Michael F. Suarez, S.J.
H-90: Teaching the History of the Book
10–14 June 2013
Detailed Course Evaluation
1) How useful were the pre-course readings? Did you do any additional preparations in advance of the course?
1: They were good to prepare us, but mostly not required; i.e. all reading could be “suggested.” 2: The readings were illuminating and gave what I thought was an appropriate range of approaches to describing and/or analyzing the discipline. 3: I thought the required readings were helpful to give all class members a common ground, but it was the suggested Readings that will be most helpful for my own future research and teaching. 4: Most of the reading was good, though some books from L’Histoire Du Ciure could be added to the required reading. 5: The pre-course readings provided useful background to the discipline of bibliography—in that way they were useful. However, they were lacking pedagogical reflection. Combining some of the bibliographical readings with more pedagogical material would be better. 6: They were immensely useful—time doesn’t necessarily permit discussing the readings in detail, but they provide crucial background. 7: Very useful as a general introduction to the world of book history. The extensive reading list, moving from “must read” to “optional” was great and I will definitely read and consult them all in the near future. 8: The pre-course readings I was able to cram in along with end-of-term craziness were very useful since I come at this with a very steep learning curve. 9: I found that the required readings leaned too much towards textual analysis. They were interesting and I will certainly revisit them, but the works that interested me the most were in the recommended and extra readings. 10: Very useful as an overview of key concepts and issues in the field. 11: They were useful in getting the participants, who have diverse experiences and disciplinary backgrounds, to a common level of understanding of key concepts and terminology. They were also useful to consider as possible texts to assign for courses I might teach in the future. 12: They were very useful and good for knowing what I should consider assigning in my History of the Book courses. 14: Most were useful; some weren’t particularly pleasant to read. 15: All course readings were excellent. 16: The readings were all very useful and thought-provoking. In some ways the whole course felt like a massive literature review. One takeaway for me is a long list of books and articles that will help me with my course development. 17: Suggestions for ordering the reading would be helpful. Perhaps starts with Howsar, Williams, and Abbot, or Tanzelle, and the readings Darnton and McKenzie between those three. Ending with Howard. I loved the list of recommendations. I used some of them to tailor my preparation for the class. 18: Somewhat useful, but repetitive. Really a skimming of them (other than Darnton and McKenzie) probably would have been enough.
2) Were the course workbook and other materials distributed in class appropriate and useful (or will they be so in the future, after you return home)?
1: It was not entirely clear that the workbook was a blog; the “Course Blog + Workbook,” however, is ideal. 2: This course has an online workbook which will no doubt be useful in the future as I design course syllabi and assignments. It would have been helpful to have had a syllabus for the week at the beginning of the course... 3: Absolutely. Thank you. 4: Definitely. 5: The materials available online are extremely useful—though primarily for Western European and North American book history and bibliography. 6: I’ve only had time to glance at it. But it is a prodigious resource. It will take quite some time for me to digest all that’s there, but I expect it to be very useful. 7: I haven’t had time to really play around with the work book but from just a brief look, I will be delving in and out. I appreciate the generosity of all those who put information and syllabi up greatly. 8: The course workbook is invaluable—sort of like having MFS and others in an earpiece. In addition the list of books and websites scattered through my notes will also prove useful for me and colleagues. 9: Yes, the workbook is fantastic. 10: These seem enormously helpful—cannot wait to review them more thoroughly once I am home—very generous of MFS and other RBS faculty and students to share. 11: I am certain I will mine it for its treasures for many years to come. 12: Yes; very much so. 13: Hope and expect it to. 14: I expect to refer to the online workbook in the future. 15: Work book is fantastic and will get much use. It was distributed very close to the start of the course, though. A bit earlier would be nice. 16: I did not spend much time with the online workbook before class, but I will definitely draw on it in the weeks ahead. The ability to pull up relevant material from it in class was very useful. 17: Incredibly useful in class and, I suspect, into the future. I liked that new texts were added. Perhaps it could be housed and expanded upon in RBS Connect? 18: The website is great, but a printed list of suggested readings, organized by use, would have been nice.
3) Have you taken one or more RBS courses before? If so, how did this course compare with your previous coursework?
1: First course. 2: No. 3: N/A. 4–5: No. 6: Yes. It didn’t quite match DesBib for sheer intellectual exertion, but was probably close. 7: Yes, I have taken a course. This was very different in many aspects, so difficult to compare except in terms of being glad that RBS exists and offers a diverse range of classes. 8: No. 9: I have taken two excellent courses at the California Rare Book School. This was more intellectually challenging. 10: N/A. 11: No. 12: Yes, I have. The course reading was about the same. 13: The numerous teaching examples that MFS supplied. He also gave us a veritable library of books and articles for additional reading. Also found valuable the discussion of bibliography and book history. 14: This was one of the better (of six or so) courses I have taken. 15: One other course. This one was equally excellent. 16: This was a very different class because of its focus on methodology rather than content. While I certainly learned new facts about book history, it was in service to the wider goal of contemplating pedagogical approaches. 17: No. 18: While I loved the course and got a lot out of it, my other courses have all been more structured, with syllabi, &c. I would have liked more structure and explicit schedule.
4) What aspects of the course content were of the greatest interest or relevance for your purposes?
1: Discussions about “pedagogical” impact and challenges in teaching from books as objects. Any moment when “telos” was apparent. 2: The hands-on exercises were helpful (and inspiring, particularly the Harlequin Romance activity and the burned book activity. MFS’s short and impromptu lectures on topics of particular interest to members of the class certainly broadened my knowledge base and have better equipped me to handle wide-ranging questions from students about the materials I teach. 3: The suggested approaches to teaching and the ideas behind them were most helpful. 4: The pedagogic aspects. I’ve studied book history before, but the teaching is new to me. 5: Those with pedagogical content or resonance. The opening demonstration with the Harlequins were great—I’ll use that or something like that—but the sessions devoted more to book history content less so. Also useful and relevant—MFS’s many, many recommendations for further reading. The Vook activity was also great. 6: I’m not sure I can select. I came in with most of my attention focused on bibliography and the book trade, but found something new and interesting to think about every five minutes. I was never not fully absorbed. 7: I liked hearing from the other students although that only really after a couple of days and largely outside of class. I think just having MFS as the teacher and being able to pick his brain for general information, sources and “facts” was hugely important and useful. 8: The moments where we talked about what works in the classroom and what doesn’t, amplified by the variety of opinions around the table. 9: How to reach out to faculty with ideas on how they can incorporate some aspect of book history into their courses. Ideas on how to improve my own classes. Inspiration and excitement about the field. 10: Discussion of teaching exercises, introduction and overview of the field. 11: The practical examples of pairing books together, of thinking about what my primary aim is in any hands-on class I might hold, and the enormous selection of suggested and recommended reading on particular topics. 12: The way in which non-special collections materials can be used in pretty sophisticated ways. I had been thinking on how I would require a small collection of rare materials, so that was a big help. 13: It was, and he did. 14: The exposure to new ideas about bibliography and teaching were very interesting. 15: Easily transferable pedagogy, with layers of deep history and interconnectedness. 16: Demonstrations of specific exercises and the running commentary on those exercises were of greatest relevance for me. 17: As an instructor, molding exercises with objects (in SC and in class). As a scholar, discussions of community chains and networks, fiscal and commercial drives, &c. 18: All the suggestions on how to engage students, and to use fewer examples in more ways.
5) Did the instructor(s) successfully help you to acquire the information, knowledge, and skills that the course was intended to convey? Was the intellectual level of the course appropriate?
1: Entirely appropriate. MFS could perhaps teach at a graduate level, or more advanced—but it’s his way to ensure “all” are engaged. 2: For the most part, yes. I think the course could have been a bit more intellectually rigorous. I would have liked to have had greater dialogue with members of the class about their teaching (and more) and more opportunity to workshop ideas and approaches to teaching the materials we have access to at our home institutions. The Friday morning activity in the RBS stacks comes closest to this, but I wish we had had more time. 3: Yes. 4: Yes, we covered a number of varying topics. Yes, above expectation. 5: The “information and skills” that the course was intended to convey was not entirely clear to me, for one I do feel like I gained some useful tools and activities to use in class. I would have liked the course more so with philosophy of pedagogy. Perhaps this is too much for one person—even MFS—to do alone. Next time—guest sessions and lectures from other educators would be great and better. 6: I believe so, on both counts. The balance between “information” and “skills” might have been skewed a bit towards “information,” but I think I have plenty to take back and put into classroom practice. 7: I am not sure it was about skills too much—how can you teach someone how to teach?—but the information was great and intellectually rich and exciting. 8: Yes. Although my learning curve is steep and the beginning was overwhelming, I gained a huge amount of information. May goal though is to process and learn and pay forward so that this week is not reduced to a one-off. 9: MFS did a brilliant job at keeping everyone engaged considering the many different backgrounds and expertise represented in the classroom. 10: Yes! The course was challenging and stimulating—I think he did a great job directing the conversation toward increasingly sophisticated and complex points and topics. 11: Yes, and what is more, MFS has made it possible, through the workbook, to continue to acquire the information and skills long after the end of this course. I felt the intellectual level was appropriate, not assuming too much but not “dumbing down” either. 12: Yes on both counts. 14: The instructor, more than anything else, demonstrated how broadly we need to think in terms of instrumentation. Mastering the material, I think, will be up to us. 15: Excellent. Highly intellectual. Great points of departure. 16: I was slightly disappointed by the basic level of some of the technical information, but the point of the course was to demonstrate and comment on teaching that basic information. I will have to wait and see how effective my teaching is next semester to really judge. 17: Yes, and yes. 18: Not all of the information and skills I had hoped for. Yes, intellectual level was appropriate.
6) What did you like best about the course?
1: Meeting my fellow course mates; discussing challenges with them. The inspiration that “bibliography” is not dead. 2: MFS’s depth and breadth of knowledge—the range of topics we covered. Also, I appreciated being in a class with people from diverse institutional and professional backgrounds. 3: I liked the hands-on exercises and the visit to “Lower Tibet.” 4: The lecturing of the instructor and the discussions within the group. Lots of interesting people! 5: The variety of backgrounds, experiences, and expertise represented by the participants of the course and by MFS was fantastic—learned a ton. 6: Hearing from students with different areas of expertise, different professional roles. 7: Lots of bits—I liked the Harlequin exercise as an opening gambit. I can’t pick a book as it is really a whole smorgasbord that works as a whole rather than with episodic highlights. 8: I loved the moments when we were in the presence of the books. Seeing some familiar volumes in different context, pushed up against volumes we do not yet own was powerful food for thought. 9: MFS, of course. He is brilliant, erudite, generous, enthusiastic, and inspiring. I also really enjoyed meeting my classmates. 10: MFS’s passion and range of knowledge—his lectures and demonstrations were high-energy and stimulating—very responsive. Visits to SC. 11: MFS and his vast knowledge presented in a thoroughly engaging manner. I also liked the mix of students and learning from their various perspectives and knowledge. 12: The way MFS made sophisticated material accessible. 13: Listening to MFS talk about all things book related. He is especially good at creating focused but flexible in-class discussions and strategizing specific teaching moments and examples. 14: SC visits. 15: MFS is an excellent teacher. The UVA and RBS teaching resources are wonderful. 16: MFS’s vast knowledge is astonishing. I felt that no question went without a very thoughtful response. 17: MFS’s reverence of intellectual endeavor and his respect for all class members as scholars.
7) How could the course have been improved?
1: Smaller number of participants. More focused syllabus. More discussion. Guest Lecturers. 2: As stated above, a syllabus (however skeletal) would have been helpful. More discussion about teaching book history to different levels (undergrad, Ph.D., &c.) and students from different backgrounds (first generation college students, for example). More discussion about how we can use book history to teach about gender, race, class, and other topics that might be challenging or sensitive. I also would have liked to workshop and discuss a couple of the examples from the workbook and talk about different approaches to teaching book history (what they include, exclude, &c.). 4: Sometimes it was a little limiting with such a large group (eighteen). A detailed schedule could perhaps be a good idea to facilitate the necessary preparations for the students—and also to give more structure to some sessions. 6: Perhaps some smaller breakout sessions, some more opportunities to work with other students in groups. 7: At first, I thought having a syllabus so we knew where we were going, but I’m rethinking that now. I think perhaps more exercises like the one in Lower Tibet on Friday (pick a book and say why and how you would use it in class) and more [questions?] from MFS when he was using a text—like Johnson’s Dictionary—to see how other people had used it and how and why. 8: I would have liked a syllabus (day by day) but maybe that is just my need to know where I’m going. And, while I need the book history, the exercises, examining a book and sharing were equally important. 9: I would have liked a syllabus. Also, more ideas on how to teach history of the book from a visual arts perspective. Maybe a guest speaker on that subject could have been invited. 10: Perhaps a bit more structure—a rough syllabus—though I do appreciate how responsive MFS was to students’ particular needs and interests as they arose. 11: A “road map,” if not a syllabus would have helped in understanding where we were going and where we had been. Even a general list of topics and ideas that will be covered would have proven useful. 12: I had some thought on how to do the work if you are not really supported by their institution (i.e. adjuncts), might be good to mentor. 13: Would have benefitted from MFS’s insights into syllabus construction and observations about the sample syllabi that he collected. I also think it would be a good idea to provide a provisional schedule for the week. That would give students a basic idea of the topics to be covered even if the actual class sessions diverged from the schedule. 14: A structured daily outline (that was followed would have been helpful). 15: Begin the day with a general outline of our path for the day. 16: At times I wanted more room for discussion and learning from my classmates. Then again, I did not feel anything MFS said was superfluous. 17: Maybe some more specific feedback on our presentations’ and teachers’ ideas. 18: A syllabus, more discussions, less veering off topic.
8) Did you learn what the course description/advertisement indicated you would learn? Additional comments optional. Y/N
1–4: Yes. 5: Yes, and no. I learned a lot about c17–c19 books and in that way the course seemed to emphasize book history content. 6: Yes. 7: Hmm. I don’t know if I was meant to “learn” anything specific (but I did learn a lot). 8–15: Yes. 16: Yes. I feel better prepared to draft a quality syllabus. 17: Yes. 18: Somewhat, but not enough to say yes.
9) Did you learn what you wanted in the course? Additional comments optional. Y/N
1–3: Yes. 4: Yes. I also learnt a lot by talking to the other students within—and outside—the classroom. 5: Again, yes, and no. I have a much fuller sense of bibliography as more traditionally conceived. How its approaches will serve my non-bibliographical purposes remains to be seen. 6: Yes. 7: Yes, and no. Do I know how to unite a syllabus? No. Do I feel more confident about ways to do it? Yes. Most importantly, I learned that what I have been doing was not wrong. 8–10: Yes. 11: Yes, and more! 12–13: Yes. 14: Yes. I learned that putting together a course will take a lot of work and planning. 15: Yes. Can always use more concrete pedagogical approaches. 16: It will take some time to digest it all, but I am greatly pleased with the content. 17: Yes. 18: Same as above. More straight pedagogy and specific helps with developing a syllabus would have been great.
10) How do you intend to use or apply the knowledge or skills learned in this course?
1: I intend to create a lesson plan. I intend to think more critically. I intend to collaborate more. I shall do all above with confidence. 2: I did and look forward to applying it in the classroom. 3: The course has helped me to conceive of ways to refine the courses I plan to teach and provided me with avenues and resources for specific research I’d like to explore. 4: I will use it in teaching a class in the history of the book. I will definitely also make use of the web-based workbook and keep in touch with the group. 5: Yes. 6: I’ll be using bits and pieces right away in literature classes. In time, I may develop new courses in bibliography and book history. 7: I will be using bits all over the place—from one-offs to semester-long classes where relevant. All the time. And it has been good for my confidence levels, too, which was not an outcome I expected necessarily. 8: I am still learning my collection and living in a world of hope and anticipation: I hope I will develop more one-offs; I hope we will acquire an acquisitions fund; I hope the faculty will see our program as necessary, but this course is foundational to all that anticipation. 9: I will do a presentation for my library colleagues, then reach out to faculty. 10: In a graduate seminar this fall—a literature survey through a book history angle—and eventually in stand alone graduate and undergraduate book history courses. 11: I will apply the skills both in individual library sessions (“one-offs”) for undergraduate and graduate classes and in a semester-long course for graduate students on the history of the book. 12: In my own research and especially to teach material textuality. 13: Will teach a course in the fall that directly applies various insights that MFS shared with us through the week. Also gained helpful ideas about possible teaching examples and concrete methods for discussing them. 14: Improve one-off presentations. Help me formulate a semester-long course. 15: Sharing with faculty, pursuing more reading, applying workbook materials to classroom sessions. 16: My immediate goal is drafting a course syllabus, which this class certainly helped prepare me for. 17: Expand and improve aspects of book history in my classes. Possibly teach a history of the book class (or something like it). Learn more about and incorporate critical bibliography into my research and writing. 18: With what I have learned here I will completely restructure my course and rework the syllabus; I will use fewer books and spend more time with each; I will put books in their context better; and I will make more compelling one-off presentations.
11) If your course left its classroom, was the time devoted to this purpose well spent?
1: Yes. However SC trips need not include so many “treasures.” 2: I will use many of the activities in my literature classes and will use the online resources (and hopefully continued contact with class members) to design a graduate course on book history in the near future. 3: Our SC visits were very helpful as they provided specific examples of and for the larger ideas we had been talking about. 5: Yes—time spent with objects was great. Wish we had more time with RBS collections. SC seating arrangement (semi-circle arranged around instructor) was odd. 6: Yes. Absolutely. 7: To SC, yes. Although some of the texts could have been varied and spent a little less time on (in my humble opinion…!) 8: To SC and Lower Tibet, great adventures. 9: Yes. 10: SC trips drove home the points made in class—and provided a bit of a “wow” factor! Great fun. 11: Yes. 12: Yes; our SC time was well worth it. 13: SC visits were interesting and informative. As MFS well knows, not everyone in the room will be able to teach the caliber of books that we saw, but watching him at work was useful, and he went out of his way to suggest alternative ways of teaching other examples. 14: Absolutely. 15: Trips to SC were great. 16: SC and Lower Tibet excursions were both essential and well done. 17: Yes. It is so rare to have sessions where I learn so much as an instructor and scholar. Every visit with SC left me with a renewed sense of wonder for my work. 18: N/A.
12) If you attended the evening events (e.g., RBS Lecture, Video Night, RBS Forum, Booksellers’ Night) were they worth attending?
1: Keep these up; tradition is important. 2: Steve Karian’s (SK) lecture was fantastic—timely and provocative. 3: Yes. 4: They were all interesting, especially SK’s talk. The RBS Forum was perhaps a bit too specialized. 5: I attended the print demonstration—LOVED IT. The SK lecture was well presented—though very narrow, bibliographically and disciplinarily speaking. 6: Yes. 7: The RBS lecture was very useful. I didn’t go to the others. 8: The ornamental printing seemed like a throw away but I came away with such an appreciation for the time the process involved. 9: The video was interesting; the first lecture was interesting but not riveting. The presentation on preservation I could have skipped. 10: The lecture was excellent, as was the type ornament demonstration. 11: The lectures and forum were informative and engaging, and the printing ornaments demonstration was a treat. 12: I am scrambling like crazy to get ready to defend and move, so I was not able to go to everything, but what I went to was very useful. 14: Yes, but after six sessions the video night was not too helpful. I’ve seen this before. 15: SK was very good at the RBS Lecture. I had already seen the Video Night film numerous times (because I own them). It was nice to hear a refresher at the RBS Forum. I made it to only one shop before all closed on Booksellers’ Night. 16: Yes. Quality lectures on Monday and Wednesday. 17: Yes. I wish I could have attended even more. 18: Attended lecture and went to a shop on Booksellers’ Night. Both great but unfortunately other obligations kept me away. Really sad I missed Tuesday’s Ornament Night.
13) 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: The teaching collections will be fine. 2: None. 4: RBS has a large teaching collection and I think it would be a good idea to allow the students more hands-on experience. We won’t destroy the books—I promise. 5: None. 7: You need more cradles. Those cut foam ones (the hand made ones) need replacing (I know they are expensive, but those look bad!). 9: It was all fine. 12: I thought the handling was fair. 15: Extreme caution was exercised. 17: No. I also appreciated that MFS asked about color blindness, &c. 18: No suggestions here, everyone was very respectful.
14) Did you (or your institution) get your money’s worth? Would you recommend this course to others?
1: I would recommend. 2: Yes, and yes. 4: Yes, and I certainly would recommend it. 5: Yes. Perhaps—definitely if working with European and North American materials. 6: Emphatically yes on both counts. My institution paid only a fraction; I spent my own money because I knew it would be worthwhile. 7: Yes, definitely. And yes, I would. 8: I definitely would recommend it, particularly to our faculty who do not always appreciate teaching with three-dimensional objects the way one might wish. 9: Certainly. 10: Yes, and yes! 11: Yes! I filled two lined packs with notes and have so many ideas that I want to rush back to my institution to design classes and assignments ASAP! 12: Yes, and yes. Anything I did not get was my own fault. 13: Absolutely. No question. Great value as a course. 14–15: Yes, and yes. 16: Absolutely. 17: Yes, and yes. I wish I could be here longer and come every summer. 18: Yes, and yes.
15) Any final or summary thoughts, or advice for other persons considering taking this course in a future year? (If you have further praise/concerns, please speak with Amanda Nelsen or Michael Suarez.)
1: Thanks. The course was great. 7: Less students—eighteen was a lot and more than I was expecting—but I had a great time anyway. 8: Thank you so much for including me. It’s an honor to have been here. 11: I had been slightly intimidated by the prospect of taking this course with someone as scholarly as MFS—I didn’t have to worry. What a generous and wonderful professional. 12: I would be interested in expanding to architectural senses. 15: MFS is tireless! But it was also good to hear from BH. Maybe consider more team-taught moments in the future?
Aggregate Statistics
Number of respondents: 18
Leave
Institution gave me leave: 11 (61%)
N/A., Self-employed, retired, or had summers off: 7 (39%)
Tuition
Institution paid tuition: 14 (77%)
I paid tuition myself: 1 (6%)
N/A., Self-employed, retired, or scholarship: 3 (17%)
Housing
Institution paid housing: 12 (67%)
I paid for my own housing: 4 (22%)
N/A., Stayed with friends or lived at home: 2 (11%)
Travel
Institution paid travel: 13 (72%)
I paid my own travel: 3 (17%)
N/A., Lived nearby: 2 (11%)
Which one category most closely defines what you do for a living, or why you are at RBS? (Please check only one category)
Archivist: 1 (6%)
Student Ph.D. (humanities): 3 (16%)
Student Other, M.F.A.: 1 (6%)
Librarian with some rare book duties: 2 (11%)
Rare book librarian: 5 (27%)
College, assistant professor: 2 (11%)
College, full or associate professor: 2 (11%)
College post-doc: 1 (6%)
Curator in a high school: 1 (6%)
How did you hear about this course?
RBS website: 10 (55%)
RBS printed schedule: 2 (11%)
Work colleague: 1 (6%)
News or web article: 2 (11%)
Word of mouth: 1 (6%)
RBS faculty or staff recommendation: 2 (11%)