How Clean Is the River?

Sherry Schaaf

Here on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State, salmon and water quality are more than just a news story. They are vitally important to our economy and our environment—and are the inspiration for environmental science learning adventures.

In our water quality project, four third-grade classes from Forks Elementary School in Forks, Washington, discovered—through research, hands-on activities, and fieldwork—how to determine the water quality of a local river. The group also raised salmon in the classroom for release into the river. Throughout the yearlong project, students modeled scientific processes and learned firsthand how to apply scientific concepts to real-life situations. The combination of strong content and a solid framework around which to build science lessons proved successful beyond our expectations—we encourage you to try similar studies with your students.

The Big Question

The teachers introduced the project in September, explaining that students would have to determine if the nearby Sol Duc river was healthy enough for salmon, which they would be raising in the classroom later in the year. If students found the river suitable, they would release the fish in the river in the spring.

The class started out by brainstorming what they already knew (and needed to know) about the topic, in this case water and salmon. Lists of the questions or comments that students came up with—How can we determine the health of our river? What kind of activities occur along our river? Have other scientists studied our river?—were written out for all to see and discuss.

The questions were pared down to several that all agreed were the most important or “essential.” Each class eventually arrived at one similar “big” question—a variation of “Is the water in the Sol Duc river a healthy place to release salmon?” Each class copied their big question on poster paper and hung it in the classroom so it could be referred to throughout the year, helping keep students focused on their goal.

To start answering the big question, students began with research. Throughout September and October, students read books to learn about water-quality issues (see NSTA Connection) and recorded notes in science notebooks, modeling processes real scientists use when they begin an investigation. Their research familiarized students with vocabulary and ideas that would be referred to throughout the project, such as riparian zone (the flora surrounding the stream area), macroinvertebrate, and the differences between hatchery-raised fish and wild, native salmon.

Hands-on Water Quality

While students were researching water quality they were also conducting hands-on activities that complemented their readings. In late September and October, students worked collaboratively in small groups to conduct activities from the website for the Water Quality Project of the Washington Virtual Classroom (WVC) (see Internet Resources). The WVC web page was vital—in addition to the activities, it provided background information and training materials for teachers. Though the web page is targeted to our region, it is a useful model for teachers wanting to start a similar project or create a water-quality unit.

Activities revolving around basic water-quality tests, such as Using a pH Kit and What’s Turbidity?, helped students develop process skills while they acquired familiarity with the science concepts central to the project. Students learned that overall water quality is determined by a combination of biotic and abiotic factors.

The activities gave students valuable practice in careful note taking and labeling drawings and diagrams. They also learned the importance of keeping measurable data so results could be easier to interpret. For example, by counting the number of mayflies and stoneflies when sampling macroinvertebrates, students had measurable data that allowed them to do comparisons throughout the year and from year to year as all data is recorded on the WVC website.

Students related what they learned from these activities to their big question. For example, pH testing of common household liquids showed students that all substances have a pH value. Students learned that a river being too basic or acidic was not a good thing and that various substances can affect the pH of a river, and therefore living things. Understanding this showed students how pollutants dumped into a body of water can make that water unsuitable for life. It was not as important to have students understand the scientific meaning of pH as it was to know that it was a useful test to help us understand if the river was okay for the salmon.

(For a list of the hands-on activities conducted throughout the river project, see NSTA Connection.)

While students were completing these activities, we introduced another element to the project: science buddies. As part of Forks Middle School’s participation in the Washington Virtual Classroom’s Water Quality Project, each third-grade student was assigned a seventh-grade buddy, who helped the young students learn how to do each water-quality test in the classroom, analyze their results, and post data on the project website. This partnership allowed teachers to share expertise and equipment. The buddies worked with each other at least once before each of the three field trips, accompanied them on each field trip, and when possible, they met after field trips to go over results of their testing.

In the Field

On the field trips, students connected what they were learning in the classroom to real-life science. Keeping in mind what they had learned about water quality from the activities and research, students brainstormed what investigations should be conducted on their trip to the river and what materials and supplies they would need.

With notebooks and test kits (see Internet Resources) in hand, the students took their first field trip in late October. Having the seventh-grade science buddies along helped, but when visiting a fast-moving river such as the Sol Duc, having an adequate number of adult chaperones was essential. Always check your district regulations before planning field trips.

Each class took a separate field trip, and each class had about 10 groups. Some groups investigated the water’s pH at different spots, some determined dissolved oxygen levels, and others conducted fecal coliform tests. Others measured and compared nitrates and phosphates in parts per million. Students wore goggles when performing the actual tests, and each group had a “chemical waste” bucket for used test tubes.

Explore the topic of Rivers

All tests were done in the field with the exception of the biological oxygen demand and fecal coliform tests, which have a waiting period of several days and/or hours. Each test was done by at least two other groups at the same time.

All students recorded air and water temperatures. Comparing the temperature of the water with the dissolved oxygen results was an important step. (Gases dissolve more easily in cold water than in warm water.) River water that is consistently high in dissolved oxygen is usually considered a healthy and stable ecosystem that can support many kinds of aquatic organisms. Students can be told that colder water holds more dissolved oxygen, but the true conceptual understanding does not take place until they do the tests themselves and attempt to make sense of their data.

Students sorted and classified as needed, especially when looking at the different macroinvertebrates collected from the river. They worked with their buddies to tally the type of “macros” in their samples using resources compiled during classroom macroinvertebrate investigations prior to the field trip. Classification of the macros generally was limited to “pollution tolerant” and “pollution intolerant,” or, as the kids say, “bad bugs” and “good bugs.”

Students meticulously recorded data and observations in their science notebooks. Their engagement in the project was obvious!

Analyzing Initial Results

Back in the classroom, the groups shared what they had learned from the various tests and analyzed their data. By inputting our data onto the WVC website, a water-quality index was tabulated. Students also filled out a data sheet called a Biotic Index, which puts a numerical importance on the type and quantity of macroinverte-brates found in the sample. That way, students could easily see if their river was rated “excellent,” “good,” “fair,” or “poor” based on that parameter.

A few students jumped to the conclusion that their big question had been answered after only the first field trip. When students had “good” initial test results, many automatically believed that they had answered their big question satisfactorily, and said that their river was indeed a healthy creek to release salmon in when spring comes.

Those students that had “poor” initial test results, such as low dissolved oxygen levels, believed that this level would never be different. With help and guidance from their teachers, both of these groups of students came to understand that certain things would change from season to season. Students knew that the weather in the fall, especially in September, can be very warm, with low water levels after the dry, warm summer. They concluded that low dissolved oxygen due to high temperatures would result.

When asked if they could expect the same test results in cold, freezing February when the winter field trip would be taken, students realized that maybe things would be different and they should wait until all the field trips were completed before deciding on the overall quality of their river.

Students realized that trying to answer their big question after just one experience out in the field is not usually reliable, and scientific investigations and experiments must be repeated.

Finally, students wrote about the trip results and what they meant and posted the data on the project website. Students also wrote on other topics, such as describing the riparian zone.

All About Salmon

In January, we began work on our own fish “hatchery.” Eggs arrived from the state hatchery after the students had set up a 55-gallon tank in the school library in January. (You can learn about setting up tank and caring for salmon by going to the “Curriculum” page of the WVC website, clicking on “Stream Studies Curriculum,” then clicking on “Salmon” under “Curriculum Topics.”)

Students learned about the salmon life cycle through observation of the salmon fry and through books and additional resources provided by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Science notebooks were used to record growth of the fish. When students visited the salmon tank, they would draw what they saw and compare it with what they had seen the previous week. Students made scientific diagrams of the salmon and posters of the life cycle.

Precise data and observations were recorded daily by rotating groups of students, and they took this responsibility very seriously. When the salmon fry start swimming, they start eating, and students learned firsthand how important nitrates, phosphates, and ammonia levels are in keeping the salmon alive. For example, waste started to accumulate in the tank once the salmon started eating, causing the level of ammonia that students kept track of in the data record book to climb dramatically. After students siphoned and replaced the water, the ammonia test results returned to normal.

During the salmon-raising time, students did additional watershed activities to help them better understand the whole picture of salmon, water quality, and good environmental stewardship. By making model watersheds in two-liter bottles and looking at demonstrations of how a watershed actually works, students learned the value of a watershed in filtering, protecting, and preserving the ecosystem surrounding their river. (Find out how to make this model by going to the “Curriculum” page of the WVC website, clicking on “Stream Studies Curriculum,” clicking on “Water” under Curriculum Topics, then clicking on “Watersheds” under “Activities.”)

Answering the Big Question

In February, when we took the second field trip to the creek, students were better able to use most of the appropriate process skills we had practiced throughout the year. Individual groups still focused on a certain parameter, such as dissolved oxygen, but now had the experience of the first field trip to help them better understand their results. Students were once again with their buddies, and they performed at least two tests that they did not do in the fall.

We discussed whether certain test results might be the same or different than when we visited the site in the fall. Connections between the temperature of the water and the dissolved oxygen results, for instance, were discussed and predictions made as to what might be found.

Back in the classroom, students realized they were closer to answering their big question. Data was recorded and posted on the website, and then compared with the fall data or data obtained from local agencies, such as the Department of Natural Resources or the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

By keeping a notebook or journal, students kept a record of their thinking, ideas, and answers to questions posed throughout the year. Checking notebooks or journals allowed teachers to determine which misconceptions might be clouding understanding and also see when students were arriving at proper understanding of a topic.

Students enjoyed drawing, and these drawings were important to teachers in seeing whether students truly understood what a watershed was, how the water cycle worked, or how a salmon developed through several distinct stages as many living organisms do.

Teachers performed various types of assessments throughout the year, with performance assessment being the most frequent means to determine if students understood how to conduct a test properly. Some teachers used a checklist format to keep track of student understanding of proper testing techniques. Class discussions and paper-and-pencil quizzes also aided teachers in assessing the knowledge and conceptual understanding of their students.

Release the Fish!

By spring, through careful testing, we had found the water in the Sol Duc river healthy enough to release our salmon, and we made plans to release the fish. Fortunately, we have never had problems serious enough to prevent us from releasing salmon. However, each year a potential problem has been seen with fecal coliform results.

Fecal coliform indicates waste from mammals being in the water—and a potential problem with harmful bacteria. Last year students determined that cows at a farm upriver had free access to the water and were most likely the cause of the pollution. Our concerns were discussed with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, who advised us to keep records for this year. If the problem persists, students can decide what action to take with assistance from the department. Most likely, this will involve discussing our results with the landowner and giving suggestions for them to alleviate the problem, such as fencing off their cows from the river. Taking action to clean up a river can be a very powerful lesson for students, but many times it cannot be completed within the span of the school year.

When the time came for our salmon release day, students marveled at the changes that had occurred in the riparian zone around them since the study began. They made a last entry in their journals, describing the fish in their individual cups and drawing them with scientific detail. Without being told, students observed, compared, and measured—doing what they’ve been doing all year as a matter of course, because…that is what scientists do.

Sherry Schaaf (sschaaf@esd114.wednet.edu) is science coordinator in Quillayute Valley School District in Forks, Washington. She would like to thank the third-grade teachers from Forks Elementary School who worked on this project—Sandy Giles, Allen Harner, Barb O’Sullivan, Barb Neihouse, and Cari Rohrer—and Tracy Keene and Jody Carroll from Forks Middle School.

Connecting to the Standards

This article relates to the following National Science Education Standards (NRC 1996):
Content Standards Grades K–4
Standard A: Science as Inquiry

• Abilities necessary to do scientific inquiry
• Understanding about scientific inquiry

Standard C: Life Science

• The characteristics of organisms
• Organisms and environments

Teaching Standards
Standard A:
Teachers of science plan an inquiry-based science program for their students.
Standard D:
Teachers of science design and manage learning environments that provide students with the time, space, and resources needed for learning science.

Resources

National Research Council (NRC). 1996. National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Internet

Acorn Naturalists Resources for the Trail and Classroom: www.acornnaturalists.com/store
HACH Company: www.hach.com
LaMotte Company: www.lamotte.com
Washington Virtual Classroom Water Quality Project
www.wavcc.org/wvc/cadre/WaterQuality

NSTA Connection

Resources used in the water quality project

Print

Crew, S., and C. Newman, 1997. The salmon (Life Cycles). Austin, TX: Steck-Vaughn.
Field, N. and S. Machlis. 2001. Discovering salmon - activities-games-salmon stickers. Middleton, WI: Dog-Eared Publications.
Gill, S., and S. Cartwright. 1995. Swimmer. Homer, AK: Paws IV Publication.
Guiberson, B. 1993. Salmon story. New York: Henry Holt.
Hafele, R., and S. Hinton. 1996. Guide to Pacific Northwest aquatic invertebrates. Portland, OR: Oregon Trout.
Johnson, S. Water insects. 1989. Minneapolis, MN: Lerner.
Locker, T. 1997. Water dance. San Diego, CA: Voyager.
Martin-James, K. 2003. Swimming salmon. Minneapolis, MN: Lerner.
McKinney, B., and M. Maydak. 1999. A Drop around the world. Nevada City, CA: Dawn.
Mitchell, M. and W. Stapp. 2000. Field manual for water quality monitoring. Dubuque, IO: Kendall-Hunt.
Murdoch, T. 2001. The streamkeeper's field guide: Watershed inventory and stream monitoring methods. Everett, WA: Adopt-a-Stream Foundation.
Reed-Jones, C., and M. Maydak. 2000. Salmon stream. Nevada City, CA: Dawn.
Steelquist, R. 1992. Field guide to the pacific salmon. Seattle, WA: Sasquatch.
Suzuki, D and E. Ellis. 2003. Salmon Forest. Vancouver, British Columbia: Greystone.

Internet

Acorn Naturalists Resources for the Trail and Classroom
www.acornnaturalists.com/store
HACH Company
www.hach.com
LaMotte Company
www.lamotte.com
Washington Virtual Classroom Water Quality Project
www.wavcc.org/wvc/cadre/WaterQuality

Hands-on activities conducted in the stream study and process skills emphasized:

Most of these activities are described on the Washington Virtual Classroom Water Quality website, available at www.wavcc.org/wvc/cadre/WaterQuality.

River study project timeline

Typically, the instruction for this project took place one to four days a week for approximately an hour each day during the fall, prior to the first field trip. Less time was spent in late fall and early winter. Instruction was again frequent and concentrated in late winter as the students become engaged in raising salmon, and once again in the spring as the students put together their results and evaluated whether they had answered their question.

September to October: Development of investigative, or "big," question; learning of basic water quality tests; reading, writing, and art activities based on water; training of teachers as needed.

Late October through December: Partner with seventh-grade buddies to learn how to do each test in the classroom; take field trip; analyze results in the classroom; write about the trip; post data on website.

January: Start raising coho salmon; record growth of fish in journals and science notebooks; learn salmon life cycle; use hands-on materials from Department of Fish and Wildlife; learn about watersheds.

February to March: Take second field trip to collect same data; analyze data; write about trip; post data on website; check "Are we answering our big question?"

Spring: Third trip to river and answering of big question; release of fish; field trip to state hatchery; development of an action plan if there is a problem with river; final analysis of project.

Throughout the Year: Use of science trade books on water and salmon to connect science and reading; journaling and use of science notebooks to connect with writing; learning of science process skills in science discovery room and regular classroom.

Click here for PDF file.