Page 296 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

270 T.W. Pagan

relationship people have with rivers, I initiated a qualitative study looking at how
Georgia river advocates make meaning of their feelings and articulate their under-
standing of and connection with a particular river. Findings from the study provide
valuable insight into the process in which advocates attain a connection with rivers
and consider what it is to have regard for both self and the river. The term “river
advocate” is used to describe the meaningful, transactional thought-and-action
relation of an individual who, through ongoing personal and collective experiences
with watersheds, develops a heightened awareness of particular rivers and views
them as complex living, biological communities. Consequently, these advocates
demonstrate caring thoughts and emotions originating from their relationships and
appear to reflect on a realization of their own actions, that is, how they contribute
or disrupt rivers, which motivate them to take further actions. I will expound on
river advocates’ dialogue with a river throughout this chapter. Fittingly, environ-
mental educators gain to benefit from an understanding of river advocacy – it
informs teachers of the ongoing dialogue an advocate shares with a river, transfor-
mative effects of a human–river relationship, and the potential for shared responsi-
bility in what occurs within society.
Taking a closer look at the growing interest in the water quality of local rivers,
I will briefly explore the appeal of longer-term stream studies for school teachers
and students. Often educators seek school-led water-quality studies to address cur-
riculum standards and provide a means to teach “students the scientific principles,
concepts, and methodologies required to understand the interrelationships of the
natural world and identify and analyze environmental problems both natural and
human-made” (College Board AP 2009, p. 4). Studies evaluating stream monitor-
ing programs suggest they combine hands-on, inquiry-oriented activities (Krapfel
1999) with the opportunity to experience key concepts in science (Overholt and
MacKenzie 2005). In some cases, the programs motivate students to examine

alternative solutions for resolving water-quality impairments at a study site.
But I want to consider the implications of situating water-quality data as a fun-
damental objective in our school-based stream studies. Water-quality parameters provide
a reasonable estimate of a water body’s condition; however, citizen monitoring
regiments commonly used by educators are unable to fully capture the hydrological
features, functions, and constant fluctuations making each stream unique. Asking
students to define a river as numerical data and subsequently, by placing an emphasis
on collecting water-quality data, educators convey to their students that legitimate
river knowledge is relegated to a test, not what students come to experience.
Compounded by the need for credible data, some states like Georgia do not cor-
roborate citizen water-quality data and refuse to authorize it as accepted data unless
the water samples are tested by a certified laboratory (University of Tennessee
2004). This is significant because these underlying assumptions suggest students
that the value of a river lies in how it ranks within the US Environmental Protection
Agency’s water-quality standards and how ultimately protecting our rivers is the
responsibility of professional scientists. Prioritizing water-quality testing in schools
is likely to hinder some students from developing a lasting human–river relationship
and concern for a river’s rights. While it could be argued that student water-quality
data that identify pollution might trouble some students and lead them to take action,