Matthew Kirschenbaum and Naomi Nelson

Born Digital Materials: Theory and Practice

14-18 June 2010

1. How useful were the pre-course readings? (Leave blank if you applied and were accepted late for the course, and thus did not get the list in time.)

1: They were good, but sometimes redundant. 2: Extremely relevant and useful. 3: Good. 4: The pre-course readings were very helpful; the lectures/discussions were based (in part) on the content in the readings and on class discussions. 5: Interesting and germane readings. 6: Very useful. Although the advance reading list was pretty hefty, I found most of the readings interesting and relevant to my job and to the course content and activities. 7: The readings were largely very useful—and extensive. It was a lot of reading for a short class, but I think the main value of the reading list will be for future reference after the class. 8: Very useful, yet slightly intimidating. I appreciated that the professors scaled down the amount of reading, but also gave us many important resources/models. 9: All reading was very relevant, no filler! Some were very technical, but class made sense of everything and it all fit together quite well. 10: Readings were voluminous, but the instructors gave us ample time to get through it (over two months). The textbook was very dense and intense, but I will keep it for a reference.

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

1: USB = win. 2: Absolutely and absolutely. Highly recommend distributing such material digitally for all courses. 3: Yes. 4: Yes—excellent resources that I will use again as I plan my Born-Digital archiving. 5: Useful and idea of distributing course materials on a USB drive was very convenient and well-thought out. 6: Yes. I will share some of the readings with my colleagues. The breakdown of labs, lecture, and discussion was very appealing and provided balance. 7: Yes. 8: Yes, all materials will continue to be useful as we (librarians) work with more digital materials. 9: Very useful; I will share the online materials, URL's with staff members that can use or refer to the information; the text is so good and I will read all of it and use if as a very current in my work. 10: Yes, and I will definitely keep the handouts (both paper and digital). I can see the information in the PowerPoint lectures coming in very handy in my work.

3. What aspects of the course content were of the greatest interest or relevance for your purposes? Was the intellectual level of the course appropriate?

1: Web reliability/scraping. 2: The whole class was of interest as it's such a new concept. The intellectual level was extremely appropriate and relevant. 3: Overviews and case studies were great. Content was at the right level. 4: A great balance of intellectual background, lectures, discussion, and exercises. It all fit together very well. 5: The methods and theories for processing digital collections of personal papers, metadata harvesting strategies. The intellectual level was excellent—a lot to think about! 6: The balance of digital humanities perspective and the archives perspective made this class unique; the connections made between the two disciplines were alluring for future research. 7: I was especially interested in practical ideas about donor relations, access, exhibition and technical services—but the theory behind born digital material was also very useful especially because I have no background in that area. 8: The overall process, copyright issues, and display or access of digital objects were the most interesting. The class level was appropriate for both beginners (me) and those more versed. 9: The metadata aspect was very relevant to my work—I learned a better overview than I have learned at my own home institution! The level was very appropriate—I learned almost all new stuff that I had known previously. 10: The case studies were very interesting and relevant in illustrating how born-digital materials are being managed now, in other institutions. The intellectual level was perfect.

4. What did you like best about the course?

1: The "lab" portions of the class were good despite the issues with software installation. 2: Format. An excellent balance of discussions, lectures, hands-on activities. 3: Instructors. 4: Everything! The professors were well-prepared, knowledgeable, pleasant, and able to create an active, friendly learning environment where all students had a voice. Great job! 5: NN and MK are certainly "heavies" in a young field, so getting to draw from their project experience was an excellent learning opportunity. 6: The rapport between instructors and the clear love they have of their craft. They are both marvelous teachers. 7: MK and NN are clearly experts in their fields, consummate professionals, and generally interesting and personable people. It was a great pleasure to learn from them. My classmates were also all very interesting people and we had a good mix of experience and knowledge. 8: The emulation technology, the philosophy which underpins some of the issues around digital objects (freedom of information, concepts of authorship, &c.) and the relaxed class atmosphere. 9: Hands-on exercises by MK and the slides and talks by NN—very good tag-team work! 10: I enjoyed wading through the waters of this new discipline with instructors and classmates, all of whom could contribute their intelligence, skills and experience to further my understanding.

5. Did the instructor(s) successfully help you to acquire the information and skills that the course was intended to convey?

1-
3: Yes. 4: Yes—great job! 5: Yes! Simply put. 6: Absolutely. The archives/preservation perspective is immediately relevant. The digital humanities and materiality has triggered my interest in future research in that area. 7: Yes. 8: Yes; even when there were software problems, they helped us on their lunchtime to get things working. 9: Yes, most definitely, and it was helpful to know that no one has quite figured it all out yet.

6. Did you learn what the course description/advertisements indicated you would learn?

1-5: Yes. 6: Yes. And more! 7-8: Yes. 9: Yes. Highly recommended for those already doing or considering digital acquisitions. as well as those working to gain new skills and abilities. 10: Yes.

7. Did you learn what you wanted to learn in the course?

1: No. Would like to have seen more exploration/hands-on with tools. 2: Yes. NN and MK were very good about incorporating students' needs into the class. 3: Yes. 4-5: Yes. This exceeded my already high expectations. 6: Yes. And more! 7-8: Yes. 9: Yes. The take-away programs I can actually use back at work; we came away with actual useful and working open-source software to get data streams off magnetic media. 10: Yes. There was a lot that I didn't know ("the unknown unknowns") and so while the learning curve for that was rather steep, it wasn't scary.

8. How do you intend to use or apply the knowledge or skills learned in this course?

1: Not sure yet. 2: Will directly apply some of the basics immediately and be able to use the theories for future planning. 3: Inform policies, decisions, and practices. 4: To approach several potential donors with digital aspects to their collections. 5: Prepared me for future situations where I might need to process and describe, or write a preservation plan for, born-digital collections. 6: As an archivist involved in preservation/curation, I will use this knowledge in my work as well as to teach others about the digital preservation tasks ahead. 7: I intend to share with my colleagues and hope to be a leader in formulating my department's policies in dealing with born digital material. 8: I know the process of getting digital objects into the collection, if not all the specifics, which can be applied to some objects we already have. Moreover, I know to ask our donors about their digital lives! 9: Want to expand my capabilities and abilities at work. 10: I hope to start a dialogue in my own institution about preserving the born-digital data we have, and acquiring other data as part of moving forward with collections.

9. How could the course have been improved?

2: Work on installing Cygwin before class? Really not applicable. 3: Exposure to more analytical tools. 4: It was very good—definitely do it again. For a first time prep, NN and MK did an excellent job. 6: No improvement required. 8: No improvements necessary, but more hands-on work with old media would be fine. 9: Warm room at the beginning of the week made me sleepy. 10: If I could have come away with working data imaging software, that would have been ideal! (Not the fault of the instructors—they stayed late and went the extra mile!).

10. If your course left its classroom to visit Special Collections (SC) or to make other field trips away from your classroom, was the time devoted to this purpose well spent?

2-3: Yes. 4: We spent one hour at the Scholar's Lab—not sure I'd repeat that. 5: Interesting short visit to Scholar's Lab. 7: Yes. 8: Yes, our trip up to the Scholar's Lab was extremely inspiring, informative, and related to class goals. 9: Yes and yes! 10: The trip to Scholar's Lab and visit by Bradley Daigle to the class was essential and very fruitful.

11. 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?

6: We were given instruction on how to handle the machines and discs appropriately. 9: Excellent as is. 10: No suggestions—having the antique computers and disks available was a crucial part of the class and they were handled well.

12. If you attended the optional evening events (e.g. RBS Lecture, Video Night, RBS Forum, Booksellers' Night) were they worth attending?

1: Yes, especially since this was my first time, although they were a little dry. 2: Yes. 3: Lecture was great. The bookplate "forum" was—well, I left 1/3 of the way through. 4-7: Yes. 9: All were that I went to (two out of three I attended; I had already seen the movies on previous visits). 10: Attended the lecture, Video Night, and the Forum, and they were all worth it.

13. Did you get your (or your institution's) money's worth? Any final or summary thoughts, or advice for other persons considering taking this course in a future year?

1: Do it. RBS refreshed my love of this profession. 2: More than their money's worth. Whether you think you can directly benefit from the course, you should take it because it will change your outlook on archives, libraries and the future of the digital world. 3: Yes. 4: Absolutely! This is my third year at RBS. It's one of the best continuing professional development programs in the country! 5: Yep. 6: Yes. And please ask MK and NN to return; they've got a great gig going. 7: Yes, definitely. I haven't learned this much in such a short time since library school. I'm so glad RBS is branching out in this direction. I'd recommend this class without hesitation. 9: Yes—I took out a credit union loan to attend, have done se in the past and will likely do so in the future. At first, I did not know MK and NN had not taught this before—their complimentary teaching styles and enthusiasm, and experience were excellent! 10: Yes—this class should be taught again—I would even take it again since the technology and techniques will change enough in 2-3 years to warrant it.

Number of respondents: 10

PERCENTAGES

Leave

Institution gave me leave

90%

I took vacation time

10%

N/A: self-employed, retired or had the summers off

0%

Tuition

Institution paid tuition

70%

I paid tuition myself

30%

N/A: Self-employed, retired or scholarship

0%

Housing

Institution paid housing

40%

I paid for my own housing

20%

N/A: stayed with friends or lived at home

30%

Travel

Institution paid travel

40%

I paid my own travel

20%

N/A: lived nearby

30%

There was one rare book librarian (10%), six archivist/manuscript librarians (60%), one general librarian with some rare book duties (10%), one museum librarian (10%), and one digital preservation librarian (10%).