Page 299 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

21 River Advocacy: Valuing Complex Systems as the Groundwork for River Relationships 273

a river and understanding of a river’s complexity, advocates recognize their own
actions. They realize how they contribute or disrupt rivers. For a river advocate,
these thoughts that emerge from dialogue with the river commonly evoke action
and, in turn, generate further emotions and desire to learn more about that river. The
dialectic process between emotions and action builds and, over time, matures
accountability to nature.
With the average lifespan of Alabama Water Watch school-led stream

monitoring groups teetering around 2.2 years (Robinson and Deutsch 2007), it is
imperative that environmental science educators seek ways to investigate problems
with our natural resources and instill in youth a responsibility for what occurs in
our society. As educators, can we advance a moral precept that views rivers as
“others” deserving of rights? Is it possible that current school-based stream studies
might bring about human–river relationships? I argue it is too simple a way to
delve into the intricacy of a living system and encourage students to attend to a
river’s disparity. Current school policy suggests water-quality education ought to
align with token science knowledge. Instead, I suggest school reform ought to
foster student–river relationships and allow students to discover that rivers are
complex biological systems. In this sense, reform initiatives should be designed in
ways which enable students to identify and associate with attributes of the river
that speak to them – acquired through recreation and relaxation, identification of
contamination and immediacy, empowerment and sense of pride, and/or involve-
ment in and actions to stop river abuses. And, in turn, educators can help students
connect with rivers to identify injustices and analyze their underlying assumptions
regarding river rights.

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

References

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.
Cullinan, C. (2008). If nature had rights: What would people need to give up? Orion, 27, 26–31.
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.
Mueller, M. P. (2009). Educational reflections on the “ecological crisis”: Ecojustice, environmen-
talism, and sustainability. Science & Education, 18, 1031–1056.
Overholt, E., & MacKenzie, A. H. (2005). Long-term stream monitoring programs in US secondary
schools. The Journal of Environmental Education, 36, 51–56.
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.