1)How useful were the pre-course readings? 1: Quite useful. 3: I enjoyed reading DK's essay before coming to RBS. Also, he pointed us to several other preliminary materials which were helpful. 4: I found them only moderately useful. I would have preferred general readings on problems of bibliography or on the state of bibliography for rare books. 5: Useful. 6: A useful preparatory selection. It was particularly useful to see the list of sources and problem sets in advance. This was the best preparation for the week. Extra reading would not have helped me. 7: Quite useful, although not likely to cause problems if one couldn't acquire them. 8: Hardly at all. 9: Very helpful. 10: Helpful (there were not many). 11: Good, though I did find the Hackman book a bit too simple. I very much appreciated having the syllabus in advance. 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: Yes. I intend to make use of the list of sources when I return home. 2: Yes, extremely useful. The marvelously detailed and well organized list of sources is certain to be a very useful tool in the future. 3: Yes! I will use DK's syllabus with glee in the future: what a work of art and scholarship! 4: They were and I think they will be extremely useful. 5: They were essential in class and will be useful for reference in the future. 6: Yes. The list of reference sources would have been useful even without attending the course, and the practical introduction to the sources was invaluable. 7: Very useful - I will be keeping the syllabus and using it to evaluate our local collection, and for personal use, too. 8: Yes. 9: Yes. I would like an author-reference number index to the sources for future reference. 10: I will refer to it often. 11: Yes - I intend to keep hold of the bibliography. It is a magnificent resource. 3)Was the intellectual level of the course content appropriate? 1: Yes. The problems were interesting and fun to do, though sometimes frustrating. 2: Yes. As ours was mainly a course concerned with research strategies, the discussion was limited mostly to the discussion of sources and problem sets. However, DK did manage to infuse these discussions with a healthy dose of theory! 3: Yes. I thought, though, that we might have been a bit better prepared to maneuver the reference room materials if we had spent a bit of time initially together looking at photocopies of various bibliographic resources and discussing initial strategies. 4: Yes. 5: The citation searching demanded both method and imagination exercised at a high level. 6: Yes. 7: Entirely. 8: No. The course suffered from minimal teaching and the fact that 90% of the students worked on their own. 9: Yes. Challenging, but not discouraging. 10: Quite good. 11: Yes. 4)If your course had field trips, were they effective? 1-2: N/A. 3: Yes. However, we needed better access to Special Collections reference materials. Most of us steered clear of Special Collections materials (aside from items that come downstairs on a book truck). 4: Yes. 6-7: N/A. 8: Yes, except that it was 90% a self-taught course, rather than instruction in methods and techniques. 9: N/A. 11: The time spent researching the problem sets was most valuable. I would have liked more time to do them. 5)Did the actual course content correspond to its RBS brochure description and Expanded Course Description (ECD)? Did the course in general meet your expectations? 1: Yes. 2: Spot on. 3: Yes, the course was/is as advertised. 4-6: Yes. 7: Quite a close correlation. 8: No. The description talked about learning search strategies and we were presented only with a checklist. 9-11: Yes. 6)What did you like best about the course? 1: I liked being introduced to a list of sources that was limited to titles that had been selected for importance and general usefulness. The number of sources out there can be overwhelming. I liked the problem sets and the instructor's comments about them. I liked working in the UVa reference room. I liked the context for the sources that DK provided. 2: The fact that we had ample time to familiarize ourselves with the materials listed in the course syllabus. We had plenty of hands-on exposure to sources. 3: The syllabus is fabulous! DK's approach to the material is both systematic and delightful. Working with my fellow students was very helpful and a lot of fun. I really feel I gained respect for the world of bibliographic searching. 4: The bibliography provided; the chance and time to do hands-on research; the wealth of materials available; the instructor. 5: The back-and-forth nature of the week's work: attempting the searches and encountering the problems and then reconvening as a class to discuss the nature of the problems. 6: The very broad scope covered. The pace was fast, but a very good introduction to books that I can explore further when I'm back at work. 7: The opportunity to spend a week in such a well-equipped library and reference room. The congeniality of the instructor and the course participants. 8: Very little. 9: Exposure to a variety of sources and helpful hints on searching in foreign languages I have no experience with, like Scandinavian and Eastern European 10: Challenging problem sets that familiarize you with various approaches to bibliographic citations. 11: Being able to really use the books we were investigating to solve actual problems. 7)How could the course have been improved? 1: Make Special Collections material more accessible. 2: I would prefer a different structure. Rather than setting us loose on a list of works for two 90-minute sessions, DK might consider spending one hour discussing strategies and sources, a second hour allowing us (in small groups) to work on a few select problems, and then having each group discuss their solutions in detail during a third session. 3: Better access to Special Collections reference materials and a little more gradual descent into the bibliographic pool. 4: More explanation of the idiosyncrasies and operating instructions of particular resources. That is, more specifics about how individual biographies were arranged, did they have indexes, etc., rather than general comments like "it's a mess." 5: I thought that access in Alderman Library to the listed sources could have been improved, especially for the reference books kept in Special Collections. The key to the course is familiarizing oneself with the sources, and time which could have been devoted to this was spent finding the books in the library - a useful practice in itself, but not in this context. 6: Better access to some of the more interesting reference works in Special Collections. 7: a) Syllabus contained numerous errors leading to dead-end searches, or searches in the wrong locations. b) Logistics were a bit difficult - accessing the Special Collections material was not practical; use of book trucks to bring material to the reference room was a step in the right direction, but the books were not available for a sufficient period of time, and frequently only part of a set was made available. 8: This course needs an instructor who is enthusiastic and can teach. There should be organized group work rather than each student working on his own. 9: If books located in Special Collections could be gathered in one place for the day of the assignments, it would save time and allow more access to the materials. Carts were helpful, but didn't have all the books we needed to see. 10: Easier access to Special Collections resources. (Some were brought up on trucks - this would work well if more books were made available this way.) 11: I would have liked to see some further integration of online resources. Also, many items were very hard to get hold of - in Special Collections or off-site storage. Given the time issues, it would have helped if they were more easily available. 8)We are always concerned about the physical well-being both of the BAP's 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? 2: Rather than having sources in three different locations (Ivy, Special Collections, and Alderman), the staff should perhaps manage to have these materials assembled in the secure classroom for the duration of our one-week session. 4: Handling did not seem to present any problems. 6: N/A. 7: Could a classroom in Alderman be used for the course so that Special Collections items could be used there during our afternoon and early morning search sessions? 8: It would help to avoid the feeding frenzy when the entire class attempts to use the same reference books at the same time. 9: Putting books in the classroom or in a special room in Alderman where only the class had access to them. 11: Many items needed for our course were in Special Collections. It would help for future classes if the course could be offered in a way that would get us closer to that collection. 9)Please comment on the quality/enjoyability of the various RBS activities in which you took part outside of class, eg Sunday afternoon tour, Sunday night dinner and videos, evening lectures, Bookseller Night, tour of the Alderman digital/electronic centers, etc. 1: I particularly liked the demonstration at the Etext Center. 2: I occupied myself (mainly) by socializing usually with other RBS members and investigated the campus [the Grounds] on my own. I spent the week off-campus with friends, yet I made an effort of participate socially with RBS folks as much as possible. 3: I enjoyed Sunday dinner (though I liked the videos I saw last year a bit more). Lectures were good, and I enjoyed Bookseller Night. 4: Sunday tour: useful. Sunday dinner: good food, good company. Videos: The one on the effect of printing with James Burke was not great; too much like PBS - weak on content. Evening lectures: not bad. Bookseller Night: excellent. Digital/electronic center: fascinating, extremely interesting. Rotunda exhibit: both dinosaurs and the regular collection were too hard to see in the glass cases, especially the books up higher. 5: All these were enjoyable and useful. I particularly enjoyed David Seaman's introduction to the work of the Electronic Text Center. 6: The digital/electronic center tour was fascinating (although difficult for those at the back to follow). The evening lectures were a pleasant addition to the syllabus. 7: There's not enough time to do it all! Tours are very useful for orientation to RBS/UVa. 8: The price for the Sunday night dinner is too high. 9: Videos were very good, especially the one on illuminated manuscripts. I enjoyed DK's lecture the most, as it dealt with materials rather than a person's life in an institution 10: Many opportunities to meet others in the book/library world. 11: I very much enjoyed the tour of the Electronic Text Center, as well as Booksellers Night (it is unfortunate that so many have 9-5 hours). Excellent, stimulating lectures. 10)Any final thoughts? Did you get your money's worth? 1: Yes, this course will help me to begin searching in areas that are new to me. 2: This course was well worth the time and money. The people in the course are all top-notch, the classes were very useful, and the syllabus quite valuable. 3: Yes, "my" money was very well spent, indeed. 4: I am pleased with the course; enjoyed DK's wit, erudition, and good humor. It is a very demanding course - of course there is really too much to do in one week. However, I appreciate having the variety of problem sets and resources provided. It is very difficult to strike a balance between trying to answer the questions and trying to use all the various bibliographies. I got my money's worth; glad I came. 5: The course was intensive and worthwhile. Perhaps doing some of the problem sets in advance of the course should be made obligatory, since it would help students to concentrate on the important aspects of the course - the structure of the sources and the connection between them - rather than racing against the clock to get the answers in the limited time here. 6: I would certainly recommend it to others. It's a real eye opener to the variety and scope of reference works available. 8: I cannot now recommend this course as it is structured and taught. The course was a genuine disappointment. The teaching was minimal and uninspired. I most definitely did not get my money's worth. 9: Enjoyed it thoroughly. DK's anecdotes made names on the page come to life and aided memory. Problem sets were very good to demonstrate use of the bibliographies. It's a lot of work, but my experience is that it is worth it and the knowledge one gets over time. Well done. 11: I would recommend this course, and, since it was my money, I did feel it was worth my time and expense. I learned things that will help me in my job and also in my studies. Number of respondents: 11 PERCENTAGES Leave Tuition Housing Travel Institution gave me leave 64% Institution paid tuition 45%* Institution paid housing 36% Institution paid travel 36% I took vacation time 9% I paid tuition myself 45% I paid for my own housing 55% I paid for my own travel 64% N/A: Self-employed, retired, or had time off 27% N/A: Self-employed, retired, or exchange 9% N/A: Stayed with friends or lived at home 9% N/A: Lived nearby 0% There were eleven students: four (37%) were general librarians with some rare book duties, three (27%) were antiquarian booksellers, three (27%) were rare book librarians, and 1 (9%) was at RBS as a book collector. * One tuition (9%) was funded by a private grant.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]