1) How useful were the pre-course readings?

1: Read them all (as Johnson would have). Very interesting. 2: In general, quite useful. Some were very good (Manguel, Love, Rose, among those I hadn't read before). I would have liked more context with the list when I received it in how to approach the books. I think the reading could be a means for creating a shared experience/discussion at the beginning of the week. 3: Not directly useful for the class itself, but generally useful (that is, it forced me to read things I had been intending to read for a long time). 4: There was a bit of a mixup in the lists we were given (on-line) before the class. Nevertheless, they were all useful and on-topic. 5: Pre-course readings were all useful. I also appreciated receiving an exit reading list as well. 7: Useful. But it appears we were sent the wrong list. The one received on the first day of class was much shorter. 8: We got the wrong list. It would have been nice to find this out before we got here. Texts on the (wrong) list were not as broadly applicable as they should have been -- they reflected the strengths of the faculty rather than the needs of the students. 9: Oops -- wrong list here. 10: Appropriate and the number of works, overwhelming.

2) Were the course syllabus and other materials distributed in class useful (or will they be so in the future, after you return home)?

1: Wow. Great stuff. 2: Yes. I particularly appreciate the bibliographies and the reusable handouts. 3: Yes -- lots of good material. 4: Absolutely. The reading lists will provide a professional course of study for years (!) to come. 5: We received a folder's worth, or more, of handouts relating to techniques for teaching the history of the book. I was glad to receive these materials, and they will be useful to me when I return to my institution. 6: Extremely. Yes. 7: Very much so. 8: Demonstration samples, syllabus packet, and bibliographies were all excellent. Also the various pamphlets advertising student exhibitions. 9: Yes -- these will be very helpful. 10: Yes.

3) Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate?

1: Yes. 2: Intellectually it was fine, but frankly a lot of it in the beginning was not relevant to my needs/interests. A more concrete pedagogical focus would help. 3: Yes. 4: Definitely. 5: Yes. At times anecdotes were mentioned, but they were all relevant. 6-10: Yes.

4) If your course had field trips, were they effective?

1-2: Yes. 3: Not really applicable, with two exceptions, the trip to the music class, while it was good not to sit in that classroom for a brief period, didn't add a whole lot. 4: Yes. Visit to the "Printed Music" class was very interesting. 5: Field trips were beneficial in presenting firsthand some of the materials we deal with. 6-7: Yes. 8: Yes -- could have done more of this. 9-10: Yes.

5) What did you like best about the course?

1: I'm very pleased with it overall. 2: The last couple of days it came together for me. I was hoping for very concrete suggestions about in-class strategies, materials, readings, &c. Between the discussions from the class and the materials distributed on Thursday and Friday I learned a great deal. Probably the two best things were 1) materials hints e.g. using "multiples" &c. and 2) the conversation of the other students, both in class and in informal settings. 3: Chance to see lots of toys to use in teaching. Chance to get lots of useful handouts. Finding out about good books to use as texts, or for our own edification (and having them at hand to peruse). 4: That's tough. What does one say one likes best about visiting Olympus -- the view or the company? Given that it's a toss up between the faculty and the content (the great perspective it gives), I couldn't say. Also, the company of my fellow students was invaluable -- all of whom were generous and gracious in sharing their expertise. 5: Hearing about the experiences and views of others engaged in this activity, i.e. instructors and fellow students. 6: Instructors and classmates. 7: Informal atmosphere. Quality of teaching materials available. Mix of students -- librarians/academics made for very interesting discussion. 8: Talking to the other students and instructors outside of class, during breaks. 9: I like to see the stuff -- this is the most useful part of RBS. 10: Lecturers, lectures, stuff, handouts, classmates, UVa campus.

6) How could the course have been improved?

1: Move practical bits up, stakeholders back (we have more energy for specifics earlier). More on classroom contents, course organization. Would have liked more critiques of syllabi and more time to critique books, but these are merely helpful comments, NOT criticisms. 2: Reduce the material about the history of book history (originally Monday sessions two, three, and four and Tuesday one and two) to one 90-minute session. Spend a LOT more time on classroom/materials/texts. The discussion at the end of Friday on bibliography/future reading could be expanded. Have us present hypothetical book history syllabi or scenarios and critique them. Think more about the wide variety of contexts for teaching history of the book and how we might learn to introduce it in them. 3: There was way too much time spent on the first part of the syllabus. One session on the context of the discipline would have been plenty. We didn't get to parts of the syllabus that would have been immensely helpful -- parameters by discipline approaches. The name-dropping became tedious, and the long anecdotes wasted valuable time. If we had kept to the syllabus, I would have no complaints. 4: Would have helped to have seen the syllabus beforehand, as well as the (revised) reading list. Some further time on what techniques work in the classroom. 5: More discussion of syllabus content, i.e. what teachers teach when doing history of the book courses. 6: Perhaps at some point, especially given the full scope, add a field trip to the instructional technology group here at UVa to examine and discuss tips, problems, solutions, new toys for high tech in smart and stupid classrooms. This is particularly relevant for this course regarding teaching -- especially the opportunity to [get our] hands on some advanced technology. 7: Team teaching is a problem, I think, especially in situations where the instructors know each other -- and their circle -- intimately. There were quite a few conversations difficult to follow because of the insider knowledge required. Perhaps, also, some emphasis on theory of teaching book history would be useful. 8: More focus on archival pedagogy and especially syllabus construction vis a vis different pedagogical approaches. More workshop and less "instruction." Instructors could have been much more aware of today's pedagogy, not just their pedagogical methods, which, to be honest, are quite traditional and dated -- or idiosyncratic. 9: This course would have been even better if the staff had just locked me in every night! 10: It can't. Keep lecturing; it was great.

7) We are always concerned about the physical well-being both of the RBS teaching collections and of materials owned by UVa's Special Collections. If relevant, what suggestions do you have for the improved classroom handling of such materials used in your course this week?

1: None. 4: Can't think of any. 7: None. All seemed most professional. 10: I thought the materials were very useful. No comment on handling -- since we saw so many I would have liked copies of the contents of some of the teaching materials. By the time I realized this they had been refiled.

8) If you attended the Sunday and/or Monday night lectures, were they worth attending?

1: Both just fine. 2: I attended TB's Sunday lecture. Yes, it was fine. Any chance of moving bookseller's night later in the week? On Thursday we tend to be tired and interested in a non-classroom experience. 3: The Sunday lecture is good for first time attendees, maybe second-timers. I probably wouldn't attend it again. Monday night's was fairly good; had a lot of thought-provoking content. It would have been nice not to sit in complete darkness. 4: Yes. 5: The lecture was worth attending, in order to learn about one scholar's current work. Though I could not accept all of the speaker's theories, nevertheless it was a stimulating presentation. 6: Sunday only -- yes -- good kickoff. 7: Did not attend. 8: Sunday's "lecture"/welcome could have been shorter. Did not attend Monday's lecture. 9: Monday night just OK. 10: Sunday yes, Monday -- NO.

9) If you attended Museum Night, was the time profitably spent?

1: Very much so. 2: The Jane Eyre presentation was extremely interesting (and suggestive). 3: Yes. 4: Yes, although many of us were a bit wiped out by the end of the day (that's a good thing!), so we may not have had enough energy to partake fully. 5: Yes. I always enjoy seeing firsthand some of the materials we discuss in class. It is also helpful that RBS staff are present and available to discuss particular exhibits. 6: Yes -- well done. 7: Very -- most interesting. 8: Yes, very. 9: The museum is one of the very best things about RBS -- we could have this every night as far as I am concerned. 10: Yes.

10) Did you get your money's worth? Any final thoughts?

1: Yes. A little more precise statement of purpose -- in sense of course description. A "problem" of shifting from an old course to a new one -- not with course itself. 2: Yes, ultimately, thanks to 1) excellent fellow students 2) the presentation of materials and invaluable bibliographies; and 3) the real pleasure of an intensive academic boot camp. 3: Absolutely, but I think paying attention to time and pace would improve an already good course. I'm torn about the academics/librarians mix of the class. On one hand, it was good to hear about each other's perspectives and situations. On the other hand, we may have been able to go into some things in more detail if the group were homogeneous. Too close to call. 4: Yes! Mix of academics and librarians, with all their varied background, added immeasurably to the class. 5: Definitely got money's worth. I appreciate the lectures, the extra-curricular activities, and the chances to meet other colleagues from a variety of backgrounds. 6: Yes -- given my own department's lack of knowledge about RBS -- or at least among my cohort of graduate students -- I intend to discuss RBS with my advisor and director of graduate studies to encourage both attendance and perhaps boot some other bodies into an appreciation of the resources and talents at RBS. 7: I would say my institution certainly did. Advice: The theoretical background and prejudices (?) of instructors should be more widely advertised. 8: Yes -- but I may have felt differently if I had paid out of my own pocket. The course was worthwhile but not as stellar as I'd hoped it would be. 9: Oh yes. Very much so. I am taking this course in order to justify a collection, however, so there could have been some attention paid to the public relations of these courses and the collections that support them. We are not all at the University of Pennsylvania. I would welcome even more contact with the collection -- the materials are superb and the ways of collecting ingenious! 10: Yes. I hope to come back and take another class.

Number of respondents: 10

There were five teachers or professors (50%), two general librarians with some rare book duties (20%), one archivist or manuscript librarian (10%), and one full-time student (10%).

RBS Home