Advertisement

River Advocacy: Valuing Complex Systems as the Groundwork for River Relationships

  • Tina Williams Pagan
Chapter
Part of the Cultural Studies of Science Education book series (CSSE, volume 3)

Abstract

Environmental educators commonly make use of stream studies to develop their students’ understanding of the interrelationships of the natural world and provide them with an authentic context for investigating problems associated with our resources. By engaging in local stream monitoring, students become familiar with riparian systems and water-quality standards that scientists and regulators use to assess the health of a water body. Although water-quality standards provide the legal backing to address impairments, an educator’s aim of collecting and analyzing numerical water-quality data reduces the complexity of a river to the degree that it limits how students relate to and understand biological systems. If educators desire to guide students to share in responsibility for what occurs in our society, teachers should reconsider how to effectively foster a conscientiousness of nature and build connections with biological systems as part of their instruction. In this chapter, I suggest educators ought to move toward curricula reforms that delve into the complexity of living systems and focus on the underpinning question of a river’s rights to accomplish their environmental education goals.

Keywords

Curriculum Reform Heighten Awareness Stream Study Address Impairment Stream Monitoring 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding for this project was provided by a USDA-CSREES 406 grant cooperating with the University of Georgia. Findings will be used to inform state and regional Extension water-quality programs as well as science educators.

References

  1. College Board AP. (2009). Environmental science course description. Retrieved October 20, 2009, from http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/ap-environmental-science-course-description.pdf Google Scholar
  2. Cullinan, C. (2008). If nature had rights: What would people need to give up? Orion, 27, 26–31.Google Scholar
  3. Krapfel, P. (1999). Deepening children’s participation through local ecological investigations. In G. A. Smith & D. R. Williams (Eds.), Ecological education in action (pp. 47–78). New York: Suny Press.Google Scholar
  4. Mueller, M. P. (2009). Educational reflections on the “ecological crisis”: Ecojustice, environmentalism, and sustainability. Science & Education, 18, 1031–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Overholt, E., & MacKenzie, A. H. (2005). Long-term stream monitoring programs in US secondary schools. The Journal of Environmental Education, 36, 51–56.Google Scholar
  6. Robinson, L., & Deutsch, B. (2007). Life cycle of a volunteer water monitoring program and implication for credibility. Paper presented at the USDA-CSREES National Water Conference. Retrieved September 5, 2009, from http://www.usawaterquality.org/conferences/2007/PPTs&Posters/Meetings/Vol_mon/Robinson&Deutsch.pdf Google Scholar
  7. Shiva, V. (2005). Earth democracy: Justice, sustainability, and peace. Cambridge: South End Press.Google Scholar
  8. Thayer-Bacon, B. (2003). Relational (e)pistemologies. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  9. University of Tennessee. (2004). A comparative analysis of water quality monitoring programs in the southeast: Lessons for Tennessee. Retrieved October 20, 2009, from http://eerc.ra.utk.edu/what-new/mainbook.pdf Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tina Williams Pagan
    • 1
  1. 1.University of GeorgiaGeorgiaUSA

Personalised recommendations