Teaching about freshwater resources should include social systems

Climate change is expected to increase the frequency of extreme freshwater events (EFWE), such as droughts and floods. Changes to freshwater resources can have profound, far-reaching implications for ecosystems, economies, and policies. Experts have proposed that communities be involved in managing their own freshwater resources. However, many people do not have a complete understanding of the “social construction of water”; this is defined as the relationship between water and social issues, such as power structures, social inequity, and technological interventions. Because knowledge of freshwater resources is often acquired at school, it is important to understand how formal education shapes students' perceptions of their relationship to water and their role in water resources management. This study investigated how school curricula shaped students' understanding of society's relationship to freshwater resources and EFWE.

This research applied Stoknes' theory of resistance to climate change. The theory lists five psychological barriers to explain reluctance to acknowledging climate change. The first barrier relates to issues of distance and time, which occur when a problem seems too far removed to appear threatening. The second barrier is loss aversion, or avoidance mechanisms, such as the belief that students should not be subjected to disturbing concepts. The third barrier is dissonance, which is when a person behaves in a way that does not align with their beliefs, usually because it is just easier or more convenient. The fourth psychological barrier is denial, which involves ignoring, either willingly or not, facts that threaten one's beliefs. Finally, the fifth barrier from Stoknes' theory is identity, or the importance a person places upon any given piece of information based on their cultural context, beliefs and values.

The study collected all of the K-10th grade government-mandated curricula in two locations: Queensland, Australia, and Saskatchewan, Canada. These locations were selected because both experienced significant flooding in 2011 and have similar educational and governmental systems, investments in science and technology, and community infrastructure. The K-10 curricula documents for schools in both locations were analyzed to identify in which disciplines most frequently mentioned the terms “water,” “drought,” “flood,” “tsunami,” and “natural disaster.” The researchers found that two disciplines—Geography/Social Studies and Science—had the highest prevalence of these terms.

The curriculum documents from these two disciplines were then analyzed in-depth using a three-step approach. The first step was to search for the term “water” within the curriculum documents to find general discussions of the resource. The second step was to search for the same four terms listed above, with the goal of understanding of EFWE discussion within the curricula. In these searches, investigators paid particular attention to: 1) the number of times the terms appeared within the education goals, outcomes, or indicators in a given curriculum; 2) in which discipline the term appeared (Science or Geography/Social Studies); and 3) the content the curriculum suggested be taught for that learning outcome. These components were investigated for every grade level. The third step assessed potential barriers to explain the disconnect between water and society that existed in the discourse of school curricula. The authors analyzed the documents using the five barriers identified in Stoknes' theory: issues of distance and time, loss aversion, dissonance, denial, and identity.

The authors found that the social construction of water was not being fully taught in most mandated curricula in both Canada and Australia. Water was discussed as a “natural process and/or chemical phenomena” 11 out of the 18 times. The other 7 mandatory curricula did discuss the relationship between water and society, but mostly at a big-picture level. Thus, students did not necessarily develop the analytical skills to link water to their own everyday actions and their community. The authors argued that this framing of EFWE removed any sense of human influence or responsibility over the event and failed to foster civic engagement in freshwater management among students.

The authors then applied the five psychological barriers from Stoknes' theory to explain these findings. Regarding issues of distance and time, the authors argued that because EFWE do not influence all citizens to the same degree, they may not be perceived as an important topic to include in school curricula. Loss aversion may have been a potential explanation for why water is typically framed in a neutral, scientific light. The third barrier, dissonance, may explain why schools do not discuss EFWE issues: if the curriculum does not mandate subjects to be discussed, it is easier for teachers to not discuss them than it is to create a lesson plan. The authors reasoned that the lack of government-mandated lesson plans on EFWE might drive teachers to conclude that EFWE are not a significant problem and thus not teach them, deepening denial of the issue. Finally, the authors suggested that identity may explain why a change in the overall perspective might be difficult given the widespread belief that humans do not impact freshwater resources or EFWE.

There are some limitations in this study. A wide array of factors—such as local politics, economics, and cultural agendas—influence how curricula is shaped. Such factors were beyond the scope of this study. Additionally, the curricula by itself does not necessarily reflect a full picture of what is being taught in the classroom. Investigators also noted that not all aspects of an individual's understanding and awareness of freshwater and EFWE are shaped by their education in school. This study did not measure impact of these curricula on student's perspectives; such a study would be useful to complement this investigation's conclusions.

The authors recommend that, rather than focusing exclusively on a “nature-based” definition of freshwater resources, curricula should reflect a more holistic picture of the relationship between water and society. Curricula should include: 1) the history of their community's access to freshwater; 2) how local communities have experienced and learned from EFWE in the past; 3) local Indigenous knowledge of freshwater and EFWE; or 4) the EFWE plans, policies, and procedures that currently exist. In addition, the authors recommend that lessons should encourage students to take part in developing potential solutions to ongoing climate-induced water issues in their local communities.