Science & Education

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 319–337 | Cite as

Barry J. Fraser, Kenneth G. Tobin and Campbell J. McRobbie (eds): Second International Handbook of Science Education

Springer, Dordrecht, 2012, ISBN: 978-1-4020-9040-0, 1564 pp, £449.50
  • Keith S. Taber
Book Review


The Second International Handbook of Science Education (henceforth The Handbook) is, like its predecessor (Fraser and Tobin 1998), published in two volumes. Each of these volumes amounts to over 700 pages of text making even the separate volumes quite substantial tomes. The two volumes contain 96 chapters, organised into eleven sections (or ‘Parts’, listed below). The Handbook is international both in the sense of being aimed at the international field, and in terms of its authorship. The editors report that 170 authors from 20 countries were involved in the production of the book. That there is particularly high representation of authors based in North America, Australasia and Europe is probably a reasonable reflection of the current state of the field of science education. Perhaps if a third edition is published in 2026 or so, we will see more chapters written by authors working in Universities in Asia, Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa.

The language of The Handbookis...


  1. Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bachelard, G. (1940/1968). The Philosophy of No: A philosophy of the scientific mind. New York: Orion Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baddeley, A. D. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(10), 829–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernstein, B. (1964). Elaborated and restricted codes: Their social origins and some consequences. American Anthropologist, 66(6_PART2) (pp. 55–69). doi:  10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00030.
  5. Bloom, B. S. (1968). The cognitive domain. In L. H. Clark (Ed.), Strategies and tactics in secondary school teaching: A book of readings (pp. 49–55). London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  6. Collins, H. (2010). Tacit and explicit knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cray, D., Dawkins, R., & Collins, F. (2006). God vs. science. Time. Retrieved from,8816,1555132,00.html.
  8. Dobzhansky, T. (1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 35(3), 125–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fensham, P. J. (2004). Defining an Identity: The evolution of science education as a field of research. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flynn, A. B. (2014). How do students work through organic synthesis learning activities? Chemistry Education Research and Practice,. doi: 10.1039/C4RP00143E.Google Scholar
  11. Fraser, B. J., & Tobin, K. G. (Eds.). (1998). International handbook of science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  12. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture the interpretation of cultures: selected essays (pp. 3–30). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  13. Gilbert, J. K. (1995). Studies and fields: Directions of research in science education. Studies in Science Education, 25, 173–197. doi: 10.1080/03057269508560053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gilbert, J. K., & Treagust, D. F. (Eds.). (2009). Multiple representations in chemical education. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Haggerty, L., & Postlethwaite, K. (2003). Action research: A strategy for teacher change and school development? Oxford Review of Education, 29(4), 423–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hameed, S. (2010). Evolution and creationism in the Islamic world. In T. Dixon, G. Cantor, & S. Pumfrey (Eds.), Science and religion: New historial perspectives (pp. 133–152). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lederman, N. G., & Abell, S. K. (2014). Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Long, D. E. (2011). Evolution and religion in American education: An ethnography. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Matthews, M. R. (2002). Constructivism and science education: A further appraisal. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(2), 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Matthews, M. R. (Ed.). (2014). International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Millar, R. (2003). Teaching about energy. In Key Stage 3 National Strategy (Ed.), Strengthening teaching and learning of energy in Key Stage 3 science: Notes for tutors (pp. 161–179). No place of publication given: Department for Education and Skills.Google Scholar
  22. National Academy of Sciences, & Institute of Medicine. (2008). Science, evolution, and creationism. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  23. National Research Council Committee on Scientific Principles for Educational Research. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  24. Palmer, D. (1997). The effect of context on students’ reasoning about forces. International Journal of Science Education, 19(16), 681–696. doi: 10.1080/0950069970190605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Piantanida, M., & Garman, N. B. (2009). The qualitative dissertation: A guide for students and faculty (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  26. Popper, K. R. (1979). Objective Knowledge: An evolutionary approach (Revised ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Pring, R. (2000). Philosophy of educational research. London: Constinuum.Google Scholar
  28. Reiss, M. J. (2008). Should science educators deal with the science/religion issue? Studies in Science Education, 44(2), 157–186. doi: 10.1080/03057260802264214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sanders, L. R., Borko, H., & Lockard, J. D. (1993). Secondary science teachers’ knowledge base when teaching science courses in and out of their area of certification. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(7), 723–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Scerri, E. R. (2003). Philosophical confusion in chemical education research. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(20), 468–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smardon, R. (2009). Sociocultural and cultural–historical frameworks for science education. In W.-M. Roth & K. Tobin (Eds.), The world of science education: Handbook of research in North America (pp. 15–25). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Solomon, J. (1983). Learning about energy: How pupils think in two domains. European Journal of Science Education, 5(1), 49–59. doi: 10.1080/0140528830050105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Solomon, J. (1992). Getting to know about energy—in school and society. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  34. Solomon, J. (1994). The rise and fall of constructivism. Studies in Science Education, 23, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Solomon, J. (2000). The changing perspectives of constructivism: science wars and children’s creativity. In D. C. Phillips (Ed.), Constructivism in education: Opinions and second opinions on controversial issues (pp. 283–307). Chicago, Illinois: National Society for the Study of Education.Google Scholar
  36. Stamovlasis, D., & Tsaparlis, G. (2000). Non-linear analysis of the effect of working-memory capacity on organic-synthesis problem solving. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1(3), 375–380. doi: 10.1039/B0RP90017F.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Taber, K. S. (2000). Multiple frameworks?: Evidence of manifold conceptions in individual cognitive structure. International Journal of Science Education, 22(4), 399–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Taber, K. S. (2007). An agenda for science education for gifted learners. In K. S. Taber (Ed.), Science education for gifted learners (pp. 212–216). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Taber, K. S. (2009). Progressing science education: Constructing the scientific research programme into the contingent nature of learning science. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Taber, K. S. (2012). Vive la différence? Comparing ‘like with like’ in studies of learners’ ideas in diverse educational contexts. Educational Research International, 2012(Article 168741), 1–12. doi: 10.1155/2012/168741.
  41. Taber, K. S. (2013a). Action research and the academy: Seeking to legitimise a ‘different’ form of research. Teacher Development, 17(2), 288–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Taber, K. S. (2013b). Modelling learners and learning in science education: Developing representations of concepts, conceptual structure and conceptual change to inform teaching and research. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Taber, K. S. (2013c). Revisiting the chemistry triplet: Drawing upon the nature of chemical knowledge and the psychology of learning to inform chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(2), 156–168. doi: 10.1039/C3RP00012E.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Taber, K. S. (2013d). Three levels of chemistry educational research. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(2), 151–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Taber, K. S. (2014). Methodological issues in science education research: A perspective from the philosophy of science. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1839–1893). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tripp, D. (2005). Action research: A methodological introduction. Educação e Pesquisa, 31(3), 443–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1994). The development of academic concepts in school aged children. In R. van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 355–370). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations