David Haury, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Contact Info

E-mail: haury.2@osu.edu
Office: 254 Arps
Phone: (614) 292-2526
Fax: (614) 292-7695

Mailing Address:

1945 N. High St.
Columbus, OH 43210-1172

David Haury is an Associate Professor of science education in the School of Teaching and Learning. He teaches doctoral seminars focusing on issues and research in science, mathematics, and technology education, and he offers courses on instructional methods in science for prospective and practicing teachers. Having cultivated his interests in the natural environment and evolution since childhood, David's professional activities generally relate to teaching and learning about evolution, the nature of science, and their connections to environmental issues. In the area of evolution education, David is particularly interested in understanding public resistance to evolutionary theory and the ongoing struggle between evolutionary thinking and diverse worldviews. Much of the struggle, in David's view, has to do with limited understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge, so he is also interested in promoting evidence-based reasoning and inquiry-oriented learning at all academic levels. Being a naturalist, David is also interested in how we can apply scientific knowledge to reduce destructive human impacts on nature while fostering educational practices that promote sustainability of natural ecosystems. In that regard, he is collaborating with a group of science educators worldwide to develop an educational response to the major environmental issue of our time, global climate change. Whether designing curricula, developing instructional strategies, or studying student understanding, David tends to look beyond traditional concerns about content standards and assessment practices to focus on who we are as evolutionary beings and how we might foster more reflective consideration of the effects of our collective actions on natural support systems.

Selected Previous Appointments

Associate Professor of Science Education, University of Massachusetts Lowell, 1989-1991.
Assistant Professor of Science Education, Tufts University, 1984-1989.
Assistant Professor of Biology, Judson Baptist College, 1982-84.
Science Teacher, Grant High School, Mt. Gambier, South Australia, 1974-77.

Education

Ph.D., Science Education, Graduate School, The University of Washington, 1983. Dissertation: Science locus of control orientations and the attitudes expressed by elementary teacher interns toward science teaching. Advisor: Dr. Roger G. Olstad.
M.A., Biology, Graduate School, University of Oregon, 1978. Thesis: Hemoglobin transformation during metamorphosis in anurans. Advisor: Dr. Robert Terwilliger.
B.A., Biology, College of Liberal Arts, University of Oregon, 1974. (Program included study at the Oregon Institute of Marine Biology; Oregon Teaching Certificates awarded for secondary biology and integrated science.)

Selected Activities and Honors

Reviewer, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1998-present.
Executive Editor (1991-2003) for over one hundred publications developed and published by the ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
Executive Secretary, National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 2000-2002.
Reviewer, Science Education, 1994-1999.
Commendation as one of The Ohio State University's top 25 principal investigators in research funding, 1998.
Editorial Board, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1992-1995.
Service Award presented by the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science for contributions as the founding editor of the Journal of Science Teacher Education during the years of 1989-1993.
Distinguished Graduate Award, College of Education, University of Washington, June 1994.

Selected Grants

Director and Principal Investigator, Ohio Science Institutes for Middle Grades. Funded by the Ohio Department of Education; $600,000; 2004.
Principal Investigator (one of eight; Lead PI was Douglas T. Owens), The Ohio State University Science and Mathematics Summer Institutes for Instructional Change. Funded by the Ohio Board of Regents; $246,330; 2004-2005.
Director and Principal Investigator, ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. Funded by the Office for Educational Research and Improvement, U. S. Department of Education; $2,376,607; 1999-2003.
Director and Principal Investigator, EarthVision 2000. Funded by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; $999,997; 1998-1999.
Principal Investigator (one of four), Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education. Funded by the Office for Educational Research and Improvement, U. S. Department of Education; $38,654,670; 1997-2005.
Director and Principal Investigator, ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. Funded by the Office for Educational Research and Improvement, U. S. Department of Education; $2,125,721; 1993-1998.
Principal Investigator (one of three) and Associate Director. Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education. Funded by the Office for Educational Research and Improvement, U. S. Department of Education; $22,908,840; 1992-1997.
Director and Principal Investigator, ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. Funded by the Office for Educational Research and Improvement, U. S. Department of Education; $462,216; 1992-1993.
Director and Principal Investigator, Science Education Programs and Leadership (SEPAL): Lowell, Center for Field Services and Studies, University of Lowell, Lowell, MA, Funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Eisenhower Program for the Improvement of Mathematics and Science Education, and designated an exemplary program by the Massachusetts Board of Regents.1988-1991.

Selected Publications

Haury, D. L. (2007). Examining the evolutionary heritage of humans. In L. Jones & M. J. Reiss (Eds.), Teaching about scientific origins: Taking account of creationism, New York: Peter Lang.
Haury, D. L. (2005). Education for environmental sustainability. In J. Hassard, The art of science teaching: Inquiry and innovation in middle school and high school (pp. 4333-435), New York: Oxford University Press.
Haury, D. L. (2004). Assessing the educational dimension of environmental education resources provided by non-formal groups. In: M. Mappin & E. A. Johnson (Eds.). Environmental education or advocacy: Perspectives of ecology and education in environmental education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Haury, D. L. (2002). Learning science through design (ERIC Digest). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
Haury, D. L. (2001). Teaching science through inquiry with archived data (ERIC Digest). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
Haury, D. L. (1997). Teaching Evolution in School Science Classes. In National Library of Education. Striving for excellence: The national education goals, Volume III. Washington, DC: GPO (pp. 129-130).
Haury, D. L. (1993). Teaching science through inquiry. In Striving for excellence: The national education goals, Volume II. Washington, DC: Educational Resources Information Center.)
Haury, D. L., & Rillero, P. (1992). Hands-on approaches to science teaching. Questions and answers from the field and research. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
Haury, D. L. (1989). The contributions of science locus of control orientation to expressions of attitude toward science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 503-517.
Haury, D. L. (1988). Evidence that science locus of control orientation can be modified through instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25, 233-246.

Selected Courses Taught

Edu T&L 886: Science, Mathematics, Technology, and the Educated Mind

What does it mean to be "literate" in science, mathematics, or technology? How has the scientific revolution and high-tech culture changed our view of what it means to be educated? How are science, mathematics, and technology related as human enterprises? Why do so many people find it difficult to identify or communicate with those engaged in scientific, mathematical, or technological endeavors? These and related questions are considered from philosophical, historical, sociological, and educational perspectives. The course is intended to serve three broad aims: (a) to elucidate the concept of literacy in the domains of science, mathematics, and technology, (b) to provoke thought and discussion about the relationships and interactions among science, mathematics, and technology as knowledge domains, and (c) to promote examination of public understanding and attitudes relating to science, mathematics, and technology.

Edu T&L 731.20: Teaching and Learning of Science for Middle Childhood

This clinical course is part of the teacher preparation program for middle childhood, and the course focuses on instructional skills and techniques, individual competence and self-critique, cooperation among peers, and ongoing professional growth in science teaching. Goals for the course include:

Facilitating ongoing professional growth as skillful science teachers of diverse students through direct experiences, self-critique, personal exploration, goal-setting, and other strategies for continuous self-improvement.
Broadening understanding of the nature of science and the national and Ohio standards for teaching and learning science in schools.
Conveying a sense of wonder and questioning that motivates students to systematically investigate natural phenomena.
Equipping participants with information, information-seeking strategies, information technology skills, community resources, and techniques for gathering, organizing, and analyzing ideas and materials for science teaching.
Enabling participants to anticipate and constructively respond to safety, ethical, legal, and controversial issues within science classrooms.

Edu T&L 885: Teaching Evolution in Schools

Is evolution just a theory? Who should be learning about evolution? What should be taught? What are the issues? How do teachers constructively respond to questions or critics? How has evolutionary theory evolved? From the time of Darwin to the days of the Scopes trial and the more recent advocacy of "Intelligent Design" legislation, teachers, students, parents, and school administrators have debated the proper status of evolution in the school curriculum. Some would delete the topic entirely, while others would use the topic as wedge to introduce a variety of points of view that seem well outside the mainstream of science.

In this seminar, participants consider evolution as a key idea in science and as an important topic in the school science curriculum. Though the emphasis is on biological evolution, evolution is examined as a general principle that spans the various fields of science. Alternative practices and curricular approaches are considered as participants review recent findings relating to evolutionary theory and examine epistemological issues related to the nature of scientific theories and the scientific approach to understanding.

Edu T&L 752: Science in the School Curriculum

This is a foundational course in science education curriculum that introduces students to the community of science curriculum developers, science education reform advocates who are shaping policy, and emerging models of curriculum design and development. The course is intended to provide a broad basis for making judgments and decisions that reflect a historical perspective, an international perspective, an understanding of the nature of science, and an understanding of school milieus.

Various professional groups have identified the key topics to be covered in science classes, the content standards for various grade levels, and guidelines for reform of science programs. Though these voices for reform represent a broad spectrum of perspectives on science education, they agree on many central issues. They agree that inquiry and integration of content areas must be emphasized; they agree that learning about the nature of scientific understanding and its applications within society are critical; they agree that programs must be designed with consideration given to the way people learn and to the broad spectrum of needs among diverse students; and they agree that science teachers must engage students in a deeper understanding of key science concepts rather than promote a superficial understanding of the broad expanse of scientific knowledge. Despite broad agreement on these central issues, there is much disagreement regarding how best to structure science programs. Participants in this course will examine both the issues surrounding science education reform and the practicalities of designing and developing science programs to foster meaningful learning in science.