FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4366809741> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4366809741 endingPage "272" @default.
• W4366809741 startingPage "271" @default.
• W4366809741 abstract "TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE Book Reviews 271 Undergraduate Teaching of the History of Technology: A Survey of the Teaching at Some Universities in the USA in 1993. By Lars O. Olsson. Gothenburg, Sweden: Department of History of Technology and Industry, Chalmers University of Technology, 1995. Pp. 69; illus­ trations, appendices, bibliography. Lars Olsson has written a short, but very useful, monograph evalu­ ating the state of undergraduate teaching of the history of technol­ ogy in the United States. It is reminiscent of and in part modeled after Svante Lindqvist’s The TeachingofHistory ofTechnology in the USA: A Critical Survey in 1978 reviewed by George Daniels in this journal {Technology and Culture 24 [January 1983]: 122-23). Historians of technology are a particularly self-reflective group, perhaps as a result of their early perceived need to distinguish what they do from the history of science or from history more generally. Whatever the source, this “reflexivity,” as the sociologists of science and technol­ ogy, albeit in a somewhat different context, have come to call it, offers a refreshingly honest and revealing picture of what we do in our classrooms and, by extension, what we think about as the central tenets of the field. During 1993 Olsson visited seven universities with programs or departments where faculty regularly teach the history of technology. The universities included in his survey are Carnegie Mellon, Case Western Reserve, University of Delaware, Georgia Institute of Tech­ nology, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, University ofPennsyl­ vania, and Princeton University. He examined descriptive program materials, course syllabi, etc. and, to get beyond the syllabi, inter­ viewed numerous instructors to determine what they see as their pri­ mary educational goals. In 1978, Lindqvist had noted that the history of technology was “dominated by individuals rather than institutions,” an assessment that Olsson confirms, although he notes that “the field was becom­ ing more institutionalized as new graduate programs . . . were started” (p. 10). Olsson sought out individual faculty to clarify what theoretical models and concepts they sought to convey to students. Among them, the systems approach was perhaps most commonly emphasized, but instructors were also introducing their students both to the idea of the social construction of technology and to the social consequences of the science-technology interaction, with the relative balance of emphasis varying from instructor to instructor. Most faculty interviewed sought to introduce their students to a range of conceptual tools, with several noting that they consciously chose to challenge the notion of technological determinism. Among Olsson’s other findings was the fact that approximately 50 percent of the students taking history of technology were engi­ neering majors, which, given the institutions surveyed, is perhaps not surprising. The remaining 50 percent were widely distributed 272 Book Reviews TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE across the disciplines. Approximately two-thirds of the courses in­ cluded in Olsson’s survey “dealt (almost) exclusively with the history of technology in North America” (p. 26), with no courses dealing “exclusively” with technology in non-Western societies. Over halfof the courses “started with the industrial revolution or the 19th/20th centuries and went on to the present day” (p. 28). In contrast, in 1978 Lindqvist found one-third of the courses fell into this category. With regard to textbooks, like Lindqvist before him, Olsson found no single text dominated the field. Not surprisingly, given the em­ phasis on the 19th and 20th centuries, Thomas Hughes’s American Genesis (New York: Viking, 1989) was the most frequently used text, being required in five of the twenty-eight (or eleven survey) courses analyzed. Following close behind were Ruth Cowan’s More Workfor Mother (NewYork: Basic Books, 1983) and William McNeill’s The Pur­ suit ofPower (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), which ap­ peared in four courses each. (Since Olsson conducted his study sev­ eral survey texts have been published, with others to appear shortly. Thus, if he were to update the study today his list of readings might look somewhat different.) Olsson also includes a helpful list ofother texts, including literary works, utilized by instructors, and he does the same for films and videos. Among other course-related elements Olsson briefly discusses are the use of slides, writing assignments, and examinations, and in..." @default.
• W4366809741 created "2023-04-25" @default.
• W4366809741 creator A5055864652 @default.
• W4366809741 date "1997-01-01" @default.
• W4366809741 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W4366809741 title "Undergraduate Teaching of the History of Technology: A Survey of the Teaching at Some Universities in the USA in 1993 by Lars O. Olsson" @default.
• W4366809741 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.1997.0167" @default.
• W4366809741 hasPublicationYear "1997" @default.
• W4366809741 type Work @default.
• W4366809741 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4366809741 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4366809741 hasAuthorship W4366809741A5055864652 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConcept C120912362 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConcept C187736073 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConcept C19417346 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConcept C29595303 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConcept C45504901 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConcept C52119013 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConcept C67101536 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConceptScore W4366809741C120912362 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConceptScore W4366809741C144024400 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConceptScore W4366809741C161191863 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConceptScore W4366809741C162324750 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConceptScore W4366809741C166957645 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConceptScore W4366809741C17744445 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConceptScore W4366809741C187736073 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConceptScore W4366809741C19417346 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConceptScore W4366809741C199539241 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConceptScore W4366809741C2779343474 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConceptScore W4366809741C29595303 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConceptScore W4366809741C41008148 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConceptScore W4366809741C45504901 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConceptScore W4366809741C52119013 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConceptScore W4366809741C67101536 @default.
• W4366809741 hasConceptScore W4366809741C95457728 @default.
• W4366809741 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W4366809741 hasLocation W43668097411 @default.
• W4366809741 hasOpenAccess W4366809741 @default.
• W4366809741 hasPrimaryLocation W43668097411 @default.
• W4366809741 hasRelatedWork W2013374511 @default.
• W4366809741 hasRelatedWork W2023683350 @default.
• W4366809741 hasRelatedWork W2031389124 @default.
• W4366809741 hasRelatedWork W2054726038 @default.
• W4366809741 hasRelatedWork W2353935482 @default.
• W4366809741 hasRelatedWork W3082480117 @default.
• W4366809741 hasRelatedWork W3106278899 @default.
• W4366809741 hasRelatedWork W3115513181 @default.
• W4366809741 hasRelatedWork W3145262390 @default.
• W4366809741 hasRelatedWork W4253321401 @default.
• W4366809741 hasVolume "38" @default.
• W4366809741 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4366809741 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4366809741 workType "article" @default.