ORI GIN AL PA PER

An Inquiry of Children’s Social Support NetworksUsing Eco-Maps

Jennifer Baumgartner • Lauren Burnett • Cynthia F. DiCarlo •

Teresa Buchanan

Published online: 8 January 2012� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

AbstractBackground Children receive support for their learning and development from multiple

sources and within various developmental contexts. The extant literature investigating

children’s social supports has uncovered multiple benefits to positive and complex social

support system. However, the measurement of children’s social supports has largely been

accomplished through accessing knowledge of either a parent or child. In order to

understand children’s support systems, which are embedded within multiple contexts and

prejudiced by multiple influences, it is imperative to access all relevant perspectives.

Objective This exploratory project was undertaken by a preschool teacher-researcher in

order to understand the types of information eco-maps provide about children’s social

support networks in an effort to support young children’s learning and development.

Methods Eco-map interviews describing children’s social networks were completed by

preschool-age children, their parents and their preschool teacher. Each informant identified

the major people in the child’s support network, described relationships, and identified the

type and developmental area of support provided by each individual. All the information

was graphically represented within an eco-map using shapes and color coding to distin-

guish variations.

Results Qualitative analysis of five children’s completed maps revealed three themes:

agreement on an inner circle, different perspectives on the kinds of support provided, and

children’s unique way of expressing support.

Conclusion Eco-maps with children, parents, and teachers may contribute to educational

research and practice through providing detailed information about children’s social sup-

port network through the identification of resources to support the development and

learning of young children.

J. Baumgartner (&) � L. Burnett � C. F. DiCarloSchool of Human Ecology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USAe-mail: jbaum@lsu.edu

T. BuchananDepartment of Educational Theory, Policy, and Practice, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA,USA

123

Child Youth Care Forum (2012) 41:357–369DOI 10.1007/s10566-011-9166-2

Keywords Social supports � Preschool children � Eco-maps

Introduction

Children’s environments and relationships have significant effects on multiple areas of

development (Bronfenbrenner 2005; Epstein 2001). Children have multiple social sup-

ports, or resources that are provided by each individual in their environment (Bost et al.

1998) that together construct a social support network. Young children’s social support

networks are related to social development (Franco and Levitt 1997), peer relationships

(Bost 1995), and development of academic skills (Skylerman et al. 2005; Mashburn 2008).

The presence of social support in young children have been found to impact positive social,

emotional, language, academic, and peer relationship development (Bost et al. 1994, 1998;

Bost 1995; Franco and Levitt 1997; Larkina 2009; Mashburn 2008; Skylerman et al. 2005).

A study of social support from an ecological perspective requires the consideration of

not only multiple contexts, but also multiple influences on development. Bronfenbrenner’s

ecological model describes the importance of environments and relationships in a child’s

ecology for supporting positive development in multiple areas (Bronfenbrenner 2005). It

highlights the important influence of the individual’s immediate environment or micro-

system as it is nested within additional systems in which all contexts and levels of influence

affect one another and the individual (Bronfenbrenner). In order to understand children’s

support systems, which are embedded within multiple contexts and prejudiced by multiple

influences, it is imperative to access all relevant perspectives.

The eco-map does this by identifying three major types of support within a support

system: instrumental, informational and emotional (House 1981). For young children, an

example of instrumental support would be an adult providing support in the form of food,

clothing, books, etc. Informational support involves a relationship in which information or

knowledge is transmitted, such a young child learning from an individual how to tie his/her

shoes, how to answer the telephone or even ideas about who made the sky. Finally people

in a support system can provide emotional support in the form of listening to and

acknowledging feelings or emotions.

Currently, there is little consistency in the instruments used to measure young children’s

social support networks (Wolchik et al. 1989). Increasing our knowledge of children’s

social support networks will allow us to better understand children’s development as well

as inform educational practice that will support children’s development and learning (Bost

et al. 1994, 1998). Eco-mapping may be a helpful tool as researchers seek to understand

children’s social support networks. The purpose of this project is to explore the use of the

eco-mapping protocol for measuring children’s social support networks. This exploratory

and qualitative study investigated information provided by children, parents’, and teacher

participation in the eco-map protocol.

An eco-map is a ‘‘graphic representation or visualization of the family and linkages to

the larger social system including informal (e.g., friends, extended family members) and

formal (e.g., early care and education providers, early intervention providers) supports’’

(McCormick et al. 2005, p. 1). It was developed by sociologist, Anne Hartman in 1975 to

visually depict sources of social supports and links of an individual or group (Ray and

Street 2005). It has primarily been used to aid social workers to better understand the needs

of the families and children with whom they worked (McCormick et al. 2008). The term

eco-map is derived from the word ecology, ‘‘the study of the connection between a living

358 Child Youth Care Forum (2012) 41:357–369

123

thing and its environment, and how that connection is maintained and enhanced’’ (Ray and

Street 2005, p. 546). The eco-map not only provides a visual representation of how an

individual or group fits into a larger social network, but it also provides a more structured

way to engage family members in conversation about their family and social networks with

an interview process through which the eco-map is created. Information collected in this

interview includes the strength of each relationship, frequency of interactions, and type of

support provided. Multiple informants can be included in the discussion to make the

picture as accurate and comprehensive as possible (McCormick et al. 2008).

Eco-maps have been used with adults in the contexts of business, nursing, social work

and education. In a recent investigation of children’s support system, Curry et al. (2008)

utilized an adapted eco-map protocol with elementary school children. However, an effort

to utilize eco-maps with preschool-age children has not yet been explored. Research with

preschool aged children regarding social support systems has used oral interviews, usually

without appropriate, tangible objects for young children to use to manipulate and illustrate

their ideas. Researchers utilizing story stem techniques, for example, have been successful

in facilitating young children’s discussion of abstract concepts through the use of tangible

materials, such as figurines (Bretherton et al. 1990; Page and Bretherton 2001). Other

researchers have used cameras and photographs to assist children in telling their stories

(Kent et al. 2009). According to Cook and Hess (2007), children’s use of cameras and the

photographs they take can help others better understand how children experience their

world. The use of cameras to gain insight into children’s perspective is a growing meth-

odology (Cook & Hess; Kent, Strickland, & Marinak). Based on this work, the eco-map

protocol was adapted for use with preschool-aged children through the use of tangible

representations, specifically photographs and pictures. Children were given cameras to take

photographs of people/things that were important to them. Children might be able describe

their social support networks through the use of photographs and pictures.

Early childhood theory and previous research call for the identification of children’s

support networks due to the effects these support networks can have across all areas of

development. Previous research has led us question what additional information might be

gained by adding multiple perspectives to the eco-mapping protocol. This project sheds

light on the effects of multiple perspectives when using the eco-mapping protocol to

illustrate a child’s social support network.

Method

This exploratory research project examined the eco-mapping protocol which is a measure

of children’s comprehensive social support networks. This project sought to examine how

the eco-map protocol might be used with parents, teachers and children to learn about

children’s social networks.

Participants

Children, parents, and teachers who participated in the study were recruited from a uni-

versity laboratory preschool. The classroom was staffed by a lead teacher and an assistant

teacher (second author). The preschool served 20 children, 10 three-year old children and

10 four-year old children. In order to investigate the usefulness of the adapted eco-map

protocol with preschoolers, the four-year old children were targeted for this study. All 10

four-year old children, their parents, and the teacher consented to participate in the study.

Child Youth Care Forum (2012) 41:357–369 359

123

For the present project, a sub-sample was selected for more in-depth analysis. The sub-

sample two boys and three girls: Dylan, Jason, Nadia, Sandy, and Zoe. Dylan is a 4 year

3 month old boy. His mother identified his race as Black. He lives with his mother and his

father lives in another state. Dylan enjoys throwing sport balls and dancing with his family.

Jason is a 4 year 3 month old boy and his parents identified his race as White. He lives

with both his parents and his sister Jane who is 3 years older than him. With his family,

Jason enjoys playing games and water play. Nadia is a 4 year 5 month old girl. Her family

adopted her from South Korea. Nadia’s family is multi-ethnic with White parents and

Asian children. She lives with her adoptive parents and her two brothers who are also

adopted. With her family, Nadia enjoys activities, games, listening to music, outings, and

visiting extended family. Sandy is a 4 year 5 month old girl. Her family identified her race

as White. Sandy lives with her grandmother and step-grandfather that are her legal

guardians and have had full custody of her since she was 9 months old. She refers to them

as mom and dad. Her Uncle and cousin Mimi also live with her. Sandy’s three step-uncles

also live with her sometimes and she views them as brothers. Sandy’s birth mother had her

when she was only 16 years old and no longer lives with the family, but visits sometimes.

With her family, she enjoys playing outside and doing crafts. Zoe is a 4 year 10 month old

girl and her parents identified her race as Black. She lives with both of her parents and is an

only child. With her family, Zoe enjoys reading and going to the park.

Procedure

The present project used an exploratory design with semi-structured interviews. The

procedures were approved by the research institutional review board and informed consent

was obtained from all participants prior to the commencement of the study. The assistant

preschool teacher served as the teacher-researcher for the project. Eco-maps were created

by the teacher-researcher in collaboration with each informant through interviews con-

ducted with children and parents. The teacher-researcher served as the teacher informant

and contributed to the overall eco-map (Fig. 1). Two different processes were used, one for

parents and the teacher and one for children. In the following section eco-maps will first be

described, followed by a description of the protocols used with parents, teachers and

children.

Description of the Eco-Map

The eco-map is a graphic representation of a social support network. Graphic represen-

tations are effective for communicating complex information quickly and to diverse

groups. In the eco-map, lines, shapes and colors are used to visually describe the support

available to the child in each context. In the eco-maps used for this study, the eco-maps

document four key aspects of the child’s support system: the types of support, the strength

of the relationships, the nature of the relationships and the developmental domains sup-

ported (see Baumgartner and Buchanan 2010 for a complete description). Primary support

was defined as the most encompassing or dominant characteristic of the relationship;

participants were given the option of providing a secondary type of support (not all

participants elected to identify a secondary support). For each source, the informant

described the primary role the person plays in the child’s life. This is denoted as which

aspect of child development (primary and secondary) is supported (social, emotional,

physical, language, cognitive, creative) by the individual. The informant described the

practices used by the individual to accomplish this role by explaining what type of support

360 Child Youth Care Forum (2012) 41:357–369

123

(primary and secondary) is given (instrumental, informational, and emotional) by the

source. The relationships between the child and each support source were then described in

terms of strength (very strong, strong, weak, very weak) and nature (positive, negative, and

ambiguous/mixed). For example, a step-father might provide housing and food for a child

(instrumental support, physical development) but have a weak and negative (marked by

significant or frequent conflict) relationship with the child. All of these are graphically

illustrated on a map.

Adult Eco-Map Protocol

After informed consent was obtained, the parent and teacher interviews were scheduled.

Interviews were conducted by the teacher-researcher for 30–45 min in a reserved class-

room in the building. In the interviews, the teacher-researcher encouraged the informant

to take the lead in the conversation and talk freely about the child to facilitate as accurate

picture of the support network as possible. After identifying the major people in the

support network, informants were asked to describe each relationship (positive or neg-

ative or mixed; very strong, strong, moderate, or weak). In the interviews, if the infor-

mant had trouble thinking of people in the child’s social support network the researcher

Type of Support (Primary—center and Secondary—outer) lavO)rennid sedivorp ,.g.e( :latnemurtsnI

elgnatceR)noitamrofni dnif spleh ,.g.e( lanoitamrofnI

Emotional (e.g., Listens when child needs someone to talk to) Triangle

Aspect of Development being influenced (primary—center and secondary—outline)

Red: Cognitive

Yellow: Social

Green: Emotional

Purple: Language/Communication

Blue: Physical (gross/fine motor)

Orange: Creativity

Line width and type indicate direction and strength of relationship:

Dotted - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - negative

Plain __________________________ positive

dexim devruC

Weak relationship (1/2 pt.)Moderate relationship (1 ½ pt.)Strong relationship (3 pt.)Very Strong relationship (6 pt.)

Fig. 1 Eco-mapping Protocol Legend defines the aspects of the eco-maps generated with the participants.The Eco-map Protocol can be found described in Baumgartner and Buchanan (2010) and more completelyin Burnett (2008)

Child Youth Care Forum (2012) 41:357–369 361

123

asked name generating questions (Mollenhorst et al. 2008). For example, the interviewer

might ask a parent to name who the child sees frequently or the people in the child’s

school. The data was then reviewed and transferred into a graphic representation, the eco-

map, by the teacher-researcher using shapes and color coding to distinguish variations

(see Fig. 1). Following the creation of the eco-map, the teacher-researcher shared it with

the informant as a form of checking back to confirm that the eco-map was correct. The

teacher-researcher encouraged the informant to take eco-map home to check for accuracy

and let the teacher-researcher know if there was anything they might have missed or

would like changed. Neither the parents nor teacher changed anything in the eco-map

during these sessions.

Child Eco-Map Protocol

An adapted eco-mapping protocol for the preschool children was created. Children were

given a disposable camera to take home for 2 weeks with instructions to take pictures of

the important people in their lives. The children were instructed on how and when to use

the camera to take pictures. At the end of 2 weeks, the cameras were collected and the

pictures were developed for use in the child interviews, held in a small room in the

preschool during morning center time.

During the interview, children were asked to tell the teacher-researcher about the pic-

tures. The child interviews took place in multiple sessions over time and each session

lasted 5–15 min with an average of eight sessions per child. In the interviews, children

were asked which activities they enjoyed with each individual and how much fun they had

with each individual while being shown corresponding 4- level smiley faces rating scale (alot, some, a little, or no fun). Children were also asked to rate how much they argued with

each individual using a 3-point scale (none, a little, a lot). Next, each child was shown

pictures of classmates and teachers from school, three to five pictures at a time. They were

asked to choose the friends they play with the most. After selecting their most frequent

playmates, children were asked what kind of activities they liked to do with each friend or

teacher, how much they argued with each person, and how much fun they have with each

individual.

From the children’s interviews and description of the pictures, the teacher-researcher

compiled a book of important people for each child using the pictures and the child’s

words. The teacher-researcher read the book to the child to allow the child an opportunity

to change or add to any part of the information. One child chose to add a source of social

support, a peer not previously included. The books were placed in the classroom library for

children to choose to read and were gifted to the families at the close of the school year.

For the eco-map, strength of relationship was determined by the child’s response of how

much fun they identified as having with the individual. The response a lot corresponded

with a very strong relationship, the response some corresponded with a strong relationship,

the response a little corresponded to a moderate relationship and the response no funcorresponded to a weak relationship. The nature of the relationship was determined to the

child’s response to how much they argued with the individual (a lot corresponded with a

negative relationship; a little or some corresponded with a mixed relationship; and nonecorresponded with a positive relationship). Inter-rater reliability was only used in the

adapted child protocol because adult informants were able to verbally acknowledge the

types and areas of support provided by each individual in the child’s social support

network.

362 Child Youth Care Forum (2012) 41:357–369

123

Reliability

To code the data from the books, a team of three researchers reviewed the children’s stories

to determine the type of support and developmental areas of support (social, emotional,

physical, language, cognitive, creative) each individual provides to the child as identified

by the child informant using a code sheet. The team of researchers was chosen based on

experience and knowledge of education, child development, and eco-maps. The team was

made up of a graduate student in Child and Family Studies and two faculty members with

doctoral degrees in Child and Family Studies. When two or more of the researchers agreed

on an item, it was included in the child’s eco-map. When no agreement was found, the

researchers reviewed the information until at least two agreed. Then the teacher-researcher

compiled an eco-map of the child’s social support network. The researchers disagreed on

six types or developmental areas of support out of a total of 398 types and developmental

areas of support. In the cases of the six disagreements, the researchers reviewed the data

and came to 100% agreement.

Analysis

The three informant eco-maps (parent, child, and teacher) were considered, along with

information from the child’s initial application questionnaire for the preschool and addi-

tional questions asked of the parents to compile a descriptive narrative called a childportrait. Grounded Theory methods were used to investigate the child portraits (Strauss

and Corbin 1998; Yu et al. 2011). First, the teacher-researcher read the data and notes

without writing notes on the data. Then the researcher reread the data making marginal

notes about possible themes and codes in the data. The third step involved a rereading of

the child portraits, continuing to look for codes and themes. The teacher-researcher sear-

ched for recurring themes, patterns, breaks in patterns, and other significant information.

Codes were documented using qualitative tables with codes and the text excerpts. An

initial open coding revealed eight individual codes. These individual codes were then

collapsed into three themes. During the processes of coding and development of themes,

the teacher-researcher repeatedly returned to the data to check the validity of the findings.

Results

The present project sought to uncover what information could be learned from three eco-

maps created by children, parents, and the teacher. Three overall themes emerged from the

data were (1) agreement on an inner circle, (2) different perspectives on characterstics ofsupport, and (3) children’s unique way of expressing support. These will be described in

the following sections.

Agreement on an Inner Circle

Children, parents, and teachers all agreed on a small group or inner circle of people

(microsystem) within the each child’s support network. These inner circles included family

members, school friends, and teachers. Mothers were mentioned by all three informants for

all five children and fathers were mentioned by all three informants for three of five

children. For those children with siblings, siblings were always included by all informants.

For each child, a special or best friend was often included by all three informants with at

Child Youth Care Forum (2012) 41:357–369 363

123

least one of children’s school friends being mentioned for three of five children. While

teachers were frequently mentioned by adults, only two of the five children included

teachers in their eco-maps. The individuals mentioned by all three informants appear to be

the sources of support that are most salient in the child’s life and possibly more significant

for the child’s development.

Results indicate agreement from the three informants about the members of a small

inner circle of people in children’s social support networks. Bronfenbrenner (2005)

identifies home and school as the most common context in a microsystem for a young

child. The interactions that a child has in his/her immediate environments or microsystem

are the experiences that have the most significant effects on the child. The common

mention of individuals from home (family) and school (friends and teachers) by all three

informants suggests that all are aware of the closest individuals or supports for the child.

Different Perspectives on the Kinds of Support

While all informants agreed on an inner circle of support, there was less agreement among

the informants about which developmental area (social, emotional, physical, language,

cognitive, creative) was supported by each identified individual.

The most frequently mentioned aspect of development supported was social. All

informants focused on the child receiving support for their social development from those

individuals within their support system. However, there were differences between the

informants, particularly the adults and children, in how they described the way in which the

child was supported by individuals in their system.

Adults focused on cognitive sources of support. While parents and teachers identified a

number of cognitive supports, parents identified the most. In addition, parents reported

more language, and emotional sources of support, therefore by including parents the

teacher-researcher was able to get a more comprehensive picture of the child in those areas

of development. Hoover-Dempsey and Jones (1997) reported that parental role construc-

tion reflects the values, goals, and expectations that parents have for their child’s future and

development. Therefore, parents may have been more focused on cognitive developmental

areas based on their current goals for their child, which include getting ready for kin-

dergarten. Social and emotional developmental areas might also be a significant focus of

parents because of its unique salience in the preschool years and therefore it may currently

be an important value for them. Of the informants overall, parents appeared to give a more

rounded report of the children’s developmental sources of support, always reporting at

least five developmental areas of support.

Children tended to report more sources of physical support than other informants.

Children identified physical support that included activities such as riding bikes together,

playing ball, and dancing. Zoe identified her cousin as a provider of physical support when

she said, ‘‘We love to play digging outside. We buried the horse and now we cannot find

it.’’ Other activities that children identified doing included: riding bikes together, playing

ball, doing gymnastics, climbing trees, and dancing. Nadia identified her grandfather as

someone who cooks dinner for her family, which is another kind of physical support. In

contrast to the children’s emphasis on physical support, the teacher only identified a source

of physical support for one of the five children.

In addition to physical support, children reported supports of creative development

more than adults. All five children identified multiple sources of support for creativity in

their report. (The teacher never mentioned creative support and only one parent did so.)

Children frequently reported enjoying pretend play with the individuals in their support

364 Child Youth Care Forum (2012) 41:357–369

123

network. For example when Jason said, ‘‘Sometimes we play spy and secret agent toge-

ther,’’ he was identifying one of his friends from gymnastics as a source of support with

whom he enjoys participating in pretend play. When Zoe said, ‘‘We pretend to work in the

ice cream shop together,’’ she was identifying a friend from school as a source of support in

the area of pretend play. Based on the results, pretend play appears to be a very important

activity to all of the children. By including children in the eco-mapping process, the

researchers learn more about the children’s creative interests and sources of support.

Dancing, singing, and art projects were also common creative activities reported by

children. Dylan said, ‘‘We do choreography together dancing to music’’ about one of his

friends at school;he also said, ‘‘We play with toys and make music together’’ he was

identifying another of his friends from school as a source of support for creative devel-

opment. When Nadia said, ‘‘My grandmother teaches me songs. She taught me Annie Mae

and the alligator song’’ she also identified her grandmother as a creative source of support.

Sources of support for creative development appeared to be most salient to child

informants.

Child perceptions of important relationships in his or her life are an important aspect in

studying children’s social support networks. A child’s perception and role in the con-

nection between home and school is one that is often overlooked (Shpancer 1998).

Including the children in the eco-mapping protocol allows the researcher to address this

issue and collect a comprehensive picture of a child’s social support network. In the study

all five children identified enjoying pretend play with their creative sources of support.

Pretend play appears to be a very important activity to all of the children. According to

Ahn and Filipenko (2007), children use pretend play as a way to make sense of themselves

and their experiences. Pretend play allows children to test various situations in various

ways and through this they learn socially.

Children’s Unique Way of Describing Support

The third interesting theme that emerged from the eco-maps from all three informants was

children’s unique way of expressing the ways in which they are supported by individuals in

their eco-map. First, children frequently mentioned pets as a part of their support systems,

something that adults did not include. Three of the five children had pets and two of the

three included pets in their social support network. However, neither parent or teacher

informant identified any pets in children’s social support networks. About his dog, Jason

said, ‘‘This is my dog Mary! I like to play fetch with her. She is really fun to play with.’’

About one of her dogs Nadia said, ‘‘That is my dog. He is a boy. I like to play with him.

Sometimes I like to run around with him in the garden.’’

Second, children used pictures of objects to represent individuals in their support sys-

tem. Although children were instructed to take pictures of people who were important to

them, they also took many pictures of inanimate objects. While this itself is not surprising,

it was surprising that children used the pictures of the inanimate objects to describe

important people and experiences. For example, Sandy’s pictures included a picture of

some jewelry. She described the picture: ‘‘This is jewelry at Maw Maw’s house. She

always gets in a hospital bed because she is sick.’’ For Sandy, the jewelry represented her

MawMaw, an important individual in her support system for whom she had no picture.

This provided opportunities for children to discuss individuals who aren’t available for

photographs.

In addition to representing individuals with pictures of objects, children used the pic-

tures of objects to describe the kind and type of support that is provided by individuals in

Child Youth Care Forum (2012) 41:357–369 365

123

their support system. For example, Jason took a picture of the inside of the van he rides in

regularly. About the van, Jason said, ‘‘This is my van. I go to preschool in the van. We also

go to the beach, Sea World, and Lara’s house in the van. I get bored sometimes.’’ The van

is obviously a very important part of Jason’s life and he has spent a lot of time in it with his

family. Jason’s identification of the van and how it is used also demonstrates the social area

of developmental support provided by his family, especially his mother. In her report,

Nadia included pictures of the kitchen at her house and a lamp in the living room. Nadia

mentioned her family eating together or cooking five times. Children’s photos of concrete

objects provided a catalyst for conversation about the types of support provided by the

individuals in their system.

Children’s use of photographs of concrete objects to describe their lives is consistent

with Piaget’s preoperational stage of development. Children in the preoperational stage

begin to develop the ability of dual representation, the ability to view an item as the object

itself and a symbol for something. Identification of the types or areas of developmental

support an individual provides involves thinking abstractly, which children are unable to

do in the preoperational stage. Therefore children used dual representation for identified

inanimate objects to communicate the types and areas of developmental support provided

by individuals in their support networks. Using the objects gave children concrete objects

to talk about and communicate ideas through (Berk 2003).

Discussion

The eco-map protocols with children, parents, and the teacher, facilitated a more complex

picture of the child’s social support networks than could have been accomplished with just

one or two informants. Each informant’s unique together contributed to create a more

complete picture than any one individual’s information would have generated. In addition,

as a result of the process, each informant can now be aware of what information is shared

among the informants (such as the inner circle), and what is uniquely owned by each

individual (such as the child’s inclusion of pets). What is particularly clear from this

project is the value of including the child’s perspective in the process of investigating

children’s social support networks.

Implications for Research and Practice

There are a number of implications from the present exploratory investigation of the use of

the eco-mapping protocol for measuring a child’s social support network. First, future

research should continue to investigate the usefulness of eco-maps for investigating chil-

dren’s support systems. As demonstrated in this exploratory study, various informants

provide different information regarding a child’s support system. Existing measures of

children’s social support systems focus on collecting information from children or adults,

but do not include information from all sources. While children and adults agree on the

small inner circle, children provide much more information about their peers and adults

can provide more information about the informational and cognitive supports within the

child’s life. In addition, future research might consider children’s inclusion of pets and

inanimate objects in their social support networks. Further inquiry with children about

animals and inanimate objects they chose to represent sources of support may reveal the

reasons children included them in their important social support network. In addition,

further research with larger and more diverse populations is necessary for generalization.

366 Child Youth Care Forum (2012) 41:357–369

123

For educators, the eco-map protocols may be useful as a teaching and family

involvement tool with parents and children. Teachers may find that the information pro-

vided by the eco-maps may assist them in getting to know the children and families with

which they work and to identify ways to increase or facilitate support for the child’s

continued development and learning. Efforts to understand the influences and social

resources within a child’s developmental contexts can help a teacher identify resources

when faced with the need for intervention within the classroom setting (Martinussen et al.

2011). The parent eco-mapping protocol could be used at a beginning of the year con-

ference, and the teacher could construct the eco-map for use as a reference tool. The use of

the semi-structured eco-mapping protocol guides the parent in sharing specific information

with the teacher regarding their child and sources of social support they feel are important.

Not only does use of the eco-map protocol allow teachers a more complete picture of the

children, but it also allows each child to share information about himself and important

people in his life.

Previous research has identified positive outcomes for pre-service teachers who engaged

parents in conversations about their child (Kroeger and Lash 2011; Baumgartner and

Buchanan 2010). Baumgartner and Buchanan (2010) found that pre-service teachers who

completed the eco-map process with parents were forced to confront some unconscious

biases and stereotypes and to expand their teaching to think about the whole child. The

eco-map protocols not only provide teachers with a structure by providing questions, but

also a structure for parents to provide meaningful information to their child’s teacher. In

other words, the process of completing the eco-map may lead to changes in a teacher’s

approach to working with children and families.

The present work goes a step further than previous research in providing not only a

structure to elicit information from parents, but also an adapted protocol to obtain infor-

mation from the children themselves. The child protocol allows children to share a part of

their life with the teacher and to teach the teacher about themselves. Eco-maps can inform

instruction and help the teacher identify children’s interests and connect new learning to

their experiences and interests. For example, an eco-map might reveal a student’s strong

interest in the performing arts, an interest easily worked into the classroom to teach and

support the child’s development. The eco-map can also provide the teacher with infor-

mation about the ways children learn. For example, children frequently cited their love of

pretend play or physical play. The incorporation of these activities within lessons may

result in greater child engagement and ultimate learning. Researchers have identified that

the effectiveness of interventions with students is increased when connected to the

students’ motivation, social support system and the context of the problem behavior

(Martinussen et al. 2011). Finally, the eco-map also provides information about what

aspects of a child’s development may need attention in the classroom. For example,

Nadia’s eco-maps revealed that she has a large family and is a socially-driven child, but

she didn’t have much physical support in her eco-maps. Given that Nadia is a very social

child, group gross motor activities and games may be planned in the classroom to enhance

her physical development. As outlined by various researchers, creating a shared under-

standing of both parent and teacher expectations for the care of children is an important

component of quality programming for young children (Glenn-Applegate et al. 2011).

Overall, the eco-map can be used as an instrument in the classroom to inform practice and

help the teacher individualize instruction.

In summary, this study makes several important contributions. The eco-map protocol is

a promising tool to help researchers and teachers understand children’s social support

networks. Collecting information from three informants presents the researcher with a

Child Youth Care Forum (2012) 41:357–369 367

123

comprehensive picture of the whole child and their support network with each informant

contributing unique information that contributes to a complete picture of how a child’s

development and learning is supported. In addition, the similarities and differences in

perspective presented by the informants provide information about what is shared

knowledge and what is specific to each individual. The completion of the eco-map is a

highly social process that in itself may result in changes in the relationship between

teachers, families and children. Information from the eco-maps is not only helpful in

studying children’s social support system, it also can inform instruction in the classroom.

While eco-maps have been used with adults in areas such as intervention and counseling

(McCormick et al. 2005) the development of a child eco-mapping protocol from the child’s

perspective represents a novel approach to studying children’s social support networks.

The child eco-map protocol illuminates the differences of children’s representation of

sources of support as they vary from the perceptions of the adults in their lives. Indeed,

eco-map protocol may also be a useful research tool for additional areas of inquiry, such as

investigating resources during times of family crisis, natural disaster or other develop-

mental interruption. As researchers in the early childhood education and child development

field escalate efforts to explore the development and learning of children within a larger

ecological framework (Robinson et al. 2011; Weems and Overstreet 2008), eco-maps and

similar methods that investigate the development within multiple contexts can be a

valuable part of our efforts. Future research should continue to develop the child eco-

mapping protocol and other protocols for measuring children’s social support networks and

for use in the classroom.

References

Ahn, J., & Filipenko, M. (2007). Narrative, imaginary, play, art, and self: Intersecting worlds. EarlyChildhood Education Journal, 34(4), 279–289.

Baumgartner, J., & Buchanan, T. (2010). ‘‘I have HUGE stereotypes’’: Using eco-maps to understandchildren and families. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 31(2), 173–184.

Berk, L. (2003). Child development (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.Bost, K. K. (1995). Mother and child reports of preschool children’s social support networks: Network

correlates of peer acceptance. Social Development, 4(2), 149–164.Bost, K. K., Cielinski, K. L., Newell, W. H., & Vaughn, B. E. (1994). Social networks of children attending

head start from the perspective of the child. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9, 441–462.Bost, K. K., Vaughn, B. E., Washington, W. N., Cielinski, K. L., & Bradbard, M. R. (1998). Social

competence, social support, and attachment: Demarcation of construct domains, measurement, andpaths of influence for preschool children attending head start. Child Development, 69(1), 192–218.

Bretherton, I., Oppenheim, D., Buchsbaum, H., Emde, R. N., & The MacArthur Narrative Working Group(1990). MacArthur story stem battery. Unpublished manual.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (Ed.). (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on humandevelopment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Burnett, L. (2008). Measuring children’s social support networks: Eco-mapping protocol. (master’s thesis).Retrieved from Louisiana State University Electronic Thesis & Dissertation Collection.

Cook, T., & Hess, E. (2007). What the camera sees and from whose perspective: Fun methodologies forengaging children in enlightening adults. Childhood: A Global Journal of Child Research, 14(1),29–45.

Curry, J., Fazio-Griffith, L., & Rohr, S. (2008). My solar system: A developmentally adapted eco-mappingtechnique for children. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 3(3), 233–242.

Epstein, J. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Franco, N., & Levitt, M. J. (1997). The social ecology of early childhood: Preschool social support networks

and social acceptance. Social Development, 6(3), 292–306.Glenn-Applegate, K., Pentimonti, J., & Justice, L. M. (2011). Parents’ selection factors when choosing

preschool programs for their children with disabilities. Child & Youth Care Forum, 40(3), 211–231.

368 Child Youth Care Forum (2012) 41:357–369

123

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Jones, K. P. (1997). Parental role construction and parental involvement inchildren’s education. Retrieved from ERIC, Ipswich, MA: http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED411054.

House, J. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Kent, J. B., Strickland, M. J., & Marinak, B. A. (2009). Child voice: How immigrant children enlightened

their teachers with a camera. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37, 13–21.Kroeger, J., & Lash, M. (2011). Asking, listening, and learning: Toward a more thorough method of inquiry

in home-school relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 268–277.Larkina, M. (2009). The role of maternal verbal, affective and behavioral support in preschool children’s

independent and collaborative autobiographical memory reports [Abstract]. Dissertation AbstractsInternational: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 69(9-B),5808.

Martinussen, R., Tannock, R., & Chaban, P. (2011). Teachers’ reported use of instructional and behaviormanagement practices for students with behavior problems: Relationship to the role and level oftraining in ADHD. Child & Youth Care Forum, 40(3), 193–210.

Mashburn, A. J. (2008). Quality of social and physical environments in preschools and children’s devel-opment of academic, language, and literacy skills. Applied Developmental Science, 12(3), 113–127.

McCormick, K., Stricklin, S., Nowak, T., & Rous, B. (2005). Using eco-mapping as a research tool.(National Early Childhood Transition Center Spotlight #1). Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky,Interdisciplinary Human Development Institute. Retrieved from http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-system/teaching/Disabilities/Services%20to%20Children%20with%20Disabilities/Transitions/disabl_art_00028pdf_032307.html.

McCormick, K., Stricklin, S., Nowak, T., & Rous, B. (2008). Using eco-mapping to understand familystrengths and resources. Young Exceptional Children, 11(1), 17–28.

Mollenhorst, G., Volker, B., & Flap, H. (2008). Social contexts and personal relationships: The effect ofmeeting opportunities on similarity for relationships of different strength. Social Networks, 30(1),60–68.

Page, T., & Bretherton, I. (2001). Mother- and father- child attachment themes in the story completions ofpre-schoolers from post-divorce families: Do they predict relationships with peers and teachers?Attachment and Human Development, 3(1), 1–29.

Ray, R. A., & Street, A. F. (2005). Eco-mapping: An innovative research tool for nurses. Journal ofAdvanced Nursing, 50(5), 545–552.

Robinson, L.R., Boris, N.W., Heller, S.S, Rice, J., Zeanah, C.H., Clark, C., & Hawkins, S. (2011). The goodenough home? Home environment and outcomes of young maltreated children. Child and Youth CareForum, doi:10.1007/s10566-011-9157-3 (Advance online publication).

Shpancer, N. (1998). Caregiver-parent relationships in daycare: A review and re-examination of the data andtheir implications. Early Education and Development, 9(3), 239–259.

Skylerman, R. F., Thompson, J. M. D., Pryor, J. E., Becroft, D. M. O., Robinson, E., Clark, P. M., et al.(2005). Maternal stress, social support, and preschool children’s intelligence. Early Human Devel-opment, 81(10), 815–821.

Strauss, J., & Corbin, A. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developinggrounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.

Weems, C., & Overstreet, S. (2008). Child and adolescent mental health research in the context of HurricaneKatrina: An ecological needs-based perspective and introduction to the special section. Journal ofClinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 37(3), 487–494.

Wolchik, S. A., Beals, J., & Sandler, I. N. (1989). Mapping children’s support networks: Conceptualand methodological issues. In D. Belle (Ed.), Children’s social networks and social supports(pp. 191–221). New York: Wiley.

Yu, C. H., Jannasch-Pennell, A., & DiGangi, S. (2011). Compatibility between text mining and qualitativeresearch in the perspectives of grounded theory, content analysis, and reliability. The QualitativeReport, 16(3), 730–744.

Child Youth Care Forum (2012) 41:357–369 369

123