1
Educational Sloyd
By
Carri-Ann Brittain
A Paper Presented in Partial Fulfillment of TED 531
History and Philosophy of Technology Education
State University of New York
Fall 2005 - Dr. William Waite, Professor
October 18, 2005
2
Sloyd – Breakdown of a Philosophy
“A system of educational school hand-work. A SYSTEM, because it depends on certain welldefined principles, and follows a certain well-defined method; EDUCATIONAL, because it is
not in any sense intended to give mere technical instruction, to teach a trade, but--in the highest
sense--to educate; I say hard-work, because though men (and women) may engage in it with
advantage, it is primarily intended for school-boys, and, -- I should like to add with emphasis, if
not with authority-- school girls, and I use the broad term HAND-WORK, because the system is
by no means confined to wood--as may be applied (though, perhaps, less profitably) to cardboard, metal, and other materials” (Russell, 1893/4, p. 1).
Source: (Salomon, 1904).
3
Technology Education as a Progressive Field
Advancement in Technology Education has been established by the dedication of
numerous past advocates. The roots of the field have remained the same despite adaptations in
content, which continue to be adjusted to meet society’s requirements. Progressing from the mid
1800’s, Sloyd is but one of the educational systems that has impacted the development of the
field. It is a concept that is still heard echoing in what educators are trying to achieve today.
Major Influencers from Formalism Education to Progressive Education
Formalism education was structured for high society classes and centered on ideologies
and philosophy, while manual labor was thought of as an undesirable requirement left for lower
classes and slaves. Progressive education values equality, meaning everyone should learn at the
same standard. Progressivism also dictates that knowledge should be received through the
senses.
John A. Comenius observed that people learn through association and in 1657 published
the first picture book designed for children, Orbis Pictus: The World of Sensible Things Pictured
(Vaughn & Mays, 1924). Pestalozzi’s notions that the brain assesses using our senses had him
developing programs where children handled objects and partook in occupations. Froebel took
Pestalozzi’s theories one step further indicating that children need to be interactive with their
subject and manipulate items creatively. Froebel also held that education should be relative to a
child’s life and experiences.
4
The Russian Training or Abstract System
Victor Della Vos developed the Russian Training System in the 1860’s and opened the
vocational institution of St. Petersburg Imperial Technical School in 1868 (Vaughn & Mays,
1924). Pupils were supplied with models, drawings, detailed explanations, and demonstrations;
following they were given the tedious task of executing techniques in the form of models. The
philosophy of Victor Della Vos constituted six years of study; it is a theory of “Instruction before
Construction” with “three for instruction and three for construction” (Vaughn & Mays, 1924, p.
27). Techniques had to be perfected before construction of anything useful was permitted.
Finnish Sloyd – Uno Cygnaeus
Uno Cygnaeus, a priest and teacher, is recognized “in the international educational
literature as the first educator in the world who introduced handicrafts to school as a compulsory
subject” and is also known as the “Father of the Finnish Folk School” (Kananoja, Undated, p. 1
& 2). Cynaeus observed various European school systems and developed a proposal for the
Finnish system. In 1866 manual training in Finland made two expansions: males in rural
communities were required to take the program and teaching centers had to offer courses with
related content (Vaughn & Mays, 1924).
Cygnaeus felt that there should be a division between Handicraft (Sloyd) School and Folk
School.
This opposed the views of Otto Salomon that the two should be one.
Through
numerous letters, Appendix A, Cygnaeus tried to persuade Salomon to see his point. From his
correspondence one can feel the frustration Cygnaeus undergoes in his later years regarding the
slow progress of the Finnish Sloyd movement in comparison to the Swedish Sloyd movement.
5
Recognition of his dedication to Sloyd is clearly seen in the progressions throughout Europe;
though not to his pleasure, many countries modified the system to fit their philosophies and
needs.
Swedish Home Sloyd
Swedish Sloyd started out in 1870 (Vaughn & Mays, 1924) as Swedish Home Sloyd in a
government program that was designed to meet several needs including:
-
Constructing useful tools that would be required around the home.
-
Subsidizing the family income.
-
Reviving traditional handicrafts.
-
Encouraging people to remain living in rural areas
The responsibly of teaching handicrafts was placed on the home, parents to children or
older siblings to younger siblings. Even with the governments’ movement to keep Home Sloyd
active, the practices in the home, for the most part, quickly died out. With the advancement of
industry, items could be produced quickly and cheaply; as a result, the market for selling
homemade tools decreased.
Otto Salomon and Swedish Sloyd
Otto Salomon believed and followed the workings of Uno Cygnaeus. Salomon’s studies
of the Finnish system and his own personal philosophies developed him into the most influential
person during the development of the Sloyd system. Salomon believed that the Sloyd System
should be a part of general education for all students, both girls and boys, and that instructors
should be properly trained in the techniques of the system and not merely be trades people.
6
With the support of his rich uncle, August Abrahamson, Salomon worked to enhance the
Sloyd movement. In the early 1870’s they opened two schools at Naas, one for boys and one for
girls; in the mid 1870’s Salomon opened a training school for educators (Thorbjornsson, 2000),
this accomplishment became his primary concern. By means of lectures, teacher training, and
exhibitions, Salomon fostered the curriculum throughout Europe and the rest of the world.
Students would then be invited to study at Nass and later develop the program back in their home
countries.
In 1904 Salomon published The Teacher’s Hand-Book of Sloyd, a methods book
designed to assist teachers in applying a Sloyd course in their school. The contents contain all
the information required for implementation: an explanation of Sloyd, defined wood
characteristics and tool purposes, an explanation of exercises, and example lists of models. With
proper training, the use of this book, and modifications to meet the needs of the area, the
technique could be utilized in locations all over the world.
Principles of Swedish Sloyd – Educational Value – Models and Exercises
While progressive education methodology gained ground, in general schooling some still
felt that Sloyd was a trade. Salomon created a series of arguments distinguishing vocational
education and Sloyd education (Appendix B).
The questions that society repeatedly asks of instructional institutes are: “What
shall we teach in our schools? What knowledge is of most worth? What do we mean by
education? What in the end is the final aim, of Life?” (Russell, 1893/4, p. 6). Referencing
Sloyd methodology shows the concentration of schooling to be the development of the
7
individual’s character through the practice of a medium. Salomon clearly specified goals of the
discipline to maintain the area of focus (Appendix C).
Choice on medium varied by area however studies indicated that wood was the desirable
choice (Hoffman, 1892). Exercises and model selection were important steps in the development
of the course. Before model selection was executed a foundation had to be established. The
constructed model, a product of learning, was not the point of the learning. The exercises were
the point; not in the exercise itself, but by what is learned in perfecting the exercise; the building
of characteristics in an individual (Thorbjornsson, 2000). Only then with careful guidelines
(Appendix D) could model selection be completed to fit the needs of the individual, the time
period and society.
Sloyd systems were designed with the progression of the student in mind. The program
consisted of a series of models, with each model requiring one or more exercises. The first
model would be simple and use only the knife, a tool that all students would have prior
experience with. This would be followed by more complex models, which were developed with
new skills. The sequence of the models therefore played a valuable role and guiding principles
were designed to promote smooth progression for students (Appendix E).
Adults alter how the child learns. Observe how a child learns at a young age and that is
how they should be instinctively taught rather then lecture style instruction (Salomon, 1900).
Children progress through developmental stages of instruction. Initially, instruction is conducted
through observation following which the student is able to perform exercises and build models.
Over time a child develops their own skills; a knowledgeable instructor is able to recognize
independence and in turn provides less guidance. The ultimate goal is for the students to be able
8
to carry out all phases of the model including critiquing independently of the teacher
(Thorbjornsson, 2000).
Salomon was very ahead of his time in thinking; he taught that each child should progress
at their own rate and be evaluated against themselves and their individual capabilities (Salomon,
1900). Also the educational environments should be set up in the least restrictive way, meaning
that teachers provide guidance in a manner that suits each individual student. When assistance
was required, teachers demonstrated on a separate piece of wood. As a result, the student owns
their model including all its advances, setbacks and completion. To preserve the Sloyd theory
teaching expectations were stated as a set of guidelines and principles that educators were to
follow (Appendix F).
Salomon believed in progress and constant change in education to adapt to meet the
needs of society. He instructed that trial and error rather then a rush for change is essential; one
should not throw out a system before it’s time. Modification and change came first to meet the
needs and then the system would slowly phase out. At Naas discussions on educational systems
were part of what teacher training programs are all about; “three hours a week were devoted to
discussion, and it was then that each student had an opportunity to express his ideas on the
subject” (Hoffman, 1892, p. 93). Suggestions were made by both instructors and students.
Everyone worked together as an educational collaborative so that in the end the system was not
insulted but rather embraced the advancements. For a sample of Sloyd exercises and models see
appendix G and H respectively.
9
American Sloyd/ Manual Arts
The concept of having some form of authentic learning in the classroom through hands
on experience developed in the late 1800’s/ early 1900’s in America. While manual training
(Russian System) occurred first, manual arts (Sloyd System) was quick to follow, both were
practiced in school at approximately the same period but move deviated to different levels.
Manual training, being highly concentrated, was better suited to secondary schools, while
manual arts, having products produced, met the needs of the grade school system. Secondary
studies entailed preparation for a specific field, by enabling students to meticulously execute
tasks. The purpose of grade school, on the other hand, was to build social skills in order to
properly function in society as a good citizen.
The most influential advocate in developing Manual Arts in North America was Gustaf
Larsson, he studied under Salomon at Naas and in 1888 relocated to Boston (Pesesky & Waite,
2004). “Gustaf Larsson was looked upon by Otto Salomon as the ambassador of Swedish Sloyd
in America. Within two weeks from the time of his arrival, Mr. Larsson was teaching a summerschool class in a private school, and within a few months, he was giving instruction to a class of
public-school teachers” (Bennett, 1937, p. 431).
Larsson held many accomplishments during his venture to adapt the Sloyd system with
American’s education system. Initially, limited time for training and evening sessions made
completion difficult. Eventually districts began recruiting from Larsson’s program and
enrollment expanded. A structured course of study needed to be implemented and the Boston
Sloyd Training School opened its doors in 1892 (Bennett, 1937). A set of guidelines following
the principles of Sloyd were established for graduation (Appendix I) and applicants reviewed.
10
Throughout the life of the institution the school relocated due to expansion three times,
enrollment refocused from being primarily female to male, and many adaptations occurred.
Following Salomon’s teaching that successful educational systems adjusted to revolve around
society/ industry lead to the inclusion of drafting. By the time the doors closed in 1912 the
institution had graduated 361 students (Bennett, 1937).
Larsson, having been trained under Sloyd, condensed the traits of a good teacher in any
discipline to “first, a proper understanding of and sympathy with the pupils; second, a
professional training in the art and methods of teaching; third, a mastery of the subject matter”
(Barlow, 1967, p. 190). The purpose of education is not focused on the content or project, rather
the characteristics and growth within the individual. He also understood that the greatest success
resulted from incorporating these objectives into the curriculum through a medium that was
widely accepted by the general population. This understanding advanced manual arts at the
grade school level, while manual training faded out, for the models held the attention of the
student and the public. While the product was not the purpose, it is an important aspect in the
promotion of the program.
Phasing Out of Sloyd/ Sloyd Principles Compared to Current Education Practices
The decline of manual arts and progression into industrial arts occurred with adjustments
of the economy. Many people of the time did not graduate from high school as there were plenty
of jobs not requiring high educational levels. It was therefore up to the schools, starting at lower
grades, to introduce equipment, techniques and work habits that would benefit the students as
they left school and entered into the work force.
11
The primary focus of Sloyd may have been placed on a back shelf due to time and
Industrial societal age. However, with the movement of America into a post-industrial society
one can see and promote many aspects of the Sloyd system once again.
The content covered in Technology Education is broad based to allow for exposure in
current and developing fields; the purpose of instruction and methods educators use however
sound very familiar. After reviewing Salomon’s educational focus (Appendix C) and teacher
expectations (Appendix F) one can connect many of his goals with the aims that are still being
pursued. Today’s instructors try to build characteristics in students that allow them to be
successful when they pursue higher education or enter the work force. A student leaving grade
school should:
-
Be able to work independently as well as with a team.
-
Present themselves in an acceptable manner.
-
Have learned to follow a system that can be applied in the workforce (following
directions, listening, and providing input).
-
Research concepts and new skills, prepare portfolios, suggest/ modify/ implement
new ideas.
While the medium of Sloyd may have been focused, usually using wood, the backbone of the
system contains many of the principles listed above.
The concepts dealing with teacher expectations, being highly important as the teacher
sets the atmosphere, were and still can be applied. Though some of the objectives changed
during the industrial years they are being re-implemented, though as “new” theories. While the
instructor should have a firm grasp of the content it is the personal characteristics that define a
good teacher. Tact, both then and now, is the key characteristic of an effective teacher. Another
12
important acknowledgement is that students are unique and should be measured accordingly, in
contrast to the bell curve style of measurement that was prominent during the mid 1900’s.
Individual measurement against objectives, promotes advancement and creates the least
restrictive environment. It is the goal of education to help students progress as far as individually
possible, to be as ready as they can be, when entering society as a young adult. A positive
influence at any period in time will promote student success as opposed to learned helplessness
(Taylor, 2005).
Comparing and contrasting the Sloyd methodology with practices today illustrates that
the field of education is continuously evolving through trial and error, however, the primary
principles hold true.
13
Appendix A – Correspondence Between Uno Cygnaeus and Otto Salomon
Letter from Uno Cygnaeus to Otto Salomon, October 28th, 1877:
Even if we agree, that sloyd is important in the folk school, I think that the handicraft
methods must be substantially different in the common folk school and in a special vocational
school. In the former, handicrafts must be considered and handled fore mostly as a formal means
of civilisation and organized accordingly, that the aim will be development of child’s sense for
form and beauty and general dexterity, and the drill of craftsmanship of all the possible work will
be avoided. In the handicraft school the aim must be dexterity in various crafts and practicing it
in order to secure the sale and economic profit of the products. The former concept of the aim of
crafts has the natural development connection to the pedagogical system of Pestalozzi and
Frobel, and it should have the undeniable importance.
Letter from Otto Salomon to Uno Cygnaeus, April 16th, 1880:
Concerning the Handicraft School and it’s status I dare to be fully and permanently convinced of
us being fully at the same track and that the disagreement mentioned before is only semantic.
The way of thinking I am trying to develop in my pedagogical lectures in the subject for my
students, is: Handicraft School is like Folk School an institution giving basic education. It’s aim,
does it work together with or separately from the Folk School , is not to develop and skills in one
or more arts of handicraft in the students, bit only (and this is not of minor importance) to give
them general readiness of hand, in the other words skill to use hands in useful work, to teach
them order and carefulness and to plant in them the will and love for work, so that it will have
the pedagogical meaning forward. This power handicraft education really has, not least in it’s
14
characteristic to become a powerful tool in the hand of an experienced teacher in waking up the
attention and interest of the child. Conversely no institution, the aim of which is to give the
pupils real skilfulness in the different crafts, is a Handicraft School in the real sense of the
concept. The title, the meaning of which is anyway of second order, could also be Craftsman
School, Work School or Technical School. With a wish I once expressed, that Handicraft School
and Folk School could be identical, I only meant that the independent Handicraft School should
disappear, and instead it should fully be amalgamated in the Folk School, which so should also
have the aims of the Handicraft School.
Source:
Kananoja, T. (Undated, p. 3, 4 & 5). Letters of Uno Cygnaeus and Otto Salomon. Retrieved
September 2005: http://www.jyu.fi/tdk/museo/kasityo/UNOandOTTOenglish.doc
15
Appendix B – Salomon argues why Sloyd is not a Vocational Field
1st. It is impossible, in so short a time as can be given to manual work in schools, to
learn a trade.
2nd. A child of school age is not capable of deciding what trade it will hereafter follow,
and until that decision has been arrived at, training in any particular pursuit is
meaningless.
3rd. Everybody must recognise the impossibility of teaching all trades in a school.
4th. It would be very difficult to have workshop arrangements in every school; it would
be too expensive.
5th. No one can teach a trade unless he has earned it; and wither one teacher must know
everything and be a veritable Jac-of-all-trades, or there must be a great many teachers in
the same school.
Source:
Salomon, O. A. (1900, p. 6). The theory of educational sloyd. Boston, New York & Chicago:
Silver, Burdett & Company.
16
Appendix C – Focus of Educational Sloyd
The Formative aims are(1.) To instill a taste for, and a love of, labour in general.
(2.) To inspire respect for rough, honest, bodily labour.
(3.) To develop independence and self-reliance.
(4.) To train in habits of order, exactness, cleanliness, and neatness.
(5.) To train the eye and sense of form. To give a general dexterity of hand, and to
develop touch.
(6.) To accustom to attention, industry, perseverance, and patience.
(7.) To promote the development of the physical powers.
The Utilitarian aims are(1.) To directly give dexterity in the use of tools.
(2.) To execute exact work.
Source:
Salomon, O. A. (1900, p. 6 & 7). The theory of educational sloyd. Boston, New York &
Chicago: Silver, Burdett & Company.
17
Appendix D – Sloyd Model Selection
Ten points on the CHOICE of models.
(1). All objects of luxury – knick-knacks- should be excluded.
(2.) All Models should be serviceable in the house.
(3.) They should be capable of being finished by the children without help.
(4.) The Models should be of wood, and only wood should be worked in, as a rule.
(5.) The objects should not be polished or stained.
(6.) The objects made should be such as to require as little wood as possible.
(7.) The children should be taught to work in harder and softer kinds of wood-but not in
the softest and hardest.
(8.) Turnery and carving should be used very little.
(9.) Objects chosen should be such as will develop the sense of form.
(10.) All the exercises (embraced by the particular kind of Sloyd in question) which the
child is capable of making, should be properly graduated and included in the series in due
proportions.
Source:
Salomon, O. A. (1900, p. 72, 73 & 74). The theory of educational sloyd. Boston, New York &
Chicago: Silver, Burdett & Company.
18
Appendix E – Sloyd Models Construction Arrangement
Eight Principles on the Arrangement of the Series of Models
(1.) The series should proceed from the easier to the more difficult, and from the simpler
to the more complex
(2.) A refreshing variety must be afforded.
(3.) In the early part of the series, the models should be capable of being quickly and
easily made, and should be so progressively arranged tat, later on, the objects arrived
at should require more time and skill, and yet be capable of being done without help.
(4.) In the production of the early models, few tools should be required, but as the series
progresses, new tools and manipulations should be introduced.
(5.) That very model should be so placed in the series, that the necessary qualifications
for doing it exactly are found in the child
(6.) The models must be so arranged that the pupils can always make not only a
serviceable, but an exact copy.
(7.) That the knife- as the fundamental tool- be used frequently, especially in the
beginning.
(8.) That generally in the early models the softest woods should not be used.
Source:
Salomon, O. A. (1900, p. 74 & 75). The theory of educational sloyd. Boston, New York &
Chicago: Silver, Burdett & Company.
19
Appendix F – Teaching Expectations
General
(1.) The instructions must go from easy to difficult.
(2.) The instruction must go from simple to complex.
(3.) The instruction must go from the known to the unknown.
(4.) The teaching must lay a good foundation.
(5.) The teacher should possess educational tact.
(6.) The teacher should be interesting in character.*
Special
(7.) The instruction should be intuitive in its character, i.e., it should be given as far as
possible through the Senses, especially touch and sight.
(8.) The teaching should be individual in character.
(9.) The instructor should be a teacher and not a mere craftsman.
Source:
Salomon, O. A. (1900, p. 10). The theory of educational sloyd. Boston, New York & Chicago:
Silver, Burdett & Company.
20
Appendix G - Sample of Sloyd Exercises
1. Long cut with knife.
45. Perpendicular gouging.
2. Cross cut with knife.
46. Plain jointing.
3. Oblique cut with knife.
47. Dovetail clamping.
4. Bevel with knife.
48. Oblique gouging.
5. Sawing off.
49. Chamfering.
6. Convex cut with knife.
50. Circular sawing.
7. Long sawing (Rip sawing).
51. Screwing together.
8. Edge planing.
52. Modelling with draw knife.
9. Squaring.
53. Planing across the grain.
10. Gauging.
54. Wedge-planing with smoothing plane.
11. Boring with quill-bit.
55. Planing with round plane.
12. Face planing.
56. Fixing with wooden pegs for planing thin wood.
13. Filing.
57. Single dovetailing at right angles.
14. Boring with centre-bit.
58. Common dovetailing.
15. Conves sawing.
59. Square shooting, or planing with shooting
16. Concave cut with knife.
17. Bevelling with trying plane.
board.
60. Hollowing out, or scooping with gouge.
18. Convex modelling with plane.
61. Axle fitting to shuttle.
19. Sawing with tenon-saw.
62. Housing or square grooving.
20. Wave sawing.
63. Long oblique planing.
21
21. Plane surface cut.
64. Setting out.
22. Scraping
65. Panel grooving.
23. Stop planing (obstacle planing).
66. Glueing with aid of ahnd screw.
24. Perpendicular chiselling (paring).
67. Sawing with compass or keyhole saw.
25. Oblique chiseling (paring).
68. Oblique edge grooving.
26. Gouging with gouge and spoon iron.
69. Slotting.
27. Concave chiselling.
70. Dovetailing in thick wood.
28. Chopping.
71. Mitreing.
29. Smoothing (or dressing up) with
72. Common mortise and tenon.
spokeshave.
73. Half lapping.
30. Modelling with spokeshave.
74. Rebating.
31. Oblique sawing.
75. Graving with V tool or parting tool (fluting).
32. Oblique planing.
76. Half lap dovetailing.
33. Dressing with the smoothing plane,
77. Hinge sinking, or fixing hinges.
or smoothing up.
78. Lock fitting.
34. End squaring.
79. Oblique dovetailing.
35. Halving with knife.
80. Oblique slotting.
36. Work in hard wood.
81. Notched dovetailing (half concealed edge
37. (a) Fitting in pegs.
grooving).
37. (b) Plugging.
82. Concave modelling with plane.
38. Bevelled edge planing.
83. Staving.
39. Glueing.
84. Hooping.
40. Boring with bradawl.
85. Concealed tenoning.
41. Sinking and fitting metal plates.
86. Blocking.
42. Nailing.
87. Motised blocking.
22
43. Punching.
88. Up and down sawing.
44. Bevelling with draw knife.
Source:
Salomon, O. A. (1900, p. 80 & 81). The theory of educational sloyd. Boston, New York & Chicago:
Silver, Burdett & Company.
23
Appendix H - Sample of Sloyd Models
1. a). Kindergarten pointer.
25. Box.
1. b). Kindergarten pointer.
26. Ladle.
2. Rake tooth.
27. Baker’s shovel.
3. Round flower stick.
28. Clothes-beater.
4. Penholder.
29. Ruler.
5. Rectangular flower stick.
30. Bootjack.
6. Slate-pencil holder.
31. Lamp bracket.
7. Key label.
32. Weaving shuttle.
8. Thread winder.
33. Knife box.
9. Dibble.
34. American ax handle.
10. Harness pin.
35. Match box.
11. Paper-cutter.
36. Baseball bat.
12. a). Pail handle.
37. Meter measure.
12. b). Part of an ox-bow.
38. Pen box.
13. Small bowl.
39. Stool.
14. Hammer handle.
40. Try-square.
15. Spoon.
41. Plate rack.
16. Chopping board.
42. Marking gauge.
17. Flower-pot cross.
43. Rake head.
18. Scythe sharpener.
44. Picture frame.
19. Scoop.
45. Tool rack.
20. Clothes-rack.
46. Dough trough.
21. Flower-pot stand.
47. Book-stand.
22. Ax handle.
48. Hooped bucket.
23. Footstool.
49. Cabinet.
24. Barrel Cover.
50. Table.
Source:
Hoffman, B.B. (1892, p. 97). The sloyd system of wood working. New York, Cincinnati &
Chicago: American Book Company.
24
Appendix I – Boston Sloyd Institution Graduation Requirement
1. The satisfactory completion of twenty-five models (afterwards increased to
thirty-one).
2. Proof of ability to make and use working drawings, and of skill in the
sharpening and care of tools.
3. Evidence of teaching ability.
4. A short essay on the theory and educational value of manual training – written
in class.
Source:
Bennett, C.A. (1937, p. 472). History of manual and industrial education 1870 to 1917. Peoria,
IL: The Manual Arts Press.
25
Bibliography
Barlow, M. L. (1967). History of industrial education in the United States. Peoria, IL: Chas. A.
Bennett Co.
Bennett, C.A. (1937). History of manual and industrial education 1870 to 1917. Peoria, IL: The
Manual Arts Press.
Bawden, W. T. (1950). Leaders in industrial education. Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing
Company.
Hoffman, B.B. (1892). The sloyd system of wood working. New York, Cincinnati & Chicago:
American Book Company.
Kananoja, T. (Undated). Letters of Uno Cygnaeus and Otto Salomon. Retrieved September
2005: http://www.jyu.fi/tdk/museo/kasityo/UNOandOTTOenglish.doc
Pesesky, C. & Waite, W. (2004). Technology education in American schools. NewYork:
Department of Technology at SUNY Oswego.
Russell, C. (1893/4). On some aspects of slojd. Parents Review Vol IV. Retrieved September
2005: http://www.amblesideonline.org/PR/PR04p321Slojd.shtml
Salomon, O. A. (1900). The theory of educational sloyd. Boston, New York & Chicago: Silver,
Burdett & Company.
Salomon, O. A. (1904). The teacher’s hand-book of slojd. Boston, New York & Chicago:
Silver, Burdett & Co.
Taylor, C.S & Nolen, S.B. (2005). Classroom assessment: Supporting teaching and learning in
real classrooms. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Columbus and Ohio: Pearson Merrill
Prentice Hall.
Thorbjornsson, H. (2000). Otto Salomon (1849-1907). Prospects: The quarterly review of
comparative education. Paris, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education. Retrieved
September 2005 :http://www.ibe.unesco.org/International/Publications/Thinkers/
ThinkersPdf/salomone.PDF
Vaughn, S. J. & Mays, A. B. (1924). Content and methods of the industrial arts. New York &
London: The Century Co.