Introduction

Ecological theory has been developed by Urie Bronfenbrenner (1917). The ecological
development theory is a theory that emphasizes the influence of the environment on
individual development. Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Theory (1979,1989) explains that the
development of children is as a result of the interaction between the environment with the
child. In this context, the interaction between the child and the child's environment is
believed to influence the process of growth and development of children. Refers to the
concept in this theory, whether we are aware of it or not a child who is an individual who is
within the scope of the micro.

In this theory it states that the development and growth processes encompassed in the
environmental system are concerned with interaction with one another. According to
Bronfenbrenner there are 5 systems that affect the development of children. namely
microsistem, mesosistem, ecosystem, macrosystem and chronosystem. All five environmental
systems have implications for teachers in preparing themselves fully during the teaching and
learning process in the classroom

Enculturation.

Kim (1988) defined enculturation as a socialization process, where children first learned how
to live in the company of others. As adults, this internalized learning enabled them to interact
easily with other members of their culture, who shared a similar image of reality and self.
Thus, the enculturation process had become the process in which individuals adapt to the
surrounding cultural forces through the years of socialization..

Herskovits (1955) believed individuals went through an “unconscious” stage of learning in

the early years of life, he concluded that individuals unconsciously internalized culture. But
in the later years, the individual reached a “conscious” stage of learning. Some scholars
argued against this and found that cultural learning did take place in the early years of life at
the “conscious” level as well (Brameld, 1957; Linton, 1937.

In 1976 Johannes Wilbert was the editor of Enculturation in Latin American: An Anthology.
In his book he cited both Herskovits and Shimahara in his definition of enculturation, and
called it a “universal process of behavior. It is bound to occur in all societies simply because
it is the process by which culture is transmitted from one generation to another” (Wilbert,
1976, p. 9). Wilbert believed that enculturation was not identical with growing up. He stated
that “enculturation produces the culturerelated changes which occur in the individual
throughout his lifetime and which are only one part of the total changes that occur in the
process of personality formation” (Wilbert, 1976, p. 9).

Wilbert’s book also gave various examples of enculturation throughout Latin America, and
some scholars used Wilbert’s definition as they explained the enculturation process. For
example, McCosker (1976) suggested lullabies sung by the Cuna Indians of Panama as a tool
for enculturation. While lullabies in most cultures were used as a tool to put children to sleep,
the Cuna Indians used the lullabies as a way to prepare the children for the different stages of
their lives. In the songs, the Cuna mothers described how their daily activities and
responsibilities related to their family and tribe. As a result, the lullabies became a means of
informal education and an effective tool of enculturation because of the social and cultural
attitudes they impart to the children. Furthermore, the lullabies provided a clear picture of the
child’s future roles in life. The lullabies also included social attitudes, such as personal
relationships and work duties. This process was a direct result of learning something within
one’s own culture (McCosker, 1976).

(Socialization

Socialization as the internalization of a unified culture suited the dominant social

understanding of the 1950s and 1960s, when Western societies, to a greater extent than earlier
or later, were supposed to socialize everyone into common dominant cultural patterns. This
was also the first period of consumerism and mass production; the new wealth often took the
form of a standardization of products that many claimed forced everyone into the same
mould, as told in the popular song “Little Boxes” popularized by Pete Seeger: “And they’re
all made out of ticky tacky, And they all look just the same.

In Marcuse’s (1964) description of the “one-dimensional man,” the dominant personality

formation is supposed to reflect the rationality of capitalism. The same logic can be found in
Adorno’s (1991) understanding of mass culture, consumed by a passive, homogenized public
that internalizes the values of the culture industry. In these theories, culture is primarily seen
as a mechanism that ensures that the dominant cultural patterns are transformed into
individual motivation and images. This functionalist perspective is also visible in the
interpretation of the new teenage culture that became salient in the 1950s; the risk-oriented
and oppositional behaviour of adolescents is understood as part of the development of
independence that is functional for society at the macro level (Parsons and Bales 1956).
Adolescence is therefore a natural risktaking period, arising from the necessary development
of autonomy. Even if the Sturm und Drang3 was understood as “natural,” the riskiness of the
period was also rooted in the lack of ritualization of the transition from childhood to
adulthood, entailing that young people had to create their own risky rituals (Bloch and
Niederhoffer 1958

In sociological understanding, institutions are at the core of socialization processes. Schools

and preschools impart knowledge of basic historical and cultural relationships, and their
institutional practises convey cultural patterns and values; they also influence socialization by
relating to gender, class and ethnicity in various ways. Educational institutions also represent
universalistic criteria that apply to the wider society; everyone should in principle be treated
equally. Other institutions, like organizations related to culture and sports, and increasingly
the media, also fulfil important functions in the socialization process. Legal frameworks and
institutions that allow the enforcement of sanctions influence socialization both as formal
rules and as signifiers of the existence of the social and society

Some texts emphasize that the primary function of socialization is the acquisition and
internalization of shared morals and common normative patterns. This perspective includes
the concept of “social deviance,” the violation of formal or informal cultural norms. Some
traditional parts of sociology saw deviance as an important characteristic of certain
individuals; criminals, single mothers, homosexuals or others who broke dominant and
naturalised norms belonged to deviant groups, and the study of deviance was an extensive
field in sociology. The concept of “countercultures” illustrated some of the same assumptions
about a common culture to which some youth were in opposition. As societies gradually have
come to be understood not as culturally homogeneous but as multicultural and heterogenous,
containing complex and sometimes contradictory cultural patterns, the idea of stable deviant
categories has gradually dissolve.

Socialization is interwoven in the discourses in which continuous interpellations represent an

important part of the processes of culturalization. Some concepts and ideas that dominate
such discourses are signifiers with no physical referents, “signifiers without a signified”
(Lacan Bracher 1993)concepts like freedom, love, nation, or self-actualisation point to
narratives, myths and other signifiers, not to tangible phenomena. Concepts like motherhood

aries (1962) book about the history of childhood illustrates that childhood is not just a
biological phenomenon; it is shaped by the cultural discourses framing the understanding of
children and their development. The development of the bourgeois family and educational
institutions were essential to the historical construction of childhood (Rutschky 1977). The
paradigm of “new the sociology of childhood” that emerged in the 1980s emphasized that the
child had to be understood not primarily as a future adult, but as an acting subject to be
accepted in its own right (James et al. 1998). The sociology of childhood also showed the
different images of children and childhood and their possible influence on the understanding
of children, a perspective that also underscored that children and childhood had to be
understood as related to class, ethnicity, gender and local environments

The four environments by Bronfenbrenner.

Developed by psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner, ecological systems theory explains how

human development is influenced by different types of environmental systems. Researchers,
policy makers, and practitioners are interested in the opportunities and risks associated with
how youth spend their discretionary time outside the regular school day. One of the primary
settings in which youth spend their out-of-school hours is in organized activities, which
include extracurricular activities, after-school programs, and activities at community-based
organizations. Much research on out-of-school activities has utilized ecological systems
theory to understand how activities foster positive, healthy development of youth from
different backgrounds.

There are four interrelated types of environmental systems in Bronfenbrenner’s classic

rendition of ecological systems theory, namely, the (1) micro-, (2) meso-, (3) exo-, and (4)
macrosystems. These levels range from smaller, proximal settings in which individuals
directly interact to larger, distal settings that indirectly influence development. The various
levels within ecological systems theory are often presented graphically as a series of four
systems nested around a focal individual like a set of concentric circles.

1.Microsyestem

. Microsystems involve the immediate surroundings and represent the relationships and
interactions of children with parents, guardians, siblings, friends, neighbors, teachers, schools
and the environment. Microsystems refer to the environment that is closest to the world of the
child. The society in this microsystem plays a role not less important in the development of
children.

An anthropologist, George Peter Murdock, identified the family as a social group living
under one roof, cooperating in economic activity and adding to the zuriat (Goode, page 326).
Family especially parents are the most important socialization agent in the life of a child and
as a close or close individual to the life of a child, they have a great influence on the behavior
of children. For example, studies at home and abroad indicate that environmental factors such
as active involvement of parents have a direct impact on all aspects of child development
(Mac Naughtori, 2005).

Parents who show compassion and good care will have a different impact if compared with
parents who are unreasonable or fierce. At the same time the behavior or response of the
child will also affect the attitudes of parents or guardians towards the child. For example,
well-behaved children will be loved by the adults around them and they are likely to give a
positive response to these children.

In addition, the relationship between parents also affects the child's experience. The family's
maladjustment factor and the socio-economic status of a family will depict the life of a child.
The failure of parents to correct their children's maladjustment will cause these children no

So it is clear that family institutions play an important role in the development of the
character of children. Parents should guide, understand and explore the needs of teenagers
and open minded. This will lead to a harmonious atmosphere.

Mesosystem

The mesosystem is the second immediate layer and contains the microsystem. It focuses on
the connections between two or more systems, essentially different micro systems, such as
home, playmate settings, school, etc. For example, what happens in a micro system, such as
the home in which a child lives, can influence what happens in the school or a play ground,
and what happens in a school or a playground can influence interactions at home. More
specifically, a parent’s and a teacher’s involvement in the child’s education, if mutual, will
result in mesosystem functioning. The connection between other larger structures, such as a
church or community, can also be expected to have distal processes at work because they
help the family to provide the necessary support a child needs. For example, counseling
services available to the family in times of need can influence the functioning of the
mesosytem.

Children inhabit both families and child-care microsystems, and these systems are linked.
Parents select particular types of child care, of varying quality, for children of different
ages—and these decisions vary with family structure, parental characteristics, geographical
location, and other factors. Singer, Fuller, Keiley, and Wolf (1998) argued that child-care
researchers must consider these selection effects if they are to accurately model the impact of
child care on children’s development over time. Through their selection of particular child-
care arrangements, parents have an indirect impact on their children’s development (in
addition to their direct impact within the family system). But this linkage between the family
system and child-care system operates in both directions: The child-care system can also
influence the family system. For example, Ahnert, Rickert, and Lamb (2000) described a
particular mesosystem characterized by shared care; in this mesosystem, mothers adapted
their interactions with their toddlers in response to the toddlers’ experiences in child care.

Exosystem:

The exosystem is the third layer. Although the child does not directly encounter the system,
it impacts his development. The system contains micro and meso systems, and thereby
impacts the wellbeing of all those who come into contact with the child. Further, the policies
and decisions that are made at a wider level can also indirectly impact the child. For example,
a parent’s workplace schedule (e.g., shift work) can influence the proximal processes that
occur and consequently the development of the child. In cases where a parent cannot get time
off to attend to a parent-teacher meeting, the parent will have limited interaction with the
teachers, thereby influencing a child’s development adversely. A school’s policies on special
needs children or children of different racial and ethnic background can all be considered as
exosystem influences on the child

Another important aspect of the exosystem is government policies and regulations that
affect both the demand for child care (such as welfare-reform efforts that require low-income
mothers to seek employment) and the affordability of child care. Although the United States
provides some child-care subsidies for families, many low- and moderate-income families do
not have effective access to subsidies.3 Given the links between the quality of care and the
cost of care, it is not surprising that children in low-income families who are not in the
higher-quality, government-subsidized programs tend to receive lowerquality child care than
children in middle-income families (cf. Phillips, Voran, Kisker, Howes, & Whitebook, 1994).
In this way, the exosystem of government policies and regulations provides an important
context for the operation of the family child-care mesosystem

Macrosystem:

The outermost context layer is the macrosystem. This societal blueprint influences all lower
layers of the ecosystem. Aspects of the macrosystem that influence other lower layers include
cultural characteristics, political upheaval, or economic disruption, all of which can solely or
collectively shape development. For example, cultures having more liberal divorce laws are
more likely to have more single parent families. This, in turn, affects income, hindering the
opportunities that are available to the child (e.g., participation in sports). Similarly, parents
from different countries, who leave their homeland to start a new life in another country, may
encounter problems related to language, geography, employment, etc., contributing to an
unstable environment where children can be at a greater risk of development

Bronfenbrenner (2005) describes the macrosystem as a “societal blueprint for a particular

culture or subculture” (p. 81). Put another way, each culture establishes values and beliefs
that govern the priorities of all the previously noted ecological systems. In the Malaysia, we
have two predominant macrosystem blueprints. We live under a democratic style of
government and we operate as multi-racial. Thus, rather than being ruled by a monarch, we
elect individuals to represent our views in Parliment. Likewise, rather than allowing our
government total control over our economy, we rely on businesses to produce goods and
compete for customers in a free market. Before leaving the macrosystem, it is important to
touch on one additional issue. Although all Malaysia share the values of democracy , we also
come from different geographic, religious, and cultural backgrounds. Subsequently, one can
argue that nested within our Malaysia macrosystem are subculture macrosystems