Guest Editorial/

Ground Water Is Not an Educational Priorityby Daniel Dickerson1 and Tim Callahan2

The science education community has only recently begunto examine the way in which principles of ground water occur-rence and movement are taught and learned. Results from thesestudies (Dickerson, D.L., and K.R. Dawkins. 2004. Eighth gradestudents’ understandings of groundwater. Journal of GeoscienceEducation 52, no. 1: 178–181, and other references at http://www.odu.edu/~ddickers/groundwater.htm) indicate that alter-native ideas relative to those held by the scientific communityflourish regardless of geography, socioeconomic status, race,gender, and age in the United States. The majority of theseideas involve inappropriate mental models that impose surface-oriented hydrologic structures and processes on subsurface en-vironments and/or employ inaccurate ideas of scale. For exam-ple, children and adults commonly picture most ground wateras literally occurring in large underground rivers or lakes thatare contiguous bodies of pure water that look exactly as they doabove the ground and either sit stagnant or flow between a layerof soil and a layer of rock. Such conceptions are common evenafter successful completion of introductory undergraduate geol-ogy courses. Most of these students, however, describe groundwater using scientific terms such as porosity and permeability;yet, the application of appropriate scale is another issue asmany of these students identified a typical pore size to be onthe order of kilometers. Additionally, for most children andadults, the notion of fluid and gas movement in solid rock (asopposed to unconsolidated materials) and the forces responsiblefor ground water movement remain mysterious.

Alternative ground water conceptions change littlethroughout the course of most people’s education, and develop-ment of a complete and appropriate understanding of groundwater without direct instruction appears highly unlikely. Provid-ing effective instruction in K to 12 classrooms is problematic,however, as most teachers hold inappropriate understandings ofground water. Because of the variety of traditional and alterna-tive teacher education/licensure programs within and across uni-versities, states, and the nation, geology course requirements forteachers vary. Specialized courses (e.g., hydrogeology) are rarelyever required of teachers primarily because teacher licensureprograms result in a comprehensive science license rather thanone focused on a specific science discipline. Furthermore, the

concepts these teachers are required to know in order to provideinstruction aimed to meet the goals described in local, state, andnational standards are assumed to be addressed in one or twointroductory courses in a variety of science disciplines. This as-sumption is incorrect in the case of ground water.

The issue of competence in teaching ground water princi-ples is further complicated because in the world of formal sci-ence education, ground water is not a priority. A primeexample involves the National Science Education Standards (adocument from which the majority of the states and schoolsystems in the country develop goals for K to 12 science in-struction), which call for a complete and appropriate under-standing of water cycle processes. However, their depiction ofa water cycle focuses almost entirely on surface-oriented pro-cesses. In fact, the term ground water is never mentioned inthe document. Instead, as opposed to repeated references tosurface-oriented processes involved in the water cycle, subsur-face processes are explicitly referred to only once as waterthat collects in ‘‘soil, and in rocks underground’’ (National Re-search Council. 1996. National Science Education Standards.Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, p. 160). The prac-tical implication for classroom instruction is that ground waterconcepts become marginalized, or worse, expendable. Asadults, this lack of understanding translates into the inability tomake informed decisions as voters, parents, and citizens regard-ing personal and public health, environmental stewardship, andsound economics.

Readers of Ground Water understand better than any othergroup the importance of ground water to the health and pros-perity of the public. It is critical that you get involved in educa-tion. We propose three areas of initial involvement: (1) practiceand encourage teaching for deeper understanding of ground wa-ter concepts, using examples that stress appropriate scale, par-ticularly in introductory courses; (2) lobby for more explicitinclusion of ground water in standards and curricula at the stateand national level; and (3) work with science educators to pro-vide professional development opportunities for practicing sci-ence teachers. Such efforts have proven successful in the past.For example, in 1999, the Education and Industry Committeefor Earth Science in North Carolina, a group composed of earthscientists and science educators, successfully lobbied for anearth/environmental science requirement for all graduates ofNorth Carolina public high schools. A similar group of in-formed and devoted hydrogeologists and educators can do thesame to make ground water a priority in science education.

Note: Opinions expressed in the editorial column are those ofthe author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the NationalGround Water Association or the staff of the journal.

1Science Education, Educational Curriculum & Instruction,Old Dominion University, 145 Education Building, Norfolk, VA23529; ddickers@odu.edu

2Geology Department, College of Charleston, 66 George Street,Charleston, SC 29424; (843) 953-8278; fax (843) 953-5407;callahant@cofc.edu

Copyright ª 2006 The Author(s)Journal compilationª 2006 National Ground Water Association.doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2006.00163.x

Vol. 44, No. 3—GROUND WATER—May–June 2006 323