• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >Technology: A qualitative concept analysis from the perspectives of engineering, philosophy, natural science, and technology education.
【24h】

Technology: A qualitative concept analysis from the perspectives of engineering, philosophy, natural science, and technology education.

机译：技术：从工程，哲学，自然科学和技术教育的角度进行定性概念分析。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The identification of technology as the content base for Technology Education has prompted scholars to examine some confusion about the term's meaning. To address the problem, this study employed a systematic qualitative document analysis procedure to the analysis of the concept. The primary thrust of the research design was to examine the process by which scholars from various academic areas approach conceptualizing technology. These areas included (a) engineering, (b) natural sciences, (c) philosophy, and (d) technology education.;Results indicate the conceptualizations of technology include three primary variables: (a) academic affiliation, (b) philosophical point of view, and (c) methodology employed to arrive at meanings of technology. The study also indicates that definitions should not be the starting point for conceptualizing technology. Definitions become meaningful only as the perspectives and goals of individuals, communities, and cultures are better understood. Also, some active engagement with technology--a blend of mind- and hands-on activity--is vital if technology is to be meaningfully understood.;Regarding the methods and processes used by technologists (e.g., engineers, technicians, inventors, etc.) to accomplish their goals and tasks, the signal from this study is clear; extreme care should be exercised to avoid reducing technological (or scientific) methodology to simplistic terms. Complex human activity does not easily yield to generic categories or plans of procedure (e.g., for problem-solving, design, innovation, invention, etc.). The most distinct points of contrast between disciplines which were chosen for this study were in terms of style and approach. Clearly, the academic training and professional experience of, for example, the scientists and engineers are quite different from those of the philosophers.;A final result concerns the critical importance of the social science dimension. In spite of the intentional delimitation of the social science nominators and documents from this study, the centrality of the social science dimension surfaced repeatedly. Discussions of technology were consistently couched in their cultural and social contexts. The results of this study converge to send the clear message that technology simply cannot be conceptualized with integrity and in any conceptual depth apart from its social and cultural (human activity) contexts.
机译：将技术确定为技术教育的内容基础，促使学者们研究了对该术语含义的一些困惑。为了解决该问题，本研究采用了系统的定性文档分析程序来分析概念。研究设计的主要目的是研究来自各个学术领域的学者进行技术概念化的过程。这些领域包括（a）工程，（b）自然科学，（c）哲学和（d）技术教育。;结果表明技术的概念化包括三个主要变量：（a）学术联系，（b）哲学观点观点，以及（c）用于得出技术含义的方法。研究还表明，定义不应成为概念化技术的起点。只有更好地理解个人，社区和文化的观点和目标，定义才有意义。此外，如果要有意义地理解技术，则一定要积极参与技术-兼顾思维和动手操作。-关于技术人员（例如工程师，技术人员，发明家等）使用的方法和过程至关重要。）完成他们的目标和任务，这项研究的信号很明确；应格外小心，以避免将技术（或科学）方法论简化为简单的术语。复杂的人类活动不容易产生通用的类别或程序计划（例如，用于解决问题，设计，创新，发明等）。本研究选择的学科之间最明显的对比点是风格和方法。显然，例如，科学家和工程师的学术训练和专业经验与哲学家完全不同。;​​最终结果涉及社会科学层面的至关重要性。尽管本研究有意划定社会科学提名人和文献，但社会科学领域的中心地位反复出现。人们一直在其文化和社会背景下讨论技术。这项研究的结果汇聚在一起，传达出一个明确的信息，即除了社会和文化（人类活动）的背景之外，技术根本无法以完整性和任何概念深度进行概念化。

著录项

  • 作者

    Custer, Rodney L.;

  • 作者单位

    University of Missouri - Columbia.;

  • 授予单位 University of Missouri - Columbia.;
  • 学科 Philosophy.;Education Industrial.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 1991
  • 页码 211 p.
  • 总页数 211
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 哲学理论;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号