunity

ecosystem,a

ndeach

oneof

thesepa

rts

isintercon

nected.O

ursm

all

community

isalso

partof

alarger

glob

alcommunity

Tim

edimension

sPost-humanism

More-than-hum

anlifehistories,

globaltim

efram

esDiscussingequity

issues

nowandfor

future

generatio

nsboth

human

and

nonh

uman

BW

–thisincorporates

waysof

the

past,p

resent,a

ndfuture

andrespects

thosethat

have

walkedthisland

before

them

,tho

sethat

walkwith

them

now,

andthosethat

will

walkthisland

inthe

future

Dyn

amicsystem

stheory

Dynam

icsof

change

over

time

BW

–family

connectio

nsandancestry

isvitalin

developing

strong

identities,

butthisisneverin

isolationto

know

ing

theland

oneisfrom

andthestoriesof

that

land

over

time

Ackno

wledg

ingbo

thhu

man

and

nonh

uman

change

over

time

BEEC–meanw

hiletheforestsitsand

waits,g

oing

nowhere

(con

tinued)


Table

1(con

tinue

d)

Critiq

ueTheory

Key

ideas

Practiceim

plications

Vignette

exam

ples

The

individu

alSystemstheory

Systemsarecollectivewith

impacts

from

oneentityinfluencingallparts

ofthesystem

Con

textualizingwith

child

renaboutthe

impactseach

individu

alsustainability

actio

nhasforcollectivewell-beingof

othersbo

thhu

man

andno

nhum

an

QP–together

educators,child

ren,

and

theirfamilies

aredeveloping

agrow

ing

awarenessof

ourcommunity,the

community

inwhich

welive,an

dseeing

ourcommunity

land

scapeas

beingou

rbroa

derfamily

Developingskillsforsharing

perspectives

andworking

collectively

inandwith

thecommun

ityforchange

QP–colla

boratio

nbetweeneducators,

child

ren,

andfamilies

prom

otes

educators’strengthsto

step

outsideou

rspace

QP–weneed

toexplore,imag

ine,

reflect,an

devalua

tewith

separate

view

s,bu

tifE

fSistobe

strong

,weneed

tobringtheseview

stogether

tomerge

asacommunity

ofthinkers

striving

for

theconn

ectio

nsbetweenEfSan

dlarger

social

change

QP–together

striving

toseethe

interconnections

betweeneducation

andlarger

social

change


Children’s

agency

Criticaltheory

Childrenas

empowered

andglob

alchange

agentsthroug

hactiv

esocial

participation

Practicingadvocacy

andactio

nfor

sustainabilitywith

child

renin

relatio

nto

meaning

fulissues

BW

–critically

reflecton

their

custod

ianshiprigh

tsan

drespon

sibilities

New

sociolog

yof

child

hood

BW

–they

know

that

whenon

other

people’scountry,they

have

respon

sibilitytorespecttheircountryto

look

afteritan

densure

itiscaredfor

Questioning

sustainablepractice

norm

s,ethics,and

interrogating

dilemmas

andconfl

icts

BW

–activistsforsocial

change

insustaina

bilityas

thereisso

muchto

protect

BEEC–encourag

ingchild

rento

ask

questio

nsbu

tby

answ

eringwith

aqu

estio

nsuch

asan

“Iwonder...”

can

deepen

theengagement,theexperience,

and,

ultim

ately,theconnectio

n

Recognizing

andlistening

tochild

ren’s

voices

Invitin

gandprom

otingchild

ren’s

activ

eparticipationin

socialchange

BEEC–child

renun

derstand

the

interconnections

ofthenaturalworld,

understand

ecological

issues,

understand

theenvironm

entalissues

andprob

lemsan

dmostimpo

rtan

tly,

andun

derstand

theirrolean

dho

wthey

canmakeadifference

QP–to

critically

engage

with

child

ren

arou

ndEfS,edu

cators

need

tousetheir

imag

ination,

toactwith

ethical

ingredientsandchallengethem

selves

tostep

outsidetheirspaces.Justas

we

askthechild

rento

also

challengeand

extend

theirthinking

BW

bubupwilam,B

EECbunyavilleEEC,Q

Pqu

irindi

preschoo

l


Conclusion: Rethinking the Theoretical Tenets in Early ChildhoodEducation

Peter McLaren, one of the architects of critical theory and critical pedagogy, arguedpersuasively in 2015 about the need for a dramatic shift in how we think abouteducation and has called for a new emphasis and shift from pedagogy toecopedagogy (p. 307). He commented that, while progressive education’s emphasison identity politics as a solution to creating a more vibrant, inclusive, and criticalpublic sphere has met with some success, “issues of environmental sustainability[have] maintained but a lifeless presence, including within critical pedagogy”(McLaren, 2015, p. 308). He suggests that now is the time – emboldened by theactivities of various global social movements and motivated by deepening planetarycrises – when critical ecopedagogies have “arrived” and can offer powerful argu-ments for how to respond to the Anthropocene crisis. Further, he argues for a“revolutionary critical ecopedagogy” as a reconfiguring force. Drawing on itsMarxian roots, this has the potential to re-center on essentials, suggesting a reiningin of unsustainable, exploitative practices with a shift away from materialism tothe expression of natural and acquired talents and the promise of improved ecolog-ical stewardship.

Further, McLaren (2015, p. 316) reemphasizes the necessity for linkingecopedagogy with praxis, but not any kind of praxis. Drawing on the liberatorytenets of Freire, this should be praxis that is philosophically founded in ethics andrecognizes the languages and discourses of the oppressed and marginalized. Herecognizes that ecopedagogy must join up with existing decolonizing struggles of allkinds as natural allies in the battles against unsustainable world capitalism.

Drawing on McLaren’s views, we argue that a radical ecopedagogy must inform,and reshape, early childhood education as much as education generally. Moss andPetrie (2002, p. 136) would agree; pedagogy cannot be neutral; it is “a political andethical minefield in which choices are to be made.” One way to move to a transfor-mative pedagogical stance is to continue shifting the theoretical underpinnings ofearly childhood education – of which Bronfenbrenner himself was once a revolu-tionary pioneer – toward critical ecopedagogies for early childhood education. Wefurther argue that the vignettes presented in this chapter offer ways that such criticalecopedagogies might be enacted. As Mackenzie and Bieler (2016) emphasize,operationalizing critical education approaches must go “beyond critique and decon-struction to encompass the production and practice of alternatives” (p. 6).

In this chapter, we have presented arguments for rethinking the theories andmodels of Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1999, 2001), who for the last 40 years or so hasbeen a key figure in directing how the early childhood education field thinks aboutchildren’s development and well-being and how this is enacted in practice. We haveoffered critiques based on the changing times and pressing issues of the twenty-firstcentury with particular reference to sustainability in the Anthropocene. We haveproposed new ways of representing/updating Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) work andhave presented vignettes where educators are exploring ecopedagogical approachesthat go beyond the anthropocentrism of Bronfenbrenner’s theorizing (1979). We do


not pretend to be putting forward a replacement of Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) theories/models, though in the future there may well be models that have not yet been thoughtof and that better fit contemporary circumstances. What we hope to do, though, isinstigate a conversation about Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) work and its dominancewithin early childhood education. Therefore, we invite others to critique his theoriesand models, and our ideas as presented in this chapter, and to propose new and/orbetter ways of reconstructing early childhood education, childhood, environment,and childhoodnature, for a flourishing twenty-first century.

Cross-Reference

▶Childhoodnature the Anthropocene and Crisis of Sustainability▶Children and the Future of Sustainability▶Children in the Anthropocene: How They Are Implicated▶Towards a Pedagogy for Nature-based Play in Early Childhood EducationalSettings

References

APA. (2004). Early intervention can improve low-income children’s cognitive skills and academicachievement. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/research/action/early.aspx.

Apple, M. (1996). Cultural Politics and Education. Teachers College Press, New York.Arthur, L., Beecher, B., Death, E., Dockett, S., & Farmer, S. (2015). Programming and planning in

early childhood settings (6th ed.). Sydney, NSW: Cengage.Ballam, N. (2013). Defying the odds: Gifted and talented young people from low socioeconomic

backgrounds. PhD thesis http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/8424/thesis.pdf?sequence=3.

Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.Berry, T. (1988). The dream of the earth. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.Berthelsen, D. (2009). Participatory learning: Issues for research and practice. In D. Berthelsen,

J. Brownlee, & E. Johansson (Eds.), Participatory learning in the early years: Research andpedagogy (Routledge Research in Education, Vol. 21, pp. 1–11). New York: Routledge.

Boon, H., Cottrell, A., King, D., Stevenson, Robert B., & Millar, J. (2012). Bronfenbrenner’sbioecological theory for modelling community resilience to natural disasters. Natural Hazards,60(2), 381–408.

Borkfelt, S. (2011). Non-human otherness: Animals as others and devices for othering. InS. Sencindiver, M. Beville, & M. Lauritzen (Eds.), Otherness: A multilateral perspective(pp. 137–154). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang.

Bowes, J., Grace, R., & Hodge, K. (2012). Children, families and communities contexts andconsequences (4th ed.). Melbourne, VIC: Oxford University Press.

Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. London, England: Polity Press.Bronfenbrenner, U. (1988). Foreword. In A. Pence (Ed.), Ecological research with children and

families from concepts to methodology (pp. ix–xix). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through space and time: A future perspective.

In P. Moen, G. H. Elder, & K. Luscher (Eds.), Examining lives in context: Perspectives on theecology of human development (pp. 619–647). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.


http://link.springer.com/Childhoodnature the Anthropocene and Crisis of Sustainability

http://link.springer.com/Children and the Future of Sustainability

http://link.springer.com/Children in the Anthropocene: How They Are Implicated

http://link.springer.com/Towards a Pedagogy for Nature-based Play in Early Childhood Educational Settings

http://link.springer.com/Towards a Pedagogy for Nature-based Play in Early Childhood Educational Settings

http://www.apa.org/research/action/early.aspx

http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/8424/thesis.pdf?sequence=3

http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/8424/thesis.pdf?sequence=3

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1999). Environments in developmental perspective: Theoretical and opera-tional models. In S. L. Friedman & T. D. Wachs (Eds.), Measuring environment across the lifespan: Emerging methods and concepts (pp. 3–28). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (2001). The bioecological theory of human development. In N. J. Smelser &P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopaedia of the social and behavioural sciences(Vol. 10, pp. 6963–6970). New York, NY: Elsevier.

Carter, M., & Curtis, D. (2008). Learning together with young children: A curriculum frameworkfor reflective teachers. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.

Christensen, J. (2010). Proposed enhancement of Bronfenbrenner’s development ecology model.Education Inquiry, 1(2), 101–110.

Christensen, P., & James, A. (Eds.). (2000). Research with children: Perspectives and practices.London, England: Falmer.

Connelly, W. (2013). The ‘new materialism’ and the fragility of things. Millennium: Journal ofInternational Studies, 41(3), 399–412.

Corsaro, W. A. (2005). The sociology of childhood (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Currie, J., & Deschenes, O. (2016). Children and climate change: Introducing the issue. The Future

of Children, 26(1), 3–9.Davis, J., & Elliott, S. (Eds.). (2014). Research in early childhood education for sustainability:

International perspectives and provocations. London, England: Routledge.Department of National Planning and Monitoring (DNPM). (2010). 2010 PAPUA NEW GUINEA –

Millennium Development Goals Second National Progress Comprehensive Report for PapuaNew Guinea. Retrieved from http://www.pg.undp.org/content/dam/papua_new_guinea/docs/MDG/UNDP_PG_MD G%20Comprehensive%20Report%202010.pdf.

Dillon-Wallace, J. (2011).Mothers of young children with special health care needs: Maternal well-being and engagement in work. PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology.

Dritschilo, W. (2004). Earth days: Ecology comes of age as a science. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse.Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (Eds.). (1998). The hundred languages of children

(2nd ed.). Greenwich, CN: Ablex.Ehrlich, P. (1968). The population bomb. New York, NY: Sierra Club/Ballantine Books.Elliott, S., & Emmett, S. (1991). Snails live in houses too: Environmental education for the early

years. Sydney: Martin Educational.Friere, P. (1999 first published 1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.Gesell, A. (1950). The first five years of life. London, England: Methuen.Giroux, H. (1992). Border Crossings: Cultural Workers and the Politics of Education. Routledge, GB.Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. English version. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Hancock, T. (1985). The mandala of health: A model of the human ecosystem. Family and

Community Health, 8(3), 1–10.Haque, E. (2007). Critical pedagogy in English for academic purposes and the possibility for

‘tactics’ of resistance. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 15(1), 83–106.Härkönen, U. (2003). Current theories related to early childhood education and preschool as frames

of reference for sustainable education. In Proceedings of the 1st international JTET conference“Sustainable development culture education.” 11–14 May, 2003. Daugavpils, Latvia, 38–5.

Hinitz, B. S. F. (2014). Head start: A bridge from past to future. NAEYC Young Children,69(May Issue), 94–97.

Howes, M. (2017). After 25 years of trying, why aren’t we environmentally sustainable yet? TheConversation. 3 April.

Hutchinson, G. E. (1957). Concluding Remarks. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on QuantitativeBiology, 22, 415–42.

James, A., Jenks, C., & Prout, J. (1998). Theorising childhood. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Janus, M., & Offord, D. (2007). Development and psychometric properties of the early develop-

ment instrument (EDI): A measure of children’s school readiness. Canadian Journal ofBehavioural Science, 39(1), 1–22.


http://www.pg.undp.org/content/dam/papua_new_guinea/docs/MDG/UNDP_PG_MD%09G%20Comprehensive%20Report%202010.pdf

http://www.pg.undp.org/content/dam/papua_new_guinea/docs/MDG/UNDP_PG_MD%09G%20Comprehensive%20Report%202010.pdf

Jones, P. (2009). Rethinking childhood: Attitudes in contemporary society. London, England:Continuum.

Krishan, V. (2010). Early child development: A conceptual model. Early Child developmentMapping Project (ECMap), Community University Partnership (CUP), Faculty of Extension,University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from http://www.cup.ualberta.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ConceptualModelCUPwebsite_10April13.pdf.

Latour, B. (2004). The politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Lerner, R. M. (2005). Foreword. In U. Bronfenbrenner (Ed.), Making human beings human:Bioecological perspectives on human development (pp. ix–xxvi). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Liu, J., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S. R., Folke, C., Alberti, M., Redman, C. L., et al. (2007). Coupledhuman and natural systems. Ambio, 36(8), 639–649.

Lovelock, J. (1979). Gaia: A new look at life on Earth. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Luke, T. (2003). Critical theory and the environment. In Counterpoints, Vol. 168, Critical theory

and the human condition: Founders and Praxis (pp. 238–250).Mackey, G. (2014). Valuing agency in young children: Teachers rising to the challenge of sustain-

ability in the Aotearoa New Zealand early childhood context. In J. Davis & S. Elliott (Eds.),Research in early childhood education for sustainability: International perspectives and prov-ocations. London, England: Routledge.

Maturana, R., & Varela, F. (1987). The Tree of Knowledge. Shambhala, Boston.McCrea, N., & Littledyke, R. (2015). Young children sampling sustainable learning as healthier

me. In N. Taylor, F. Quinn, & C. Eames (Eds.), Education for sustainability in primary schools:Teaching for the future (pp. 45–63). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.

McKenzie, M., & Bieler, A. (2016). Critical education and sociomaterial practice: Narration,place and the social. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang Press.

McLaren, P. (1989). Life in Schools: An Introduction to Critical Pedagogy in the Foundations ofEducation. Routledge: New York.

McLaren, P. (2015). Pedagogy of insurrection: From resurrection to revolution. New York, NY:Peter Lang.

Moss, P., & Petrie, P. (2002). From children’s services to children’s spaces: Public policy, childrenand childhood. London, England: Routledge. Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ohs.

Office of HeadStart. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ohs/about.Olshansky, J., et al. (2005). A potential decline in life expectancy in the United States in the 21st

century. The New England Journal of Medicine, 352(11), 1138–1145.Oppenheimer, M., & Anttila-Hughes, J. K. (2016). The science of climate change. The Future of

Children, 26(1), 11–30.Page, J., & Tayler, C. (2016). Learning and teaching in the early years. Port Melbourne, VIC:

Cambridge University Press.Penn, H. (2005). Understanding early childhood development: Issues and controversies.

Glasgow, UK: Bell & Bain Ltd.Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1962). The psychology of the child. New York, NY: Basic Books.Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Series,

4, 155–169.Rodgers, B. (2009). An ecological approach to understanding the stigma associated with receiving

mental health services: The role of social proximity. PhD thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Instituteand State University, Blacksburg, VA.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford, MI: Oxford UniversityPress.

Rooney, T. (2016). Weather worlding: Learning with the elements in early childhood. Environmen-tal Education Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1217398

Sims, M., & Hutchins, T. (2012). Program planning for infants and toddlers (2nd ed.).Mt Victoria, NSW: Pademelon Press.


http://www.cup.ualberta.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ConceptualModelCUPwebsite_10April13.pdf

http://www.cup.ualberta.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/ConceptualModelCUPwebsite_10April13.pdf

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ohs

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ohs/about

https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1217398

Stanger, N. (2011). Moving “eco” back into socio-ecological models: A proposal to reorientecological literacy into human development models and school systems. Human EcologyReview, 18(2), 167–173.

Steffen, W., Crutzen, P. J., & McNeill, J. R. (2007). The Anthropocene: Are humans nowoverwhelming the great forces of nature? AMBIO, 36(8), 614–621.

Stevenson, R. B. (2007). Schooling and environmental education: Contradictions in purpose andpractice. Environmental Education Research, 13(2), 139–153.

Taylor, A. (2013). Reconfiguring the natures of childhood. London, England: Routledge.Taylor, C. A. (2016). Edu-crafting a cacophanous ecology: Posthuman research practices for

education. In C. A. Taylor & C. Hughes (Eds.), Posthuman research practices in education(pp. 5–24). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Taylor, C. A., & Hughes, C. (Eds.). (2016). Posthuman research practices in education.London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition andaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Tudge, J., Mokrova, I., Hatfield, B., & Karnik, R. (2009). Uses and Abuses of Bronfenbrenner’sBioecological Theory of Human Development. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 1(4),198–210.

UNCED. (1992). Promoting education and awareness and public training, Agenda 21. UnitedNations conference on environment and development. Conches, Brazil: UNCED.

UNESCO. (2010). Four dimensions of sustainable development. Retrieved from www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_a/popups/mod04t01s03.html.

UNICEF. (1989).United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm.

Von Bertalanffy, L. (1972). The history and status of general systems theory. The Academy ofManagement Journal, 15(4), 407–426. Retrieved from http://systemotechnica.ucoz.com/_fr/1/Bertalanffy_L.V.pdf.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). The role of play in development (pp. 92–104). In Mind in society.(M. Cole, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wagner, J. (1993). Ignorance in Educational Research Or, How Can You Not Know That?Educational Researcher, 22(5), 15–23.

Weckowicz, T. E. (2000). Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1901–1972): A Pioneer of general systemstheory. Retrieved from http://www.richardjung.cz/bert1.pdf.

Weldemariam, K. (2017). Challenging and expanding the notion of sustainability within earlychildhood education: Perspectives from post-humanism and/or new materialism. In O. Franck& C. Osbeck (Eds.), Ethical literacies and education for sustainable development: Youngpeople, subjectivity and democratic participation (pp. 105–126). Gothenburg, Sweden: Pal-grave Macmillan.

World Commission on Environment & Development (WCED). (1987). The Brundtland report: Ourcommon future. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

WWF. (2016). Living plant report. Retrieved from http://awsssets.panda.org/downloads/lpr_living_planet_report_2016.pdf.

Young, G. L. (1974). Human ecology as an interdisciplinary concept: A critical inquiry. InA. MacFadyen (Ed.), Advances in ecological research (Vol. 8, pp. 1–105). London, England:Academic.

Zivin, J., & Shrader, J. (2016). The Future of Children. 26(1), Children and Climate Change(SPRING), pp. 31–50.


http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_a/popups/mod04t01s03.html

http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_a/popups/mod04t01s03.html

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

http://systemotechnica.ucoz.com/_fr/1/Bertalanffy_L.V.pdf

http://systemotechnica.ucoz.com/_fr/1/Bertalanffy_L.V.pdf

http://www.richardjung.cz/bert1.pdf

http://awsssets.panda.org/downloads/lpr_living_planet_report_2016.pdf

http://awsssets.panda.org/downloads/lpr_living_planet_report_2016.pdf

Documents

Challenging Taken-for-Granted Ideas in Early Childhood ... · “ecological niche” is prevalent in Bronfenbrenner’s theory and models and used extensively within child development