This paper provides another way to gaze upon Brad's story as presented by van Eijck and Roth (2010). It raises questions about infrastructural racism in contemporary science education by exploring its association with Whiteness and White privilege. To explore the racial positioning inherent in Western science education specific attention is given to the positions of power that accompany Western ways of knowing the world (i.e., science education) in comparison to Other ways of knowing the world (i.e., First Nations Ways of Knowing). The paper suggests the power relationships inherent within this dualism are asymmetrical due to the implications of Whiteness within colonial societies. Even though power relations were not discussed in Brad's story, the paper suggests the implications were visible. The paper concludes by advocating for a re-imagining in science education where the traditional ontological and epistemological foundations are deconstructed and spaces are created for enacting practical ways of resisting oppression.

Water is an extraordinary thing: it is the key to the chemistry of life. If it wasn't for water's unique properties, such as its abilities to dissolve other substances, life could not exist on our planet. Indeed, life was thought to have started in water and currently more than half of the plant and animal species live in water. On land, plants and animals need water for their existence, as the ability of water to disassemble and rearrange other molecules is essential to all daily actions. As humans, our bodies consist of about 80% water when we are babies, to around 60% -65% as adults. The human brain is about 85% water. Even though this simple polar molecule is one of the most prized possessions in the universe, what do people know about water? What does it mean to be water literate? In this paper, we explore what it means to be water literate in the fields of engineering and in science education. We will compare this theoretical understanding with what engineering and science education students actually know about water. We finish with recommendations to increase student's literacy in water.

No abstract

What does it mean to be scientifically literate in relation to water? Is this understanding the same for water literacy? And what implications do these two concepts have for water education in Australia? In addressing these questions, this paper provides a snapshot of the similar and competing educational ideologies that underpin the concepts of scientific literacy in relation to water, and water literacy. An investigation of the Australian Curriculum (Science), and a small case study of pre-service education students highlight the degree to which one concept is favored over the other. This bias ultimately raises questions for water education in Australia, as it is not about whether the ACS or [future] teachers should be addressing issues associated with water, but rather how and to what end goal. This necessitates exploring the partial and political nature of any approach to educating about water, and highlights that not all approaches are equally as politically neutral or challenging.

Despite the essentiality of freshwater to all life on the planet, the populous has inadequate understandings of water. Formal education plays a key role in shaping how individuals and communities make sense of water, its accessibility, management, consumption, and hazards. This article seeks to bring attention to the influence of cultural framings of freshwater and extreme freshwater events (such as flood and drought) in government-mandated school curricula in two water-vulnerable geographical regions of Australia and Canada. We seek to identify and respond to hegemonic social constructions that become naturalised if left unexamined. By examining the agendas and language around freshwater and extreme freshwater events in formal educational curricula, we gain a better understanding of the perceptions and assumptions made about freshwater. The results highlight that freshwater and extreme freshwater events are minimally conceptualised within these curricula as ‘nature-based’, rather than being part of a dialectical relationship with societal agendas and practices. This article discusses the implications of this framing and the psychological barriers that may affect the acknowledgment and investigation of extreme freshwater events. We conclude by offering curricular suggestions that invite community-based understandings of the dialectic relationship freshwater has with communities and regional ecosystems.