History 3334: Technology in Modern America Copyright 2022 © Dr. Barbara Hahn

History 3334: Technology in Modern America

Copyright 2022 © Dr. Barbara Hahn

barbara.hahn@ttu.edu

Texas Tech University

Hail Maintainers!

Paper Assignment – 500-1000 words

WRITING PROMPT: Read the following essays (you will need to be logged in to the TTU Library to access some of them):

Edgerton, David. “Introduction.” In The Shock of the Old: Technology and Global History Since 1900. Oxford University Press, 2007. (pp. ix-xvii).

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ttu/reader.action?docID=5746865

Vinsel, Lee. “95 Theses on Innovation.” Blogpost. Nov. 12, 2015.

http://leevinsel.com/blog/2015/11/12/95-theses-on-innovation

Russell, Andrew L., and Lee Vinsel. “Hail the Maintainers!” Aeon. 7 April, 2016.

https://aeon.co/essays/innovation-is-overvalued-maintenance-often-matters-more

Russell, Andrew L., and Lee Vinsel. “After Innovation, Turn to Maintenance.” Technology and Culture 59, no. 1 (Jan. 2018): 1-25.

https://muse-jhu-edu.lib-e2.lib.ttu.edu/article/692165

Define innovation and identify what these authors think is the problem with focusing on it. What do they propose instead? How would that focus change or support your own definition of technology (from the first quiz)?

Write an essay in complete sentences and paragraphs that addresses the above questions. Your answers to these questions form your argument or claim, and you use statements from the two articles as evidence to support this thesis.

CITATION INSTRUCTIONS: Cite these sources in parentheses after any quote or claim that comes from the document itself – for example (Ford, section 4). To cite the course lectures, write (“What Is Technology” lecture). If you need to cite other sources, use the following citation form: https://jah.oah.org/submit/stylesheet/

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS: Your paper should be 500-1000 words long. Put your name on the first page, along with a title for the paper that expresses its central claim. State this claim in your introduction and support it with evidence drawn primarily from the reading under consideration.

Compose your paper in a word-processing software before submitting it to Blackboard. That way, if anything goes wrong with the software, you still have a copy available.

GRADING RUBRIC

A:

• has a claim and expresses it in a title

• is well-organized, with the claim expressed at the beginning, demonstrated in the text, and reiterated in the conclusion

• defines and deploys the history-of-technology approaches accurately

• approaches innovation and maintenance symmetrically (i.e., using the same standards for each, in a logical order)

B:

• has a claim and expresses it in a title

• may state claim at beginning or end but probably not both

• defines and deploys the history-of-technology approaches adequately

• covers both innovation and maintenance and gives equivalent consideration to each, but in a somewhat disordered way, or with different categories of analysis

• leads the reader between the definitions and argument in a rational, orderly way.

C:

• has a claim but lacks a title, or the paper’s thesis differs from that expressed in the title

• covers both innovation and maintenance but unevenly

• does not understand, or poorly expresses, the history-of-technology approaches and methods

• writes an interesting, well-organized paper that does not address the prompt—may have more opinion than analysis.

D:

• has no claim

• does not understand, or poorly expresses, the statements or implications of the essays

• covers innovation or maintenance, but not both. Extremely abbreviated coverage of one aproach (e.g., two sentences) fulfills this description.

• writes a paper that does not address the prompt—has more opinion than analysis—and is poorly-organized, poorly-written, or otherwise hard to understand.

• spends so much time on extraneous (but correctly cited) materials as to waste space better spent addressing the questions posed in the prompt.

F:

• fails to address the prompt and/or has no claim

• writes a paper that does not address the prompt—has more opinion than analysis—and is poorly-organized, poorly-written, or otherwise hard to understand.

• does not understand, or poorly expresses, the approaches or readings.

• spends most of the paper considering extraneous materials

0:

• plagiarizes the exam.