Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp 117–126 | Cite as

Response to Johannsen, Rump, and Linder’s Penetrating a wall of introspection: a critical attrition analysis

  • Gregory T. RushtonEmail author
  • Brett A. Criswell


In Penetrating a Wall of Introspection: A Critical Attrition Analysis, Johannsen, Rump, and Linder strive to give a voice to those whose thoughts might otherwise be unheard: students representing the casualties in the conflict surrounding the practices of STEM education, specifically those in the field of physics. Beyond giving those students a voice, they try to filter out and amplify a message that the seven individuals themselves may not have recognized: that the cause of their struggles in their physics programs might not be something innate (causa materialis in the authors’ framework), but might be found outside the individuals (causa efficiens in the authors’ framework). In our response, we attempt to extend the conversation regarding the issues these authors have raised by (1) considering the conditions within the physics community that might exacerbate this situation and (2) exploring from a different perspective the nature of the discourses that will either perpetuate or ameliorate such circumstances. In so doing we seek to provide a more holistic description of the features of the educational system that help to construct the wall of introspection and that might, in turn, be redressed in order to help tear it down—and positively impact attrition rates.


Retention Attrition Identity Critical discourse analysis Physics education 


  1. Bereiter, C. (1994). Implications of postmodernism for science, or, science as progressive discourse. Educational Psychologist, 29, 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, B. A. (2004). Discursive identity: Assimilation into the culture of science and its implications for minority students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 810–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, B. A., Reveles, J. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive identity: A theoretical framework for understanding science learning. Science Education, 89, 779–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gee, J. P. (2000–2001). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Educational Research, 25, 99–125.Google Scholar
  5. Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis. Theory and method (2nd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Gee, J. P. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis. Theory and method (3rd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Goos, M. E., & Bennison, A. (2008). Developing a communal identity as beginning teachers of mathematics: Emergence of an online community of practice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Henderson, C., Dancy, M., & Niewiadomska-Bugaj, M. (2012). Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation–decision process? Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research, 8(02014), 1–15.Google Scholar
  9. Hill, J. G. (2011). Education and certification qualifications of departmentalized public high school-level teachers of core subjects: Evidence from the 20072008 schools and staffing survey. Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2011-317, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrived on March 10, 2012 from
  10. Johannsen, B. F., Rump, C. Ø., & Linder, C. (2012). Penetrating a wall of introspection: A critical attrition analysis. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1–29. doi: 10.1007/s11422-012-9436-9.
  11. Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2010). The effect of twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kreber, C. (2005). Reflection on teaching and the scholarship of teaching: Focus on science instructors. Higher Education, 50, 323–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lardner, E., & Malnarich, G. (2008). A new era in learning: Why the pedagogy of intentional integration matters? Change, 40, 30–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Taking about leaving—Why undergraduates leave the sciences?. Oxford: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  16. Tai, R. H., Liu, C. Q., & Fan, X. (2007). Factors influencing retention of mathematics and science teachers in secondary schools—A study based on SASS/TFS. Science Educator, 16, 27–32.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kennesaw State UniversityKennesawUSA
  2. 2.Georgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations